NMI photo

Table of
Contents
Figure 1. Mike Seibert and Paul Neidinger of Williamsport Preservation
Training Center perform a condition assessment of Thomas Point Shoals
Light Station, Maryland, in 1995.

Introduction
Contributors ............................................................................................................. 2
Program Managers ................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. 2
Note to Readers ....................................................................................................... 3
Table of Contents
I. Why Preserve Lighthouses?
What is a Lighthouse? .............................................................................................. 1
Lighthouses and Our National Heritage .................................................................... 2
What Makes a Lighthouse "Historic"? ....................................................................... 4
Identifying Historic Properties ............................................................................ 4
Benefits of Listing in the National Register of Historic Places .............................. 5
Federal Agency Responsibilities: the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ...... 6
II. History of the Lighthouse Service and Lighthouse Construction Types
History of the Lighthouse Service ............................................................................. 1
Lighthouse Construction Types ................................................................................. 3
SIDEBAR: Lighthouse Construction Types........................................................ 6
III. Standards, Guidelines, and the Preservation Process
Levels of Treatment: The Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties ............................................................................................. 1
Preservation ....................................................................................................... 2
General Guidelines for the Preservation Planning Process ........................................ 3
Historical Research ............................................................................................ 3
Identification of Character-Defining Features ...................................................... 4

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Page 1

Documentation of Existing Conditions ............................................................... 4

SIDEBAR: Documenting Historic Lighthouses by the Historic American
Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record .......................... 5
Condition Assessment and Analysis .................................................................... 7
Strategy for Maintenance .................................................................................... 8
SIDEBAR: Quantities Tracking, Tallying, and Cost Estimating .................... 9
Special Requirements ......................................................................................... 10
Preparation of Record of Treatment .................................................................... 11
IV. Historic Lighthouse Preservation
Introduction
Preserving Historic Lighthouses .......................................................................... 1
Identify, Retain, and Preserve Historic Materials and CharacterDefining Features .................................................................................... 2
Stabilize and Protect Deteriorated Historic Materials and Features as a
Preliminary Measure ................................................................................ 3
Maintain Historic Materials and Features ...................................................... 3
SIDEBAR: Protection and Stabilization (Mothballing) of Historic Light
Stations ................................................................................................... 3
Repair (Stabilize, Consolidate, and Conserve) Historic Materials
and Features ........................................................................................... 7
Limited Replacement In Kind of Extensively Deteriorated Portions of Historic
Features ................................................................................................... 7
Preserving Materials and Features in Historic Light Stations .......................... 7
How to Use Part IV of the Handbook ................................................................. 8
A. Masonry
Inspecting for Masonry Problems ....................................................................... 3
Preservation Treatments ..................................................................................... 9
Protection and Stabilization (Mothballing) .................................................... 9
Weatherization ........................................................................................ 9
Stabilization ............................................................................................ 14
Ventilation .............................................................................................. 14
Fire Protection ......................................................................................... 14
Repair .......................................................................................................... 15
Cleaning .................................................................................................. 15
External Coating Systems ......................................................................... 16
Repointing ............................................................................................... 17

Page 2

Table of Contents

Damaged Masonry Repairs ...................................................................... 19

Stucco ..................................................................................................... 20
Limited Replacement In Kind ....................................................................... 23
SIDEBAR: Brick Replacement and Coating of Cape Florida Lighthouse ...... 23
SIDEBAR: The Building of Minots Ledge Light Station ................................ 26
B. Iron
Iron Alloys Found in Historic Lighthouses .......................................................... 2
Inspecting for Possible Problems ........................................................................ 9
Preservation Treatments ..................................................................................... 14
Protection and Stabilization (Mothballing) .................................................... 15
Weatherization ........................................................................................ 15
Stabilization ............................................................................................ 17
Ventilation .............................................................................................. 17
Fire Protection ......................................................................................... 17
Repair .......................................................................................................... 18
Cleaning .................................................................................................. 18
Paint Removal ......................................................................................... 18
SIDEBAR: Paint Removal Tools ............................................................. 19
External Coating Systems ......................................................................... 23
Surface Preparation .................................................................................. 24
Selection of Paints and Coatings .............................................................. 24
SIDEBAR: Masonry and Iron Interaction in Lighthouse Construction ..... 26
Application Methods ............................................................................... 28
Caulking, Patching, and Mechanical Repairs............................................ 28
Flashing ................................................................................................... 29
Dismantling and Assembly of Iron Components ...................................... 29
Limited Replacement In Kind ....................................................................... 30
SIDEBAR: Lighthouse Designer/Builder George Meade .............................. 30
C. Wood
Inspecting for Problems Associated with Wooden Lighthouses ................................. 3
Preservation Treatments ........................................................................................... 9
Protection and Stabilization (Mothballing) .......................................................... 9
Weatherization ............................................................................................. 9
Stabilization ................................................................................................. 11
Ventilation ................................................................................................... 11
Fire protection .............................................................................................. 12

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Page 3

Repair ............................................................................................................... 12
Cleaning ....................................................................................................... 12
Failing Paint ................................................................................................. 13
Paint Removal: Selecting the Appropriate/Safest Method .............................. 15
Methods for Removing Paint ........................................................................ 16
Painting ........................................................................................................ 20
Repair of Damaged/Deteriorated Wooden Components ............................... 20
Structural Stabilization .................................................................................. 23
Limited Replacement In Kind ....................................................................... 23
D. Concrete
Historical Overview ................................................................................................. 2
Types of Concrete .................................................................................................... 3
Causes of Concrete Deterioration ............................................................................. 4
Major Signs of Concrete Deterioration...................................................................... 5
Inspecting for Concrete Problems ............................................................................. 7
Preservation Treatments ........................................................................................... 11
Protection and Stabilization (Mothballing) .......................................................... 11
Weatherization ............................................................................................. 11
Stabilization ................................................................................................. 13
Ventilation ................................................................................................... 13
Fire Protection .............................................................................................. 14
Planning for Concrete Repair ........................................................................ 14
Repair ............................................................................................................... 15
Cleaning ....................................................................................................... 15
Coatings ....................................................................................................... 15
Damaged Concrete Repair ............................................................................ 17
Limited Replacement In Kind ............................................................................. 20
E. Windows
Window Types ......................................................................................................... 3
Inspection and Evaluation ........................................................................................ 3
Preservation Treatments ........................................................................................... 5
Protection and Stabilization (Mothballing) .......................................................... 5
Repair ............................................................................................................... 7
Removing Paint from Wood Windows .......................................................... 7
Removing Paint from Metal Windows .......................................................... 10
Repainting .................................................................................................... 11

Page 4

Table of Contents

Caulking and Glazing ................................................................................... 12

Repairing Damaged or Deteriorated Windows .............................................. 14
Epoxy, Fillers, and Consolidants ................................................................... 16
Limited Replacement In Kind ............................................................................. 17
F. Doors
Door Types .............................................................................................................. 2
Inspection and Evaluation ........................................................................................ 4
Preservation Treatments ........................................................................................... 6
Protection and Stabilization (Mothballing) .......................................................... 6
Security ........................................................................................................ 7
Repair ............................................................................................................... 9
Door Hardware ............................................................................................ 9
Limited Replacement In Kind ............................................................................. 10
G. Lanterns
Lantern Construction ................................................................................................ 3
Special Conditions Associated with Historic Lantern Systems ................................... 5
Galvanic Corrosion ............................................................................................ 5
Rust-Jacking ....................................................................................................... 6
Ventilation ......................................................................................................... 6
Lantern Glass ............................................................................................... 7
Inspecting for Lantern Problems ......................................................................... 9
Preservation Treatments ..................................................................................... 12
Protection and Stabilization (Mothballing) .................................................... 12
Weatherization ........................................................................................ 12
Stabilization ............................................................................................ 14
Ventilation .............................................................................................. 14
Fire Protection ......................................................................................... 15
Repair .......................................................................................................... 15
Galvanic Corrosion ................................................................................. 15
Rust-Jacking ............................................................................................. 16
Ventilation .............................................................................................. 16
Lantern Glass ........................................................................................... 17
SIDEBAR: Use of Lexan in Lantern Glass Replacement ......................... 18
Lantern Roof ............................................................................................ 19
Gallery Decks .......................................................................................... 19
Removal and Application of Protective Coatings ...................................... 20

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Page 5

Limited Replacement In Kind ....................................................................... 21

Installation of Modern Utilities and Equipment ............................................. 21
SIDEBAR: Maintenance of Classical Lenses ................................................ 23
H. Interiors
Deterioration of Historic Lighthouse Interiors during the Mothballing Period ..... 2
Preservation Treatment: Minimizing Condensation Buildup ............................... 3
I. Grounds
General Site Recommendations ......................................................................... 3
Archeological Recommendations ....................................................................... 4
Landscape Features ............................................................................................ 5
Security .............................................................................................................. 5
Limited Replacement In Kind ............................................................................. 5
V. Beyond Basic Preservation
A. Rehabilitation
CASE STUDY: Design for Missing Historic Windows....................................... 2
CASE STUDY: Design for Missing Historic Doors ............................................ 4
CASE STUDY: St. Simons Island Lighthouse Lantern Glass
Replacement ................................................................................................ 6
CASE STUDY: Rehabilitation of Anacapa Island Lighthouse ............................. 11
CASE STUDY: Rehabilitation of Point Bonita Light Station ............................... 18
CASE STUDY: Rehabilitation of Point Conception Light Station ....................... 23
B. Restoration
CASE STUDY: Restoration of Cape May Lighthouse ........................................ 2
CASE STUDY: Restoration of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse................................... 6
C. Related Activities
Examples of Adaptive Use/Rehabilitation ........................................................... 1
SIDEBAR: To Relight or not to Relight? ............................................................ 4
Interpretation and Public Outreach .................................................................... 5
CASE STUDY: Interpretation at Split Rock Light Station ............................. 6
Fundraising Ideas ............................................................................................... 10
Funding Sources ................................................................................................ 13
Use of Volunteers/Community Involvement ....................................................... 14
CASE STUDY: Point San Luis Lighthouse Keepers ...................................... 15
Relocating Lighthouses ....................................................................................... 17
CASE STUDY: Relocation of the Block Island Southeast Lighthouse ........... 18
Safety Management Issues .................................................................................. 23

Page 6

Table of Contents

Fire Prevention and Protection Objectives ................................................................ 26

VI. Resources
Glossary

............................................................................................................... 1

Preservation Terms ............................................................................................. 1

Technical Terms ................................................................................................. 6
Lighthouse Specific ............................................................................................ 7
Organizations .......................................................................................................... 7
Preservation Related ........................................................................................... 8
Lighthouse Specific ............................................................................................ 9
State Historic Preservation Officers .................................................................... 10
Preparing a National Register Nomination ................................................................ 13
Choosing an Appropriate Treatment for a Historic Lighthouse Project ...................... 18
Bibliography/References ........................................................................................... 22
Sources for the Handbook .................................................................................. 22
Lighthouse-Related ............................................................................................. 24
Preservation Guidance ....................................................................................... 26
Technical Guidance ........................................................................................... 28
Curation ............................................................................................................. 30
Interpretation ..................................................................................................... 31
Archeology ........................................................................................................ 31
Cultural Landscapes ........................................................................................... 32
Documentation .................................................................................................. 32
National Archives Historical Resources .............................................................. 33
Summary of Historic and Cultural Preservation Laws, Regulations, Orders, and
Directives ..................................................................................................... 37

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Page 7

NMI photo

Introduction

Figure 1. Conducting a condition assessment at Cove

Point Light Station, near Lusby, Maryland, in 1995.

The Historic Lighthouse Preservation

Handbook was created through a cooperative
partnership between the National Park
Service (NPS), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and
the Department of Defense (DoD). The
Handbook addresses preservation issues
related to historic lighthouses with an
emphasis on the maintenance problems
associated with the many different materials
and construction techniques used in these
unique structures. Historic Lighthouse
Preservation (Part IV) includes data gathered
from condition assessments and historic
significance evaluations at 21 light stations
around the country as well as information
from applicable NPS guidance, USCG files,
and material generated by non-profit groups,
museums, and architectural and engineering
firms. Beyond Basic Preservation (Part V)
includes case studies reflecting lighthouse
rehabilitation and restoration projects as well
as related activities.
The Handbook is a compilation of lighthouse
preservation issues, successful lighthouse
maintenance solutions and lessons learned in
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

lighthouse preservation procedures and

techniques. The partners in the development
of this Handbook recognize that the
preservation of each lighthouse property must
take into account its intended use, the
resources available to the property owner or
manager, and the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties. The Handbook is intended to be
used as a reference to identify lighthouse
preservation needs and develop appropriate
solutions. Use of this Handbook for regulatory
or oversight purposes would not be
appropriate.
Production of the Handbook has been
coordinated by the National Maritime
Initiative, a program within the NPS National
Register, History, and Education Programs.
Compilation of the technical sections was
undertaken by the NPS Historic Preservation
Training Center (formerly the Williamsport
Preservation Training Center) with substantial
support and assistance by the USCG. Other
major portions were provided through a

Page 1

cooperative agreement with the U.S.

Lighthouse Society.

Contributors:
Candace Clifford, National Maritime Initiative,
Lighthouse Project Coordinator through
cooperative agreement with the National
Conference of State Historic Preservation
Officers (NCSHPO) (editor and designer)
Ralph Eshelman, Ph.D., U.S. Lighthouse
Society, Maritime Historian (author of Parts
I, II, sidebars on Minots Ledge and George
Meade in Part IV, and much of Related
Activities section under Part V and much of
Part VI)
Michael Seibert, Historic Preservation Training
Center, Architectural Historian (author of
Part IV and compiler of Rehabilitation and
Restoration sections under Part V)
Thomas A. Vitanza, A.I.A., Historic
Preservation Training Center, Senior
Historical Architect (author of Part III and
the much of the Introduction to Part IV)

Other contributors include Greg Byrne, NPS

Division of Conservation; Todd Croteau, NPS
Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic
American Engineering Record; Eric Ford and
Paul Neidinger, NPS Historic Preservation
Training Center; Joe Jakubik, International
Chimney Corporation; Judd Janes and Wayne
Truax, U.S. Coast Guard; Lee Radzak,
Minnesota Historical Society; and Robert
Vessely, Point San Luis Lighthouse Keepers,
California.
The following people reviewed drafts of the
Handbook and provided invaluable comments:
Glen Ellen Alderton and Richard Hayes, DoD
Legacy Resource Management Program; David
Banks, Anne Grimmer, and Kay Weeks, NPS
Heritage Preservation Services; Greg Byrne,
NPS Division of Conservation; Paul Cloyd, NPS
Denver Service Center; James Dunlap, Ponce
De Leon Inlet Lighthouse; Ken Follett, Apple
Restoration & Waterproofing; Michael Henry,
Watson & Henry Associates; Jay Hyland,

Page 2

Lighthouse Preservation Society; Joe Jakubik,

International Chimney Corporation; Tom
McGrath, NPS Historic Preservation Training
Center; Richard Moehl, Great Lakes Lighthouse
Keepers Association; Lee Radzak, Minnesota
Historical Society; David Reese and Kebby
Hardy, U.S. Coast Guard; William B. Rose,
University of Illinois School of Architecture
Building Research Council; and Wayne
Wheeler, U.S. Lighthouse Society.

Program Managers:
Glen Ellen Alderton and Richard Hayes,
Legacy Resource Management Program,
Department of the Navy
Kevin Foster, National Maritime Initiative,
National Park Service
Tom McGrath, Historic Preservation Training
Center, National Park Service
David Reese, Environmental Management
Division, Office of Civil Engineering, U.S.
Coast Guard
Wayne Wheeler, U.S. Lighthouse Society

Acknowledgements
Thanks are also due to the following who also
helped with this project by providing access to
their sites, time, or expertise: Bob Baker,
Egmont Key Lighthouse, Florida Parks; Dick
Callaway, NAS Pensacola, Florida; Felice
Ciccione, NPS Gateway NRA, New York;
CWO Cowan, USCG Group Baltimore; Jack
Daniels, Burt Bender & Associates, Architects,
Key West, Florida; Lt. Larock, Detach Alpha,
Prospect Harbor, Maine; Ed Frame, Cape
Henry Lighthouse, Virginia; Bonnie Gallahan,
formerly with USCG; Howard Galliford and
Wilton Hartig, USCG Curtis Bay, Maryland;
Don George, Patrick AFB, Cape Canaveral,
Florida; BMCM Michael J. Goulding, USCG
National Aids to Navigation School, Yorktown,
Virginia; Michael Humphries, St. Clements
Island Potomac River Museum, Maryland;
Steve James, NPS Channel Islands NP,
California; David Jeffrey Johnson, Casemate

Introduction

Museum, Fort Monroe, Virginia; Margaret

Jones, Elk Neck State Park, Maryland; BMC
Dave Karpin, USCG ANT Grand Haven,
Michigan; Key West Art and Historical Society,
Florida; Julie King, Jefferson Patterson Park and
Museum, St. Leonard, Maryland; BM1 Lanthier,
USCG ANT San Pedro, California; Rich Lilley,
AYH Hostel, Point Montara Lighthouse,
California; Doug Lister, NAS Patuxent River,
Maryland; Lt. Ken Marien, USCG CEU Miami;
USCG Station Annapolis, Maryland; CWO
Wayne Merritt, Cove Point Lighthouse (ANT
Potomac), Maryland; Heidi Niehaus, NPS Point
Reyes NS, California; EM1 Todd Noegel, USCG
Group Channel Islands, California; Ruth
Ristola, Ontonagon Historical Society Museum,
Michigan; Ken Sandri, NPS Historic
Preservation Training Center; Chief Schaefer,
Pensacola Lighthouse, Florida; CWO David
Schweppe; Marion Seaman, USCG Auxiliary,
San Vicente Lighthouse, California; BMC
Tanski, ANT San Francisco; BM1 John Ward,
USCG Group Baltimore; BM1 Roy Watson,
USCG Group Monterey, California; MKCS J.
Scott Werley, USCG Group Hampton Roads,
Virginia; and CWO Karl Willis, USCG Station
Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Note to Readers
The information presented in this Handbook is
designed to be used by historic lighthouse
managers as a reference to guide them through
the process of preserving their historic
lighthouse. Most sections are generally selfexplanatory, however, Part IV., Historic
Lighthouse Preservation may require some
additional guidance to be used effectively.

procedure designed to identify potential

problems associated with each. The
inspection may indicate problems with
components not specific to the construction
type. For preservation treatments of these
specific components refer to the sections on
windows, doors, lanterns, interiors, and
grounds.
Some information in each of the construction
material sections appears to be repetitive; this
is intentional. Although the material looks
similar, it has been designed to include the
specific details associated with each
construction material. The intent of this
organizational method is to provide one stop
shopping for the lighthouse manager
concerning his or her particular lighthouse.
For example, the lighthouse manager
responsible for a wood lighthouse may not be
particularly concerned with the nuances of the
preservation treatments required for a masonry
lighthouse, and vice versa. This should not
limit the Handbook, however, from being
used as a general reference for historic
lighthouse preservation.
As in any profession, the development of
technology in the preservation field is
continually evolving. A handbook of this type
has inherent limitations and cannot be
expected to be the complete and final
authority on any matter. If when using this
handbook questions arise that are beyond the
scope of this document, it is strongly
recommended that the advice of an
experienced preservation professional is
obtained.

The information in Part IV is designed to be

referenced in either a general or a specific
fashion. When planning a preservation
treatment for a lighthouse, refer to the sections
relating to the lighthouse construction
materialmasonry, iron, wood or concrete.
In addition to information relating to
treatments for each construction type, the text
will guide you through an inspection

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Page 3

Calvert Marine Museum photo

Why Preserve
Lighthouses?

Figure 1. Drum Point Lighthouse at Calvert Marine Museum in

Solomons, Maryland.

What is a Lighthouse?
There is no standard definition of a
lighthouse. Websters dictionary defines
a lighthouse as a tower or other lofty
structure with a powerful light at the top,
erected at some place important or
dangerous to navigation to serve as a guide
or warning to ships at night.1 Samuel
Johnson, author of the first modern
dictionary in the English language, in
1755, defined a lighthouse as a high
building at the top of which lights are hung
to guide ships at sea. Lighthouses,
however, are not restricted to guiding ships
at sea, but are located on any body of
water where vessels are assisted by their
presence. The U.S. Lighthouse Service in
The character of the light could be fixed or
revolving a various speeds to create timed flashes to
distinguish it from nearby lights. Tall towers were often
painted with different colors and patterns called
daymarks so they could be identified during daylight
hours.
1

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

1915 regarded lighthouses as lights where

resident keepers were employed.2
Today, under this last definition, very few
lights would be classified as lighthouses: all
but one are automated and do not require
keepers. A lighted buoy, while an aid to
navigation, is not considered a lighthouse,
whereas all lighthouses serve or once
served as aids to navigation. The U.S.
Coast Guard maintains about 50,000 aids
to navigation but less than 500 lighthouses
(the official Coast Guard count as of July

2
Robert de Gast, The Lighthouses of The
Chesapeake (Baltimore, Maryland, The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1973), p. viii; United States Lighthouse
Service 1915 (Washington, D.C., Government Printing
Office, 1916), p. 18; and Websters New Twentieth
Century Dictionary, Second Edition (New York, New
York, Simon and Schuster, 1982), p. 1047. There are
instances of lighthouses which were built for land travel.
The Atacoma Desert town of Pica, Chile, had a
lighthouse to guide travelers at night to their springs.

Part I, Page 1

1992 was 481;3 the Initiatives light station

database reported 425 Coast Guardowned light stations in September 1996).
Lighthouse and light are often used
synonymously, but in fact have distinct
meanings. Lighthouses are structures or
towers which were built in strategic
locations to contain and elevate lights.
Lights are the aid-to-navigation signals
which mariners use for navigation. Light
station refers not only to the lighthouse
but to all the buildings at the installation
supporting the lighthouse including
keeper's quarters, oil house, fog signal
building, cisterns, boathouse, workshop,
etc.
Counting the number of lighthouses in the
United States depends not only on the
definition used, but also whether one
station has more than one light tower. For
example, Three Sisters Lights, Cape Cod,
Massachusetts, consists of three separate
towers. Cape Henry Light Station,
Virginia, consists of an inactive older
tower and a newer operational tower. The
Cape Charles Lighthouse, Virginia,
consisted of three towers built in different
locations at different times; the first tower is
now completely washed away, the second
tower is in ruins in the surf, and the third
tower is still operational. The National
Park Services 1994 Inventory of Historic
Light Stations contains 611 existing
historic light stations encompassing 631
existing historic light towers. An appendix
includes 190 sites or ruins in a preliminary
listing of former stations.4
United States Coast Guard Lighthouse Policy
Review (enclosure 7 to Chapter 6 of COMDTINST
M11011.9B dated July 27, 1992), p. 1; copy in files of
National Maritime Initiative, National Park Service,
Washington, D.C.
4
Candace Clifford, 1994 Inventory of Historic Light
Stations (Washington, D.C., National Park Service,
1994), p. ix and xviii; and James Delgado and Kevin
Foster, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting
Historic Aids to Navigation, National Register Bulletin
3

Part I, Page 2

Lighthouses and Our National

Heritage
Nothing indicates the liberality,
prosperity or intelligence of a
nation more clearly than the
facilities which it affords for the
safe approach of the mariner to its
shores.
Report of the Lighthouse Board, 1868

Lighthouses have been a part of our nation

from its inception. In 1789, after adopting
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the
First Congress of the United States created
the Lighthouse Establishment (in the ninth
law passed) to take over the operation of
the 12 colonial lighthouses, (including
Boston Harbor Lighthouse built in 1716,
the first lighthouse established in what
today is the United States), as well as to
oversee the construction and operation of
new lighthouses. The first public works
project in the United States was the
building of Cape Henry Lighthouse,
lighted in 1792. President George
Washington took a personal interest in the
Cape Henry Lighthouse, approving the
construction contracts and the
appointment of its first keeper. Similarly,
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson
attended to similar lighthouse duties
during their presidencies. The First
Congress placed responsibility for aids to
navigation within the Treasury
Department, where Alexander Hamilton
personally administered them for several
years. The high level of attention given to
lighthouses by the newly created nation
was tied directly to its need for commerce
and its desire to compete with other world
powers. Lighthouses helped to instill
confidence in ship captains as well as
#34 (Washington, D.C., National Park Service,
Interagency Resources Division), p. 2. The number of
light station sites in the Initiative's lighthouse database
had grown to 282 at the time of publication.

Why Preserve Lighthouses?

Isle Royale NP photo

Figure 2. Rock Harbor Light Station on

Isle Royale, Michigan, is one of 409 light
stations listed in the National Register of
Historic Places up through 1996.

foreign governments, symbolically

implying that the United States was a
responsible world power worthy of due
recognition. Today the United States has
the largest number of lighthouses as well as
the most architecturally diverse, of any
country in the world.5
By preserving light stations, we preserve for
everyone a symbol of that chapter in
American history when maritime traffic was
the lifeblood of the nation, tying isolated
coastal towns and headlands through trade
to distant ports of the world.6 Historic and
cultural resources represent our nations
patrimony. The federal government has
been turning over many lighthouses by
lease, license, or sale to federally
recognized non-profit organizations whose
mission, at least in part, is to preserve the
lighthouse. As stewards for their
5

lighthouses, these organizations have

certain responsibilities for proper
maintenance and preservation and are
expected to carry out these duties for the
benefit of citizens both at local and
national levels. The continued use and
appreciation of these historic light stations
is not merely in the interest of historic
preservation groups but of the public at
large. Each lighthouse is unique in the
context of its geographic location,
architectural style, and history. Even
lighthouses which were sold by the
government into private hands will benefit
by good stewardship if for no other reason
than to maintain their resale value. Where
the historic integrity of the light station
remains intact, the visitor can experience
an important aspect of our maritime
heritage.

Clifford, p. ix.

Deborah Davis, Keeping the Light: A Handbook

for Adaptive Re-use of Island Lighthouse Stations
(Rockland, Maine, Island Institute, 1987), p. 2.
6

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part I, Page 3

The National Register of Historic Places is

considered the official list of the Nations
cultural resources worthy of preservation.
Authorized by the National Historic
Preservation Act, the National Register is
maintained by the Department of Interiors
National Park Service. It is currently a
listing of over 60,000 properties that have
been nominated and accepted as having
historic, architectural, archeological,
engineering, or cultural significance, at the
national, state, or local level. The
nominations are maintained both on paper
and in a computerized database. Nearly
70 percent of all lighthouses in the United
States over 50 years old are either listed in
the National Register or are determined
eligible for listing, and the number is
climbing as additional lighthouses are
added to the list.

Identifying Historic Properties

Not all light stations are necessarily historic
nor do all warrant preservation. But how
does one determine historic significance of
light station properties? How can one be
certain that a light station or portion of a
light station (only one or more structures of
a light station versus the entire light station)
warrant preservation? Perhaps the best
method for determination is using the
criteria established by the federal
government for inclusion of historic
properties in the National Register of
Historic Places.
These criteria include:
significance of a property in American history
significance of a property in American
architecture
significance of a property in American archeology
significance of a property in American
engineering

Part I, Page 4

NMI photo

What Makes a Lighthouse

Historic?

Figure 3. Sandy Hook Light Station, Highlands, New

Jersey, is the oldest operating lighthouse in the U.S.,
making it significant for its role in American history.

significance of a property in American culture

The National Register nomination process

uses the following criteria to determine the
historic significance of sites, buildings,
structures, and objects:
a) association with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad pattern of
our history; or
b) association with the lives of persons significant
in our past; or
c) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess
high artistic values, or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction; or
d) have yielded, or may be likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history.

Besides meeting one or more of the

National Register criteria, a property

Why Preserve Lighthouses?

generally must also be at least 50 years old

(exceptions are possible), and have
integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association in order to be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register. This
means, in effect, that if a property has been
seriously compromised by unsympathetic
alterations, it may not be eligible for the
National Register. Your State Historic
Preservation Officer (see Part VI.,
Resources for listing) can assist you in
determining whether your property is
historically significant and whether or not it
may qualify for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
Examples of light stations which meet one
or more of the National Register criteria:
Cape Henry (first tower) Lighthouse, Virginia,
first lighthouse built by United States
Government and first public works project is
significant for its role in American history.
Thomas Point Shoals Light Station, Maryland,
built in 1875, is the last largely unaltered spiderfoundation cottage-type screwpile lighthouse in
the United States. As such, it is significant for
American architecture and engineering.
Minots Ledge Light Station, Massachusetts, built
in 1860, was the first, and most exposed waveswept lighthouse built in the United States and is
considered one of the top ten engineering feats of
the U.S. Lighthouse Service. It is also significant
for American engineering.
Sandy Hook Lighthouse, New Jersey, built in
1764, is oldest extant lighthouse in United
States. As such, it is a significant property in
American history.
Pooles Island Light Station fog-signal building,
Maryland, built in 1825, now demolished with
its foundation ruins eroding from the banks of
the island, was the site of one of the earliest
mechanized fog signal stations in the United
States. It is a significant property in American
archeology.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Benefits of Listing in the

National Register of Historic
Places
A federally owned lighthouse or any
associated structures such as keeper's
quarters, fog signal building, oil house,
etc., which are listed or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places,
cannot be altered, neglected, or
demolished without the federal agency
going through the Section 106 process
discussed later in this section.
For profit-making organizations, certain tax
credits are available to the owner for
restoration costs. For non-profit historical
societies and preservation groups, listing
on the National Register can provide the
following benefits;
distinguishing the property as having historical
significance recognized by the United States
Government;
providing leverage for assisting the owner in
raising preservation and maintenance funds
directly related to the lighthouse and light station
associated buildings; and
making the project eligible for matching federal
historic preservation funds passed through each
state. These funds are made available through a
competitive grant application process and have
certain conditions. Check with your State
Historic Preservation Office for more information
(see Part VI for listing of SHPOs).

Federal agencies, through compliance with

federal historic preservation requirements,
play a leadership role in preserving our
nations light stations. Most light stations
are still under federal control, whether
through the U.S. Coast Guard, Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, or Department of Defense.

Part I, Page 5

Federal Agency
Responsibilities: The National
Historic Preservation Act of
1966
In order to preserve our nations heritage, a
number of laws have been passed at the
federal, state, and local levels to ensure
that historic resources are recognized and
taken into consideration during any public
planning effort. While federal preservation
laws date to 1906, the most prominent
federal cultural resource law, from which
most of the current laws, regulations, and
guidelines stem, is the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) requires a federal
agency head with jurisdiction over a
federal, federally assisted, or federally
licensed undertaking, to take into account
the effects of the agencys undertakings on
all properties included in or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places and, before approval of an
undertaking, to afford the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP or
Advisory Council) a reasonable
opportunity to comment on the
undertaking.
Section 110: The intent of Section 110 is
to ensure that historic preservation is fully
integrated into the ongoing programs,
review of agency procedures, and missions
of federal agencies. The more important
and appropriate portions of Section 110
which may apply to lighthouses are
summarized below:
Section 110(a)(1) requires that before
acquiring, constructing, or leasing
buildings for purposes of carrying out
agency responsibilities, all federal agencies
will use, to the maximum extent feasible,
historic properties available to the agency.
This requires agencies to give priority to
Part I, Page 6

the use not only of historic properties that

they own or control, but to any such
properties that are available to the agency.
Available historic properties might include
those available for lease, purchase, or
exchange. This section also designated
the Secretary of Interiors Standards and
Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation as the specific professional
standards to be followed. Section 110 and
the Secretarys Standards also refer to the
more specific standards, Secretary of the
Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation and
Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings (1992).
Section 110(b) requires each federal
agency to initiate measures to assure that
where, as a result of federal action or
assistance . . . an historic property is to be
substantially altered or demolished, timely
steps are taken to make or have made
appropriate records, and that such records
then be deposited . . . in the Library of
Congress or with some other appropriate
agency as may be designated by the
Secretary [of the Interior], for future use and
reference.
Section 110 Guidelines (53 FR 4727-46)
state that agencies should determine
whether recordation is needed, and if so,
the appropriate level and kind of
recordation necessary, . . . in consultation
with the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), Advisory Council, and other
concerned parties under 36 CFR Part 800
. . . The level and kind of documentation
required . . . vary depending on the nature
of the property, its relative significance . . .
and the nature of the undertakings
effects.
These requirements put the obligations of
compliance on the federal agencies, not
the SHPO, the Advisory Council, or
anyone else. To meet the regulations of
the National Historic Preservation Act, a
federal agency should:
Why Preserve Lighthouses?

 Minimize the risk of foreclosure by initiating

Section 106 review as early as possible in the
planning process.
Always get Section 106 done before a final
decision is made about whether to proceed with
the project, before funds are spent on things such
as advanced design, or purchase of materials, and
if possible before those involved become fixed
on a single preferred alternative.
When working on the annual budget, it is
important to think about compliance needs and
advise supervisors on these budget matters.
Although NHPA does not provide appropriation,
Section 110(g) authorizes expenditure of project
and program funds to support preservation work,
such as compliance with Section 106 and doing
work called for in a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA). It is necessary to meet compliance
requirements through the normal budget process.
Thinking of compliance needs while putting
together installations budgets can avoid funding
delays later.
Consider effects not only on properties already
included on the National Register, but also
eligible properties. It is the responsibility of the
federal agency to ensure that eligible properties
are identified, evaluated, and considered. These
determinations of eligibility are made solely on
historical, architectural, or cultural significance
of a property, not management or mission
requirements.

Executive Order No. 11593, Protection and

Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 36
Fed. Reg. 8921 (1971), reprinted in 16 U.S.C.
470 note

A summary of these laws is found in Part

VI., Resources. Commanding officers and
other personnel who deal or may deal with
cultural resource management are
responsible for knowing the laws and
complying with these requirements. The
best guide to these laws is Introduction to
Federal Projects and Historic Preservation
Law prepared by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation and the General
Services Administration Interagency
Training Center. It is full of case studies
and explains how these laws and
regulations affect operations. A copy of
this manual can be obtained from either
agency. It is highly recommended as a
useful shelf tool. Federal Historic
Preservation Laws (1993), published by the
National Park Service, Cultural Resources
Programs, is another useful guide to these
laws.

Failure to comply with preservation law

may result in litigation or stop-work orders
which delay completion of projects and
escalate project costs.
Other federal laws which may affect
lighthouse preservation and management
include:
Antiquities Act, 16 U.S.C. 431-433
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, 16
U.S.C. 469-469c
Architectural Barriers Act, 42 U.S.C. 41514157
Historic Sites Act, 16 U.S.C. 461-467
National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.
4321-4370c
National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C.
470-470w-6

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part I, Page 7

National Archives photo

History of the Lighthouse

Service and Lighthouse
Construction Types

Figure 1. Assembly of Point No Point Lighthouse caisson at Solomons, Maryland, before being
transported to site in Chesapeake Bay.

History of the Lighthouse

Service
The U.S. Lighthouse Establishment was
created by the First Congress in 1789 to
manage the twelve colonial lighthouses
now controlled by the federal government
and to oversee construction of new
lighthouses. Sandy Hook Lighthouse, built
in New Jersey in 1764, is the only colonial
lighthouse that has survived (Boston Harbor
Lighthouse, built in 1716, was rebuilt in
1783-1784). Colonial lighthouses were
usually constructed of wood or rubble
stone. Between 1789 and 1820 about 40
new lighthouses were built by the
Lighthouse Establishment, many using brick
and cut stone. Of these, only a few have
survived, including Portland Head
Lighthouse, Maine, built in 1790 and Cape
Henry Lighthouse, Virginia, built in 1792.
From 1820 until 1852, Steven Pleasonton,
Fifth Auditor of the Treasury, was
responsible for lighthouse construction and
repairs. Though Pleasonton routinely

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

returned unspent funds to the Treasury,

during his tenure approximately 300
lighthouses were built. In 1847 the
responsibility for the construction of six
lighthouses was granted to the Army Corps
of Engineers.
On August 31, 1852, the U.S. Lighthouse
Establishment became the U.S. Lighthouse
Board, largely as the result of numerous
complaints about the state of the U.S.
lighthouse system. The nine-member board
was composed primarily of Naval and Army
engineer officers. The country was divided
into 12 new lighthouse districts, each with
an inspector responsible for overall
construction, maintenance, and purchasing.
Over the next five decades several
advances in lighthouse construction
technology took place, including the
development of exposed screwpile
lighthouses, skeleton tower lighthouses,
wave-swept interlocking stone lighthouses,
iron caisson lighthouses, and breakwater
lighthouses. Many examples of these

Part II, Page 1

lighthouses exist today. In 1886, the

lighthouse districts were increased to 16.
The Lighthouse Board was transferred to the
Department of Commerce and Labor on
July 1, 1903. On June 17, 1910, the
Lighthouse Board became the Bureau of
Lighthouses. The number of districts
increased to 19. Just before this transition,
reinforced concrete lighthouse towers came
into use, particularly along the west coast
where earthquakes were common. In 1913
the Bureau was assigned to the Department
of Commerce when it separated from the
Department of Labor. In 1939 the Bureau
was abolished and its functions transferred
to the U.S. Coast Guard where the
responsibility remains today.
At the end of World War II the Coast Guard
staffed 468 light stations. Following the
war, the Coast Guard embarked on a
program of automation. The rationale for
this program was 1) to reduce the cost of
maintaining lighthouses, 2) to remove
personnel from extremely isolated and
hazardous locations, and 3) to make billets
available for reprogramming. Despite these
efforts, the Coast Guard manned 327
lighthouses in 1962. The Coast Guard
initiated the Lighthouse Automation and
Modernization Program (LAMP) in 1968.
LAMP was designed to accelerate and
standardize the remaining lighthouses for
automation and to standardize the
equipment at those previously automated.
Over $26 million was spent on LAMP over
20 years; 1989 was the last year for LAMP
funding though a few automations were
completed as late as fiscal year 1990.
LAMP resulted in over 300 billet reductions
amounting to savings in excess of $63

1
United States Coast Guard Lighthouse Policy
Review (enclosure 7 to Chapter 6 of COMDTINST
M11011.9B dated July 27, 1992), pp. 5-6, copy in files
of National Maritime Initiative, National Park Service,
Washington, D.C.

Part II, Page 2

million, and recurring savings of about $7

million annually.1 Every Coast Guardowned lighthouse in the United States is
now automated and unmanned, with the
sole exception of Boston Lighthouse. It will
continue to be staffed in accordance with
Section 221 of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-225).
The Coast Guard continues to use the living
quarters of several former light stations as
housing units for its personnel.
Lighthouse towers themselves have become
less valuable to the Coast Guard because,
with modern automated beacons, it is more
cost effective to construct and maintain an
aid to navigation on a steel structure or
buoy, rather than inside the lantern of a
traditional lighthouse tower. Thus, in many
locations, the traditional lighthouse tower
has been found to have little value to the
U.S. Coast Guard mission, other than to
provide a visual aid to mariners during
daylight and good weather.2
The lighthouse automation process resulted
in a loss of practical experience gained by
personnel stationed at the lighthouses. The
peculiarities and unique needs of the
station could no longer be cared for on a
daily basis. Experience and traditions were
no longer passed on from one keeper to
another. Many stations, especially the more
remote ones, are seldom visited by Coast
Guard personnel, as little as once or twice a
year. The lack of simple maintenance such
as mopping up condensation on a daily or
weekly basis from the inside of the storm
pane astragals of the lantern room now
result in rust and corrosion. A broken storm
pane (window), formerly replaced within a
matter of hours, now may result in bird and
rodent infestation. Vandalism from lack of
on-site supervision and security is an even
worse problem.
David Reese and Robert Browning, Lighthouse
Management:: A Balancing Act for the U.S. Coast
Guard, Cultural Resource Management (June 1997).
2

History of the Lighthouse Service and Lighthouse Construction Types

NMI photo

Figure 2. Portland Head Light Station, Cape Elizabeth, Maine, one of the few remaining
towers built by the Lighthouse Establishment between 1789 and 1820.

Lighthouse Construction
Types3
Politics, need, cost, location, and
geography of the site, as well as technology
available at the time of construction
influenced lighthouse designs. Before the
mid-nineteenth century, lighthouse
construction technology required solid rock
or other stable foundation soils; onshore
towers sometimes proved inadequate to
warn of a shoal located offshore. In some
locations a lighted buoy or a lightship4
solved this problem. Riverine and estuarine
environments, however, often had unstable
The following section is from Ralph Eshelman,
American Lighthouse Construction Types, part of the
draft Maritime Heritage of the United States National
Historic Landmark Theme Context Study for Lighthouses,
National Maritime Initiative, National Park Service,
1995.
4
Lightships are a relatively new type of aid to
navigation, first appearing in the U.S. in 1820. None are
in operational use today. Lightships, however, played
an important role in establishing light stations in
locations difficult or impossible for the construction of
submarine lighthouse structures.
3

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

muddy and/or sandy bottoms which could

not support the heavy masonry towers then
in vogue. In areas such as the Chesapeake
Bay, Delaware Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, the
Mississippi River delta, and the coral reefs
of the Florida Keys, the development of
newer technology using screwpile, caisson,
and skeletal tower lighthouse construction
was essential to adequately light these
marine hazards.
As technology advanced, stations were
improved or even moved to better mark
hazards such as offshore shoals. The 95foot-tall tower at Cape Hatteras Lighthouse
(1803), North Carolina, was raised to 150
feet in 1854, and the present 208-foot tall
tower replaced it in 1870.5 The first
Thomas Point Shoals Lighthouse (1825),
Maryland, was a stone tower built on shore;
it was replaced by an offshore screwpile

5
According to 1989 HABS documentation, the
overall height of the structure is 208 feet including the
foundation. The height from ground level was recorded
at 197 feet.

Part II, Page 3

structure in 1875 to place the aid closer to

the navigation channel.6

or integral to the keeper's quarters or fog

signal building.

Generally, coastal lighthouses on the low,

flat southeastern coast of the United States
tended to have tall towers to elevate the
lens high enough so the light may be seen
many miles at sea; whereas lighthouses on
the west coast tended to have short towers
built on sea cliffs high enough to project the
light many miles at sea. Several light
stations on the northeastern coast were also
located to take advantage of naturally high
elevation sites, such as Block Island
Southeast Lighthouse, Rhode Island, and
Monhegan Island Lighthouse, Maine.
Ironically, the low clouds so characteristic
of the west coast caused some station sites
at high elevations to be moved to lower
altitudes with taller towers in order to get
the light below the low cloud levels, but
high enough to be visible to ships at sea.
The first Point Loma Lighthouse (1855)
California tower was only 40 feet tall but
was located on a bluff providing a focal
plane of 462 feet above the water. It was
replaced in 1891 by a 70-foot-high tower
built at the base of the bluff with a focal
plane of 88 feet above the water.7

The tower served principally as a support

for the lantern which housed the optic. The
lantern was typically constructed of cast
iron; round, square, octagonal, or
hexagonal-shaped, and surrounded by a
stone or cast-iron gallery. Access to the
lantern room was via stone, wood, or castiron stairs which either wound around a
central column or spiraled along the interior
sides of the tower walls.

Lighthouses were made from a variety of

materials including wood, stone, brick,
reinforced concrete, iron, steel, and even
aluminum and fiberglass. Lighthouses were
built on land, in the water, on islands, on
top of ledges and cliffs, on breakwaters and
piers, on caissons, and at least five are on
fort walls. Some light towers are standalone structures, while others are attached

Robert de Gast, Lighthouses of Chesapeake Bay

(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973) p. 79;
F. Ross Holland, Jr., Great American Lighthouses
(Washington D.C., Preservation Press, National Trust for
Historic Preservation, 1994), p. 19; and Candace
Clifford, 1994 Inventory of Historic Light Stations
(Washington, D.C., History Division National Park
Service, 1994), p. 260.
6

Clifford, pp. 19-20.

Part II, Page 4

Until the adoption of the Fresnel lens in the

United States in the 1850s, there was no
uniform design for the lantern. Pre-1850s
lanterns are rare and are often referred to as
old style or bird cage lanterns because
of their bird cage appearance. Selkirk
(Salmon River) Lighthouse, New York, built
in 1838, retains its bird cage lantern. The
bird cage lantern on Cape Henry
Lighthouse, Virginia, is a reconstruction of
one built in 1792. Many pre-1850s light
towers had their older lantern removed and
new cast-iron lanterns installed when
Fresnel lenses were added to a light station;
most light stations in the United States were
fitted with Fresnel lenses by 1860. In
addition to the replacement of the lantern,
the tower supporting the lantern was often
modified to accommodate the larger lenses.
Fresnel lenses were developed in seven
standard sizes, depending on need. The
largest first-order lenses were designed for
important coastal sites while the sixth order,
the smallest, was designed for small harbors
and rivers (the seventh size was a third-andone-half order). The meso radial and hyper
radial were two additional lens sizes that
were not used in the U.S. with the one
exception, Makapuu Light, Hawaii. To
accommodate these new lenses the
Lighthouse Board designed four pre-made
ready-to-assemble cast-iron lanterns for first,
second, third, and fourth orders. (The
fourth-order lantern could be used to

History of the Lighthouse Service and Lighthouse Construction Types

accommodate the fourth-, fifth-, and sixthorder Fresnel lenses.) While it was possible
to install a smaller order lens in a lantern of
a larger order, it was not possible to
increase the lens size for a lantern of a
lesser order except for the fifth or sixth.
Detailed plans for these cast-iron lanterns
are available at the National Archives as
well as plans for many other lanternsoften
the exact plan for the lantern of a specific
lighthouse.
Windows in the tower were positioned to
provide daylight onto the stairs. For taller
towers, landings were provided at regular
intervals. The top landing ended at the
watch room where the keeper on duty
ensured that the light was functioning
properly. The lantern room above was
usually reached via a ladder.

In addition to a light tower, a completely

equipped light station on land often
consisted of a keeper's quarters, oil house,
fog-signal building, workshop, water
supply, privy, landing wharf, boathouse and
ways, barn, roads, walks, and fences. Some
regions required special structures to aid in
the operation of the lighthouse. The
elevated walkway or catwalk found on
some of the piers of the Great Lakes was
necessary for the keeper to get to the light
during severe storms when waves washed
over the pier or ice made it too dangerous
to walk on the pier. These catwalks are
significant components of this type of light
station and contribute to its historic
integrity.

Tower Construction TypesPeriod of Construction

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

Present

Stone Masonry (1716-1907)

Brick (1755-1915)
Wood (1784-1922)
Wrought Iron (1834-ca. 1900s)
Cast Iron (1844-ca. 1900s)
Steel (1880-present)
Reinforced Concrete (1908-1943)
Texas Tower (1961-1967)
Aluminum Clad (1962)
Fiberglass (ca. 1960s-present)

Tower Foundation TypesPeriod of Construction

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

Present

Land Based (1716-present)

Wood Pile (Straight) (1828-1905)
Crib (Submarine) (1832-1938)
Metal Pile (Straight) (1847-1907)
Metal Pile (Screw) (1848-1910)
Metal Pile (Disk) (1858-1880)
Caisson (1867-1943)
Caisson (Pneumatic) (1886-1914)

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part II, Page 5

SIDEBAR: Lighthouse
Construction Types

Wooden tower: Most early wooden

towers have burned and/or been
replaced. Prospect Harbor
Lighthouse (1891), Maine, is a good
example of a stand-alone, conical
wooden light tower. Plymouth/
Gurnet Point Light (1843),

NMI photo

Most lighthouses can be categorized

by construction method, shape,
building material, or foundation
types. The lighthouse type can also
be classified as terrestrial or aquatic,
i.e., onshore or offshore types. The
major construction types for historic
lighthouses are wooden, masonry,
wave-swept, concrete, cast-iron
plate, skeletal, straightpile, screwpile,
crib, caisson, and Texas tower.

Figure 3. Gurnet Point Lighthouse, wooden tower

near Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Massachusetts is the earliest surviving

wooden tower.

NMI photo

Masonry tower: Masonry towers

were constructed of rubble stone, cut
stone (dressed stone), or brick. The
oldest standing masonry light tower
in the United States is the 85-foot-tall
Sandy Hook Lighthouse (1764), New
Jersey, built of cut stone. Towers
over 150 feet in height are referred to
as tall towers. The 208-foot Cape
Hatteras Lighthouse (1870), North
Carolina, is the tallest lighthouse in
the United States.

Figure 4. Cape Henry Light Station, cast-iron

tower, Fort Story, Virginia.

Part II, Page 6

Wave-swept tower: Wave-swept

lighthouses were built on low rocks
or submarine ledges and constructed
of interlocking stones to withstand
the fury and power of waves in heavy
seas. One of the first wave-swept
towers built in the United States was
the 114-foot Minots Ledge
Lighthouse (1860) offshore in

History of the Lighthouse Service and Lighthouse Construction Types

Massachusetts, which replaced a piletype lighthouse that was destroyed by a

storm. It was considered the most
important engineering work
constructed by the Lighthouse Board at
the time.
Concrete tower: Concrete towers
began to replace brick masonry towers
at the beginning of the 20th century; a
tower of reinforced concrete was first
used in the United States at the 115-foottall Point Arena Lighthouse (1908),
California.
Cast-iron-plate tower: Cast iron was
lighter than stone or brick, relatively
inexpensive, strong, watertight, and had
a slow rate of deterioration. The second
Cape Henry Lighthouse (1881),
Virginia, is the tallest cast-iron-plate
tower in the United States at 163 feet.
Steel and wrought-iron plate was also
sometimes used. This construction type
was capable of being dismantled and
moved; examples include Cape
Canaveral, Florida and Hunting Island,
South Carolina.

Straightpile: The pile foundation

lighthouse utilized the principle of least
resistance. Waves would pass through
rather than crash against the foundation.
This design of lighthouse structure was
used offshore, even in wave-swept

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

National Archives

Skeletal tower: Onshore skeletal

towers were built of metal and were
typically constructed on concrete
foundations. Offshore skeletal towers
were also built of metal and typically
constructed with straight or screwpile
foundations (discussed below). Manitou
Island Lighthouse (1861) and Whitefish
Point Lighthouse (1861), Michigan, both
built from the same plan, are the earliest
onshore skeletal towers built in the
United States. Like the cast-iron-plate
tower, skeletal towers could also be
dismantled and moved.

Figure 5. Construction drawing for Cape Charles

Lighthouse, Virginia, an onshore skeletal tower.

Part II, Page 7

National Archives photo

locations. The earliest surviving

straightpile tubular skeletal
tower lighthouse is Sombrero
Key Lighthouse (1858), Florida.

USCG photo

Figure 6. Thomas Point Shoals Lighthouse with screwpile

foundation located in Maryland's Chesapeake Bay; shown here in
1885.

Figure 7. Sabine Bank Lighthouse with caisson foundation in

Texas.

Part II, Page 8

Screwpile: To increase the

holding power of the pile, a
screw-like flange was fastened to
the bottom of the pile and
wound like a screw into the
substrate. There are two
principal screwpile type
lighthouses, 1) low spider-like
foundations for rivers, bays, and
sounds, and 2) tall offshore
coastal towers. Perhaps as many
as 100 spider-like screwpile
lighthouses were built
throughout the Carolina
sounds, the Chesapeake Bay,
Delaware Bay, along the Gulf of
Mexico, and one even at
Maumee Bay (1855) on Lake
Erie in Ohio. Thomas Point
Shoals Lighthouse (1875),
Maryland, is the oldest extant,
unmoved, spider-like screwpile
lighthouse in the United States.
The first of the tall skeletal
screwpile coastal towers built in
the United States was Carysfort
Reef Lighthouse (1852), Florida,
which still stands. A few
offshore screwpile skeletal tower
lighthouses built on coral reefs
used foot plates or disks to help
disperse the weight of the tower.
Examples in the Florida Keys
include Carysfort Reef
Lighthouse (1852), Fowey
Rocks Lighthouse (1878), and
American Shoal Lighthouse
(1880).
Crib: Wooden cribs,
constructed onshore, towed to
the site, and then filled with
stone to sink them in place were
a lighthouse foundation type

History of the Lighthouse Service and Lighthouse Construction Types

National Archives

Figure 8. Construction drawing detailing the caisson foundation for Baltimore Lighthouse in Maryland's
Chesapeake Bay.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part II, Page 9

used extensively in the Great Lakes,

usually to replace lightships. Once
settled and leveled, the cribs were
capped with concrete or some other
masonry upon which the lighthouse
structure was constructed. Perhaps the
two most significant crib foundation
lighthouses are the 93-foot Spectacle
Reef Lighthouse (1874) on Lake Huron,
Michigan, located 10 miles from the
closest land; and the 110-foot Stannard
Rock Lighthouse (1882) on Lake
Superior, Michigan, located 23 miles
from the nearest land. Crib foundations
were best suited for hardrock bottoms
typically found in the Great Lakes.
USCG photo

Caisson: Caisson foundations were best

suited for unconsolidated bottoms
composed of sand or mud. The caisson
lighthouse type used a large cast-iron
cylinder, which was sunk on the bottom
Figure 9. Chesapeake Light Station, Texas tower at
and filled with rock and concrete to
entrance to Chesapeake Bay.
form a foundation. The caisson
foundation was sturdier and better able
to withstand heavy stress than the pile foundation lighthouses, so it is not surprising that
caisson lighthouses were built in areas where moving ice was a hazard. The Craighill Channel
Lower Front Range Lighthouse (1873), Maryland, is an early surviving example. Where
bottoms were harder, contained rocks, and/or needed greater depth of penetration into the
substrate, the pneumatic process was used. The substrate within the caisson was removed and
the caisson allowed to sink further into the bottom. Eleven pneumatic caisson lighthouses
were built in the United States. The Sabine Bank Lighthouse (1905), Texas, is the most
exposed, located 15 miles offshore in the Gulf of Mexicothe only successful caisson south of
the Chesapeake Bay.6
Texas Tower Type: A relatively recent technological development in lighthouse construction
was the Texas tower type which replaced exposed lightships offshore. These so-called Texas
towers were adaptations modeled on the offshore oil drilling platforms first employed off the
Texas coast. The first Texas tower lighthouse in the United States was the Buzzards Bay
Light, located in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, and commissioned on November 1, 1961. It
has been extinguished and may be dismantled. A total of six Texas tower lighthouses have
been constructed.

The caisson type lighthouse, though superior to the screwpile lighthouse type as far as stability is
concernedespecially in northern locations where ice flow conditions exist, did not prove satisfactory for
offshore ocean locations because of severe bottom scouring. In the late 1880s, a 54-foot-diameter pneumatic
caisson foundation with a tall steel light tower was sunk off Diamond Shoals, thirteen miles off the shore from
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. But water currents scoured the site and tilted it out of level. The contractors
gave up in disgust as did the Lighthouse Board after a few more unsuccessful attempts. (Wayne C. Wheeler,
Diamond Shoal Lighthouse: The Lighthouse That Never Was, Keepers Log (1988) 4(3):24-29.)
6

Part II, Page 10

History of the Lighthouse Service and Lighthouse Construction Types

Standards, Guidelines,
and the Preservation
Process
NMI photo

Figure 1. Sandbags are

used to protect Cape
Hatteras Lighthouse,
Buxton, North Carolina,
from further shoreline
erosion.

Levels of Treatment According to

the Secretary of the Interiors
Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties (1995)
The Secretary of the Interior is responsible
for establishing professional standards and
providing advice on the preservation and
protection of all cultural resources listed in
or determined eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. The
first standards developed to fulfill this
responsibility were published in 1976the
Secretary of the Interiors Standards for
Historic Preservation Projects. These
consisted of seven sets of standards for the
acquisition, protection, stabilization,
preservation, rehabilitation, restoration,
and reconstruction of historic buildings.
Since their publication in 1976, the
Secretarys Standards have been used by
State Historic Preservation Officers and the
National Park Service to ensure that
projects receiving federal money or tax
benefits were reviewed in a consistent
manner nationwide. The principles
embodied in the Standards have also been
adopted by hundreds of preservation
commissions across the country in local

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

design guidelines. The Standards also apply

to all proposed development grant-in-aid
projects assisted through the National
Historic Preservation Fund.
In 1992 the Standards were revised so they
could be applied to all historic resource
types included in the National Register of
Historic Placesbuildings, structures, sites,
objects, districts, and landscapes.1 The
revised standards were reduced to four sets
by incorporating protection and stabilization
into preservation, and by eliminating
acquisition, which is no longer considered a
treatment.
The Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing
Historic Buildings (1995) also replaced the
Guidelines that were published in 1979 to
accompany the earlier Standards, and
address four distinct, but interrelated,
approaches to the treatment of historic
1
Retitled The Secretary of the Interiors Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties, this new, modified
version was codified as 36 CFR Part 68 in the July 12,
1995, Federal Register (Vol. 60, No. 133) with an
effective date of August 11, 1995. The revision
replaces the 1978 and 1983 versions of 36 CFR 68
entitled, The Secretary of the Interiors Standards for
Historic Preservation Projects.

Part III, Page 1

properties: preservation, rehabilitation,

restoration, and reconstruction.
Of the four, preservation standards require
retention of the greatest amount of historic
fabric and focus on the maintenance and
repair of existing historic materials. It
includes retention of a propertys form,
features, and details as they have evolved
over time. Protection and stabilization
have been consolidated under this
treatment.
Rehabilitation standards acknowledge the
need to alter or add to a historic property to
meet continuing or changing uses while
retaining the propertys historic character.
Restoration standards allow for the
depiction of a property at a particular
period of time in its history by preserving
materials from the period of significance
and removing evidence of other periods.
Reconstruction standards establish a
framework for recreating vanished or nonsurviving portions of a property with new
materials, primarily for interpretive
purposes.
The Secretary of the Interiors Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties may be
used by anyone planning and undertaking
work on historic properties, even if grant-inaid funds are not being sought. They are
regulatory only for projects receiving
federal grant-in-aid funds; otherwise, they
are intended only as general guidance for
work on any historic building. Historic
lighthouse owners, tenants, stewards and
managers, preservation planners, historical
architects and engineers, contractors, and
project reviewers would all benefit from
guidance contained in the Standards during
the planning and implementation of project
work.
It should be noted that another regulation,
36 CFR Part 67, focuses on certified
historic structures as defined by the IRS
Code of 1986. The Standards for

Part III, Page 2

Rehabilitation cited in 36 CFR 67 should

always be used when property owners are
seeking certification for Federal tax benefits.
In summary, the simplification and
sharpened focus of this revised set of
treatment standards is intended to assist
users in making sound historic preservation
decisions. Choosing an appropriate
treatment for a historic property is critical.
This choice always depends on a variety of
factors, including the propertys historical
significance, physical condition, proposed
use, and intended interpretation.

Preservation
Preservation is defined as the act or process
of applying measures necessary to sustain
the existing form, integrity, and materials of
a historic property. Work, including
preliminary measures to protect and
stabilize the property, generally focuses on
the ongoing maintenance and repair of
historic materials and features rather than
extensive replacement and new
construction. New exterior additions are
not within the scope of this treatment;
however, the limited and sensitive
upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing systems and other code-required
work to make properties functional is
appropriate within a preservation project.
Preservation as a Treatment Philosophy:
Preservation may be considered as a
treatment when the propertys distinctive
materials, features, and spaces are
essentially intact and thus convey the
historic significance without extensive
repair or replacement; when depiction at a
particular period of time is not appropriate;
and when a continuing or new use does not
require additions or extensive alterations.
Before undertaking work, a documentation
plan for preservation should be developed.

Standards, Guidelines, and the Preservation Process

The Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Preservation

1. A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of
distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been
identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be
undertaken.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or
repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a
property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to
stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually
compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and
preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that
characterize a property will be preserved.
6. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of
intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color, and texture.
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.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed,
mitigation measures will be undertaken.

(See Part IV. Historic Lighthouse Preservation in this Handbook for illustrations on how to
apply preservation treatments to historic lighthouses in a way that meets the standards.)

General Guidelines for the Preservation Planning Process

Careful planning before treatment can help prevent irrevocable damage to a historic
lighthouse. Professional techniques for identifying, documenting, and treating historic
lighthouses are continually being refined. The preservation planning process for historic
lighthouses should involve: historical research; identification of character-defining
features; documentation of existing conditions; condition assessment and analysis;
development of a strategy for ongoing maintenance, protection and/or stabilization; special
requirements such as accessibility, health and safety considerations, and energy efficiency
(sustainability); and preparation of a record of treatment which documents actual work
accomplished as part of any preservation project.

Historical Research
Before undertaking project work, research
should be conducted to determine if the
lighthouse is historically significant (see
"What Makes a Lighthouse Historic" under
Part I). Research findings help to identify a
light stations historic period(s) of
ownership and occupancy, expansion and
contraction, and bring greater
understanding of the significant
associations. Research findings also
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

provide the foundation to make educated

decisions for project treatment, and can
guide management, maintenance, and
interpretation. In addition, research
findings may be useful in satisfying
compliance reviews, e.g., Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act as
amended. Most primary records on U.S.
lighthouses are housed in the National
Archives. For a description of these
records, see Part VI., Resources.
Part III, Page 3

Identification of CharacterDefining Features

The Secretary of the Interiors Standards for
Preservation embody two important goals:
1) the preservation of historic materials, and
2) the preservation of a building or
structures distinguishing character. Every
historic lighthouse is unique, with its own
identity and its own distinctive character.
Character refers to all those visual aspects
and physical features that comprise the
appearance of every historic structure.
Character-defining features include
elements such as the overall shape of the
lighthouse structure/building, its materials,
craftsmanship, decorative details, interior
spaces and features, as well as various
aspects of its site and environment.
If the various materials, features, and spaces
that give the lighthouse its visual character
are not recognized and preserved, then
essential aspects of its character may be
damaged in the process of change. The
character of a historic lighthouse can be
changed or damaged in many ways: for
example, by inappropriate repointing of the
brickwork, or the application of a coating
over the brick surfaces, by removal of a
distinctive entry way, by changes to the
window sash or lantern glazing, by removal
of the classical lens, by changes to the
exterior such as changing the daymark, or
by the introduction of new elements such
as modern radar or electrical equipment, or
the addition of chain link fences to replace
historic fencing types, etc.
A three-step process has been developed by
the National Park Service that can be used
by anyone to identify those materials,
features, and spaces that contribute to the
visual character of a historic lighthouse and
its environs. Step one, examine the
structure from afar to understand its overall
setting and architectural context; step two,
move up very close to appreciate its

Part III, Page 4

materials and the craftsmanship and surface

finishes evident in these materials; step
three, go into and through the structure to
perceive those spaces, rooms, and details
that comprise its interior visual character.
For examples of character-defining features
that are typically found associated with
historic lighthouses, see the section on
identifying character-defining features in the
Introduction to Part IV., Historic Lighthouse
Preservation.

Documentation of Existing
Conditions
The goal of documentation is to provide a
record of the lighthouse as it exists at the
present time, thus providing a baseline from
which to operate. All character-defining
features that contribute to the lighthouses
historic character should be recorded. The
level of documentation needed depends on
the nature and significance of the
lighthouse. A building should be
documented before any inventory,
stabilization, or investigative work in order
to record crucial material evidence.
A simple, comprehensive method is to take
35mm photographs of all sides of the
structure (interior and exterior), as well as
general views, and typical and unusual
details. The systematic numbering of
levels, rooms, windows, and doors on the
floor plan will help organize this task and
also be useful for labelling the photographs.
It is also useful to establish the relative size
of the features by including a scale-setting
device in the photo field. A common
scaling device is the "scale bar," a four- to
six-foot-long rectangular bar, approximately
one foot in width, with black and white
alternating one-foot increments. Color-print
and black-and-white film are recommended
over slide film for the archival stability.
Video coverage with annotated sound may
supplement still photographs. Additional

Standards, Guidelines, and the Preservation Process

methods of documentation include written

descriptions, sketches, inspections, and
measured drawings.
Significant structures, such as National
Historic Landmarks or individually listed
National Register properties, could benefit
from professional large format photographic
documentation and accurate measured
drawings. Professionals frequently refer to
The Secretary of the Interiors Standards
and Guidelines for Architectural and
Engineering Documentation; the HABS/
HAER Standards (Historic American
Buildings Survey/ Historic American
Engineering Record). Remember that the
documents created during investigation
may play an unforeseen role in future
treatment and interpretation.
Documentation is particularly valuable
when a feature will be removed, altered, or
lost.
The documentation process can be quite
extensive if the budget allows; if funds are
limited, there are rudimentary alternatives.
Throughout the country there are
architectural, engineering, and preservation
firms that specialize in historic
documentation and research. For a listing
of firms in your vicinity contact your State
Historic Preservation Officer. The work
performed by these firms can cover a wide
range of products. At minimum a site visit
report can be made after a one-day site visit

that produces a series of documentation

photographs and a written description of
the historic and character-defining features
of the structure. The ultimate
documentation of a historic lighthouse
would be a historic structure report that
may involve a complete history of the
structure, development chronology of the
structure, paint analysis, inspection of
interior wall cavities with a boroscope,
extensive materials testing, large format
photography, and collection of historic
photographs.
If the budget does not allow for this type of
extensive documentation, certain minimum
documentation should be performed before
any work is undertaken. Black-and-white
photographs should be taken of all
elevations of the lighthouse as well as
character-defining details such as deck
brackets, door and window surrounds;
lantern elements and equipment; interior
features such as wall surfaces and staircases;
and any architectural millwork such as chair
rail, baseboard, etc. These photographs
will document the pre-existing conditions of
the lighthouse and serve as a record for
future work. Each photograph should be
accompanied by a written description of the
image. The photographs and descriptions
should be archived together with all known
information about the lighthouse, such as
maintenance records, any historical
research already performed, etc.

SIDEBAR: Documenting Historic Lighthouses by the Historic

American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record
(HABS/HAER)
In many cases, the first step in the preservation of a lighthouse, or any historic property, is
documentation. The existing site should be recorded with drawings, photographs and historical and
descriptive reports to define the characteristics and significance of that site. The HABS/HAER
program of the National Park Service was created in 1933 to develop this type of documentation,
establishing a standardized collection of the American-built environment, held for perpetuity within
the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress. All materials are produced to

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part III, Page 5

Figure 2. Isometric drawing from HAER documentation of Block Island Southeast Lighthouse, Block
Island, Rhode Island (HAER RI-27).

Part III, Page 6

Standards, Guidelines, and the Preservation Process

archival standards and specific formats that assure a consistent product throughout the collection.
This collection is available to the public and reproductions of the records can be obtained.
HABS/HAER documentation is usually in the form of measured drawings, photographs, and
written data. The kind and amount of documentation should be appropriate to the nature and
significance of the lighthouse being documented. Level I documentation, which is generally
required for nationally significant properties, includes a full set of measured drawings depicting
existing or historic conditions, photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and interior
views, large format negatives of photocopies of select existing drawings or historic views where
available, and a written history and description. Level II documentation differs from Level I by
substituting copies of existing drawings, either original or alteration drawings, for recently
executed measured drawings. Level III documentation substitutes a sketch plan with an
architectural data form explaining what is not readily visible in the photographs and Level IV
documentation consists solely of completed HABS/HAER inventory cards.
The HABS and HAER programs vary slightly in the process by which a site is recorded. HABS
generally focuses on architectural features and prepares documentation that reflects the as is
existing condition of a site with historical background information in a written format. Little
notation is made on the drawings. HAER generally focuses on engineering principles and
industrial structures, and prepares a record that interprets the site for its significant engineering or
function. Often, the interpretive drawings utilize existing documents as a basis for the
measurements rather than measuring the structure in the field; the objective is to interpret a
concept, not necessarily an existing condition, so that the structure can be rebuilt exactly in all its
historic details.
The documentary record can explain the form or function of lighthouses using a variety of
graphic techniques. The basic drawing includes measured elevations, plans, and sections. More
intricate interpretive drawings use axonometric techniques to explain the three-dimensional forms
and arrangement of parts. These include planometrics (a rotated plan with vertical elements
projected from it), or isometic projections which utilize a 30-degree angle in its base axis (see
Figure 2). Axonometrics are also used to develop exploded or peel-away views that
illustrate how pieces fit together. Photographs or conceptual information are often translated into
illustrations or sketches that further explain a process or character of the structure.
Large-format black-and-white photography is used to capture the actual physical attributes of the
structure and express its context in the landscape and relationship to other structures around it.
Photography also provides greater textural details of the materials weathered condition. Written
documentation provides the basic data necessary for understanding the sites development and
evolution throughout its working life. Specific descriptive information is recorded, and historical
research explains the context, functions, alterations, and theories related to its operation.

Condition Assessment and Analysis

A condition assessment can provide the
owner with an accurate overview of the
current condition of the property.
Architectural investigation is the critical first

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

step in planning an appropriate treatment

understanding how a building has changed
over time and assessing levels of
deterioration. If the lighthouse is
deteriorated or if there are significant
architectural elements that will need special
Part III, Page 7

protection, undertaking a condition

assessment is highly recommended, but it
need not be exhaustive. Both the purpose
and scope of the assessment should be
determined before formulating a particular
approach. Any maintenance or repair
problems should be identified and
prioritized.
A modified condition assessment, prepared
by an architect or preservation specialist or
in some cases a structural engineer, may
help set priorities for repairs necessary to
stabilize the property for both the short and
long term. It will evaluate the age,
condition, and quantities of the following
major elements: foundations; structural
systems; exterior materials and surfaces;
roofs and gutters; exterior porches and
steps; interior finishes; staircases; plumbing,
electrical, mechanical systems; special
features such as chimneys; and site
drainage. Throughout the country there are
architectural, engineering, and preservation
firms that specialize in assessing the
condition of historic structures. For a listing
of firms in your vicinity that specialize in
condition assessments, contact your State
Historic Preservation Officer.
Condition assessment surveys can,
however, be carried out by a maintenance
team familiar with the unique qualities of
historic lighthouses and their maintenance
requirements. Visual surveys will quickly
point out any obvious deficiencies to a
well-trained eye. Observations can be
documented on any standard maintenance
survey form or on individually prepared
survey forms that are tailored to a specific
site.

Strategy for Maintenance

Identify character defining features
Prepare feature checklist for condition
assessment
Determine condition: good, fair, poor

Part III, Page 8

Prioritize maintenance concerns: critical,

serious, minor
Develop a maintenance and monitoring plan
If appropriate, determine quantities of existing
materials for future cost estimates

Maintenance of any structure begins with

scheduled inspections and cyclic and
routine maintenance. Scheduled
inspections are the most basic form of
maintenance and are critical in the longterm preservation of a lighthouse structures.
The inspection process is a method for
identification of maintenance issues and
should be carried out on a regular basis
(quarterly, semi-annual, annual, every
second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-year cycle).
Lighthouse structures are typically located
in harsh coastal environments and should
be inspected at least annually; if inspection
personnel have appropriate preservation
skills, it would be cost effective to
undertake basic emergency repairs in the
field such as securing open doors and
windows and performing temporary repairs.
For lighthouse structures which have
recently been preserved, comprehensive
inspections should be scheduled once every
three to five years. Annual visual
inspections, and inspections after major
weather events would also be
recommended. This procedure identifies
problems so that treatment can be
scheduled during the next maintenance
cycle. If the recommended preservation
treatments are carried out, the annual
maintenance will be routine in nature.
Cyclical maintenance planning would allow
for three-to-five and ten-year cycles for
maintenance activities such as repainting,
reglazing, recaulking, etc.
Lighthouses are unique structures in that
they were originally constructed to endure
severe weather. Because they have
survived 80 to 100 years, the uninformed
public may assume these structures require
little or no upkeep. But lighthouses were

Standards, Guidelines, and the Preservation Process

SIDEBAR: Quantities Tracking, Tallying, and Cost Estimating

Cost estimates are frequently requested products of condition assessment projects and are very
useful in planning the preservation strategy. Lighthouses are also one of the most difficult building
types to estimate. Development of cost estimates for preservation projects is often based on
previously completed work. Prices are compiled for various tasks and a database is created. This
method is used most often to create cost estimates for proposed or recommended projects,
including preservation.
In order to create an estimate, quantities tracking is an essential step. Time should be allocated
during regularly scheduled inspections to measure and tally the quantities of materials which make
up the lighthouse. Geometric calculations will come into play in the determination of various
components and features of any lighthouse given their often circular or conical shape. If any
documentary drawings are available for the lighthouse, the recorded dimensions can be used to
calculate materials quantities.
Once quantities have been figured, it is possible to proceed with a cost estimate. Cost estimates
may be produced in a variety of formats depending on the developmental stage of the project and
the needs of the project managers. The following is a description of some of the most common
types of cost estimates and their uses.
Many government agencies develop in-house estimating guidelines based on previous project
work. Conceptual cost estimates, or class C estimates are often based on per square foot costs
derived from similar construction or identifiable unit costs of similar construction items. These
estimates may be prepared without a fully defined scope of work.
There are many considerations in preparing a conceptual estimate, such as job location, materials
suppliers, labor availability and wage rates, seasons of construction, difficulty of accessing the
structure, geographic areas, and difficulty of terrain.
When preparing an estimate the following information is critical: square footage of the structure
and other important dimensional data (how tall, etc.), anticipated site development including
existing and proposed utilities, anticipated mechanical and electrical needs, anticipated structural
needs, and anticipated construction constraints or unusual site conditions. Given that historic
lighthouses are a unique type of structure there are many other factors to be considered. These
must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Other more refined estimates are based on an approved preliminary design. This type of estimate
or class B is derived from partial lump sum and unit costs. Important information to consider
includes: site planning (existing and proposed utilities, grading, planting, etc.); building design (plans,
elevations, and sections, plus details of the work); schematic mechanical and electrical systems
design (may be in the form of written analysis based on available information); outline
specifications including cut sheets of proposed materials, equipment, fixtures or specialty items
which may significantly influence the estimate); and initial quantity take-offs for utilities, site, and
building systems (civil, landscape architectural and preservation architectural).
The best type of estimate is based on a complete quantity take-off derived from completed
construction documents and specifications. This is characterized as a class A estimate. This type
of estimate is completed when a project is ready to be competitively bid. Support information

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part III, Page 9

should include: final construction drawings and specifications, estimate based on complete quantity
take-offs, and a final bid schedule prepared by the architect.
References:
There are many types of estimating guidelines available for general use, this is a list of those most
commonly found. Consult your local library or bookstore for others. Keep in mind that
lighthouses are unique structures and a certain amount of interpolation may be required.
Walkers Building Estimators Reference Book (annual updates): A Reference Book Setting Forth Detailed
Procedures and Cost Guidelines for Those Engaged in Estimating Building Trades, Frank A. Walker
Company, Lisle, Illinois
National Construction Estimator (annual updates), Craftsman Book Company, Carlsbad, California
Means Building Construction Cost Data (annual updates), R.S. Means Company, Kingston,
Massachusetts
Successful Estimating Methods: From Concept to Bid (First Edition), by John D. Bledsoe, Ph.D., P.E.,
R.S. Means Company, Kingston, Massachusetts, 1996
also designed for a live-in keeper. A trained
professional was on hand everyday to monitor
the condition of the structure and perform the
daily maintenance and upkeep required at a
functioning light. If there was a catastrophic
occurrence, the keeper was there to take
immediate action and follow through with
residual repairs. The keeper was the eyes and
ears of the lighthouse. In todays unmanned
stations this critical link has been lost. In a
sense, the role of the keeper is replicated by
the scheduled inspection and cyclic
maintenance process.
While every effort may have been made to
stabilize the property and to slow the
deterioration of materials, natural disasters,
storms, undetected leaks, and unwanted
intrusion can still occur. A regular schedule
for monitoring and maintenance should be
established to track these events. The
regularly scheduled inspection is also the tool
for monitoring recent work and for creating a
record of the changes to the structure. It is the
primary means for monitoring during the post
construction phases of a project. (For more
information see the inspection charts provided
in Part IV. Historic Lighthouse Preservation.)
Part III, Page 10

Special Requirements
Work that must be done to meet accessibility,
health and safety, or energy efficiency
requirements is usually not part of the overall
process of protecting historic lighthouses;
rather, this work is assessed for its potential
impact on the historic lighthouse.
Accessibility requirements: Modifications to
historic lighthouses and associated historic
structures are often necessary so that they will be
in compliance with current accessibility code
requirements. Accessibility to certain historic
structures is required by three specific federal
laws: the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
of 1990. Federal rules, regulations, and
standards have been developed which provide
guidance on how to accomplish access to
historic areas for people with disabilities. Work
must be carefully planned and undertaken so that
it does not result in the loss of character-defining
spaces, features, and finishes. This can be
especially challenging given the vertical and
confined nature of most lighthouses. The goal is
to provide the highest level of access with the
lowest level of impact. Often a programmatic
solution will satisfy the intent of the laws and
provide the highest level of access. (See section

Standards, Guidelines, and the Preservation Process

on ADA under Safety Management Issues under

Part V., Related Activities for more information.)
Health and safety considerations: In undertaking
work on historic lighthouses, consider the impact
that meeting current health and safety codes (for
example, public health, life safety, fire safety,
electrical, seismic, structural, and building
codes) will have on character-defining spaces,
features, and finishes. Special coordination with
the responsible code officials at the state, county,
or municipal level may be required. Securing
required permits and licenses is best
accomplished early in work project planning. It
is often necessary to look beyond the letter of
code requirements to their underlying purpose;
most modern codes allow for alternative
approaches and reasonable variance to achieve
compliance.
Some historic building materials (insulation, lead
paint, mercury bearings, etc.) contain toxic
substances that are potentially hazardous to
building occupants. Following careful
investigation and analysis, some form of
abatement may be required. Hazardous
materials, especially those historic in nature, may
also be managed in place if maintained in good
condition. All workers involved in the
encapsulation, repair, or removal of known toxic
substances should be adequately trained and
should wear proper personal protective gear.
Finally, preventative and routine maintenance for
historic lighthouse structures known to contain
such materials should include proper warnings
and precautions. (See Safety Management Issues
under Part V., Related Activities, for more
information.)
Energy efficiency (sustainability): Some features
of a historic lighthouse, associated structure, or
site such as cupolas, shutters, transoms,
windows, ventilation systems, porches, or
plantings can play an energy-conserving role.
Therefore, before retrofitting historic structures to
make them more energy efficient, the first step
should always be to identify and evaluate
existing historic features to assess their inherent
energy-conserving potential. If it is determined
that retrofitting measures are appropriate, then
such work needs to be carried out with particular
care to ensure that the lighthouses historic
character is retained.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Preparation of a Record of
Treatment
The Record of Treatment is a compilation of
information documenting actual treatment.
The report usually consists of two parts.
Part 1, the Completion Data, summarizes in
narrative form, the intent of the work, the way
in which the work was approached and
accomplished, conditions encountered,
materials used, the time required to do the
work, and the cost of the work. It also
describes the history of the structure based on
physical evidence discovered during
construction.
Part 2, the Project History contains technical
data such as copies of field reports and other
pertinent correspondence, material data
sheets, field notes, details, site maps,
accounting data spread sheets (list of project
expenses), and narrative contract summaries.
More detailed reports will include lists of
materials (type and quantity) and where they
were purchased (material/vendors charts).
In addition to written reports, graphic
documentation is particularly appropriate for
any work that changes the form or substance
of a historic lighthouse. Drawings and
annotated photographs (before, during, and
after) will be provided in appendices or
integrated into the text of the report.
The Record of Treatment is produced to
enhance the management and research
database for historic lighthouse structures.
This documentation is essential in evaluating
maintenance procedures, forecasting cyclic
maintenance, and interpreting the integrity of
each structure.

Part III, Page 11

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

Bender & Associates, Architects

Introduction

Figure 1. Brick
replacement in 1996
restoration at Cape
Florida Lighthouse on
Key Biscayne, Florida.

Preserving Historic Lighthouses

The expressed goal for preserving historic
lighthouses in Part III., Standards, Guidelines,
and the Preservation Process is retention of
the buildings existing form, materials,
features, and detailing. This may be as simple
as basic maintenance of existing materials and
features or may involve preparing a historic
structures report, undertaking laboratory
testing such as paint and mortar analysis, or
conducting condition assessments.
Protection, maintenance, and repair are
emphasized while replacement is minimized.
In preservation, the options for replacement
are less extensive than in the treatment,
rehabilitation. This is because the assumption
at the outset is that building materials and
character-defining features are essentially
intact.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Preservation encompasses all of the

maintenance issues confronting historic
lighthouses; there is no one set of procedures
that can be applied to every repair or
maintenance scenario. The following basic
concepts should, however, be applied to all
preservation activities including repair and
maintenance of historic character-defining
features. Preservation must be considered as
an option for the interim treatment of a historic
lighthouse as well as the possible ultimate
treatment. This decision depends on all those
issues previously addressed in the General
Guidelines for the Preservation Planning
Process" in Part III and on the individual
qualities, integrity, and condition of the historic
lighthouse in question.

Part IV, Page 1

Identify, Retain, and Preserve

Historic Materials and CharacterDefining Features
The guidance for the preservation treatment
begins with recommendations to identify the
form and detailing of those architectural
materials and features that are important in
defining the lighthouses historic character and
which must be retained in order to preserve
that character. Therefore, guidance on
identifying, retaining, and preserving
character-defining features is always given
first.
Identify the character-defining features of the
historic lighthouse. Character-defining
features are found on both the interior and
exterior of the structure. These features
include but are not limited to:
the overall massing and shape of the lighthouse;
the detailing of exterior materials used in the
construction of the lighthouse, e.g., wood, brick,
stone, concrete, cast iron, etc.;
exterior features, such as roofs, lanterns, porches,
and daymarks;
configuration and type of windows, e.g., wood
double-hung multiple-lite, wood casement,
metal casement, etc.;
door configuration, e.g., board and batten, raised
panel, plank, etc.;
door and window opening treatments, e.g.,
sidelights, transoms, fanlights, ornamental trim,
detailed lintels, etc.;
the interior materials, such as plaster and paint;
the interior features, such as stairways and
moldings, room configurations, and spatial
relationships, as well as structural and
mechanical systems;
support buildings such as keeper's dwelling, oil
house, fog signal building, barn, boathouse,
privy, etc.
site features such as roads and walkways, fences,
flag poles, planters, water collection systems,
docks and wharves, beachheads, seawalls, boat
launch tracks, gardens, etc.; and

Part IV, Page 2

lantern equipment including lenses, lens

supports, etc.1

Once the character-defining features are

identified, an assessment should be made of
those features and their physical condition at
the time of the survey. The assessment should
include all information known about the
features such as material type, size, last time
the feature was serviced, e.g., painted,
repaired, replaced, etc., and the approximate
age of the feature, e.g., does the feature appear
to be original? or does the feature appear to be
a replacement? This assessment should be
kept in the maintenance file of the lighthouse
in order to better plan future repair and
maintenance tasks.
Retain the character-defining features and the
qualities of the historic lighthouse to the
greatest extent possible during any repair or
maintenance activity. Once the characterdefining features are identified, future repair
and maintenance tasks should be planned to
maintain these features, prevent them from
deteriorating, and thereby prevent their loss. If
a feature must be removed to address a repair
issue, e.g., removal of cornice brackets during
a roofing or deck repair, the features should be
carefully removed and labeled in such a
manner that the reinstallation of the features
can be easily and correctly accomplished.
Preserve the character-defining features and
qualities of the historic lighthouse through inkind repairs and routine maintenance
activities. During any repair or maintenance
activity, the ultimate goal must be to preserve
U.S. Coast Guard policy states that Classical
lenses are of special historical interest. Classical lenses
rotating on mercury floats should be modified, if
possible, or replaced because of the special maintenance
and safety requirements of this system. Classical lenses
using other rotating systems, which remain serviceable,
should be retained. Any modifications or replacement
of a classical lens must be coordinated with the
appropriate historic preservation interests. . . . Nonrotating classical lenses should be retained if serviceable.
Modification or replacement of a classical lens must be
coordinated with the appropriate historic preservation
interests. (COMDTINST M16500.8A)
1

Historic Lighthouse Preservation: Introduction

the lighthouse in a manner that utilizes the

most sensitive means available.
For more information on this process see the
National Park Service Preservation Briefs 17:
Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual
Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to
Preserving Their Character.

Stabilize and Protect Deteriorated

Historic Materials and Features as a
Preliminary Measure
Deteriorated portions of a historic lighthouse
may need preliminary stabilization and
protection measures to safeguard those
features until additional work can be
undertaken. Stabilization involves reestablishing the stability of an unsafe,
damaged, or deteriorating structure while
maintaining its existing character.
Stabilizing may include emergency short- or
long-term measures; long-term structural
reinforcement, weatherization, or ventilation;
or correcting unsafe conditions. Temporary
stabilization should always be carried out in
such a manner that it detracts as little as
possible from the historic lighthouses
appearance. Although it may not be necessary
in every preservation project, stabilization is

nonetheless an integral part of the preservation

treatment; it is equally applicable, if
circumstances warrant, for the other
treatments.

Maintain Historic Materials and

Features
After identifying those materials and features
that are important and must be retained in the
process of preservation work, their protection
and maintenance is addressed. Protection
generally involves the least degree of
intervention and is preparatory to other work.
For example, protection includes the
maintenance of historic materials through
treatments such as rust removal, caulking,
limited paint removal, and re-application of
protective coatings; the cyclic cleaning of roof
gutters and internal ventilation systems; or
installation of fencing, alarm systems, and
other temporary protective measures.
Although a historic lighthouse will usually
require more extensive work, an overall
evaluation of its physical condition should
always begin at this level.

SIDEBAR: Protection/Stabilization (Mothballing) of Historic

Lighthouses
When all means of finding a productive use for a historic lighthouse have been exhausted or when
funds are not currently available to restore a deteriorating structure into a useable condition, it may
be necessary to temporarily close up or deactivate the building to protect it from the weather as
well as to secure it from vandalism. This process, known as mothballing, can be a necessary and
effective means of protecting the lighthouse while planning the lighthouses future or raising money
for a preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration project. If a vacant lighthouse has been declared
unsafe by building officials, a protection/stabilization program may be the only way to protect it
from demolition.
Protection/stabilization involves controlling the long-term deterioration of the lighthouse while it is
unoccupied as well as finding methods to protect it from sudden loss by fire or vandalism. This

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV, Page 3

requires securing the lighthouse from unwanted entry, providing adequate ventilation to the interior,
and shutting down or modifying existing utilities. Once the lighthouse is deactivated or secured, the
long-term success will depend on periodic maintenance and surveillance monitoring.
Protection/stabilization is a treatment that can be tailored to suit a lighthouses immediate and/or
interim needs. Protection/stabilization can be used to secure a lighthouse after a catastrophic event
until more permanent repairs can be undertaken. While providing some level of protection against
the loss of significant historic materials and features, protection/stabilization is frequently used to
buy time for the planning or funding needed to undertake a more permanent treatment such as
restoration. As an interim treatment, mothballing activities should always be designed so they are
reversible and contribute to the structures ultimate treatment whether that be preservation or
restoration.
When carried out in a manner sensitive to the historic nature of the lighthouse, protection/
stabilization encompasses preliminary measures to protect and secure the property for an extended
period of time. This includes correcting deficiencies to slow the rate of deterioration of the
structure. These activities should not be done without careful planning to ensure that needed
physical repairs are made before securing the lighthouse. The steps discussed in this text can protect
lighthouses for periods of up to ten years; long-term success will also depend on continued,
although somewhat limited, monitoring and maintenance. For all but the simplest projects, hiring a
team of preservation specialists is recommended to assess the specific needs of the structure and to
develop an effective mothballing program.
A vacant historic lighthouse cannot survive indefinitely in a boarded-up condition; even marginal
interim uses where there is regular activity are generally preferable to mothballing. If a long-term
treatment is the only remaining option, it must be done properly. This will require stabilization of
the exterior, properly designed security protection, generally some form of interior ventilation
either through mechanical or natural air exchange systemsand continued maintenance and
monitoring.
Comprehensive protection and stabilization programs are generally expensive and may cost 10% or
more of a modest rehabilitation budget. The money spent on well-planned protective measures,
however, will seem small when amortized over the life of the resource. Regardless of the location
and condition of the property or the funding available, the following steps are involved in properly
mothballing a lighthouse:
Document the architectural and historical significance of the lighthouse. Documentation of
the historical significance and physical condition of the property will provide information necessary
for setting priorities and allocating funds. The project team should be cautious when first entering
the lighthouse structure if it has been vacant or is deteriorated. It may be advisable to temporarily
brace areas appearing to be structurally unsound until the condition of the structure can be fully
assessed. If pigeon or bat droppings, friable asbestos, or other health hazards are present,
precautions must be taken to wear the appropriate safety equipment when first inspecting the
lighthouse. Consideration should be given to hiring a firm specializing in hazardous waste removal
if these highly toxic elements are found in the lighthouse.
Prepare a condition assessment. A condition assessment will provide the owner with an accurate
overview of the current condition of the property. If the lighthouse is deteriorated or if significant

Part IV, Page 4

Historic Lighthouse Preservation: Introduction

interior architectural elements will need special protection during the mothballing years, a condition
assessment is highly recommended, but it need not be exhaustive.
A modified condition assessment, prepared by an architect or preservation specialist, and in some case
a structural engineer, will help set priorities for repairs necessary to stabilize the property for both the
short- and long-term. It will evaluate the age and condition of the following major elements:
foundations; structural systems; exterior materials; roofs and gutters; exterior porches and steps;
interior finishes; staircases; plumbing, electrical, mechanical, and lightning protection systems; features
such as dormers and chimneys; and site drainage.
Structurally stabilize the lighthouse, based on a condition assessment. Stabilization involves
correcting deficiencies to slow the deterioration of the lighthouse while it is vacant. Weakened
structural members that might fail altogether in the coming years must be braced or reinforced; insects
and other pests removed and discouraged from returning; and the lighthouse protected from
moisture damage both by weatherizing the exterior envelope and by handling water runoff on the site.
Even if a modified use or caretaker services can eventually be found for the lighthouse, the following
steps should be addressed.
Structurally stabilize the lighthouse. In rare cases bracing may have been required to make the
lighthouse temporarily safe for inspection; the condition assessment may reveal areas of hidden
structural damage. Roofs, foundations, walls, interior framing, porches, chimneys, and dormers all
have structural components that may need added reinforcement. Structural stabilization by a
qualified contractor should be done under the direction of a structural engineer or a preservation
specialist to ensure that the added weight of the reinforcement can be sustained by the lighthouse
and that the new members do not harm historic finishes. Any major vertical post added during the
stabilization should be properly supported and, if necessary, taken to the ground and underpinned.
Exterminate or control pests, including termites and rodents. Pests can be numerous and
include squirrels, raccoons, bats, mice, rats, snakes, termites, moths, beetles, ants, bees and wasps,
pigeons, owls, and other birds. Termites, beetles, and carpenter ants destroy wood. Mice, too,
gnaw wood as well as plaster, insulation, and electrical wires. Pigeon, bat, and rodent droppings not
only damage wood finishes but create a serious and sometimes deadly health hazard.
Protect the exterior envelope from moisture penetration. It is important to protect the exterior
envelope from moisture penetration before securing the lighthouse. Leaks from deteriorated or
damaged roofing, decks (that cover interior spaces) from around windows and doors, or through
deteriorated materials, as well as ground moisture from improper site runoff or rising damp at
foundations can cause long-term damage to interior finishes and structural systems.
Ground water, at the ground surface and below the surface, does much more damage to
unconditioned buildings than to conditioned and occupied buildings. It is critical that any roofs,
gutters, or downspouts be in good working order and cleaned seasonally. The soil surface around
the lighthouse should slope away from the building, without any opportunity for puddles to form at
the base. The soil that is in contact with the foundation should never be allowed to be saturated
with water, otherwise there may be damage from water erosion, mold growth, ice lensing, frost
heave, or seepage. Any serious deficiencies on the exterior, identified in the condition assessment,
should be addressed.
Secure the lighthouse and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins and
natural disasters. Securing the lighthouse from sudden loss is a critical aspect of protection and
stabilization. Because historic lighthouses are irreplaceable, it is vital that vulnerable entry points are
sealed. This includes doors and lower level windows.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV, Page 5

 Providing adequate ventilation to the interior. Once the exterior has been made
weathertight and secure, it is essential to provide adequate air exchange throughout the
lighthouse. Without adequate air exchange, humidity may rise to damaging levels, and mold, rot,
and insect infestation are likely to thrive. The needs of each historic resource must be
individually evaluated because there are so many variables that affect the performance of each
interior space once the lighthouse has been secured. In some circumstances, providing heat
during the winter, even at a minimal 45 Fahrenheit (7 C), and utilizing forced-fan ventilation
in summer will be recommended and will require retaining electrical service. For masonry
lighthouses it is often helpful to keep the interior temperature above the spring dew point to
avoid damaging condensation. In most lighthouses the need for summer ventilation outweighs
the winter requirements.
Secure or modify utilities and mechanical systems. This would include, depending on the
circumstances, decommissioning the electrical system although it may be necessary for security
or operating the optic. A more appropriate treatment would be to have the live systems
inspected by qualified electricians, etc., to insure that everything is up to code and that
deteriorating panel boxes are not about to short out, etc. Other historic systems should also be
considered, if applicable. New systems which may be considered practical for temporary
installation as part of the mothballing treatment would be: passive or forced ventilation, heating
in the lantern area, temperature and/or humidity monitors, a security/motion detector system,
or a system for fire protection. These are all sensitive systems and would require some degree
of human monitoring and maintenance, providing additional security.
Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection. With the
installation of monitoring systems and devices it becomes necessary for human attendants to
pay regular visits. Historic lighthouses were once occupied by a live-in attendant who lavished it
with daily care. In this age of remote and automated operation, historic lighthouses are often
expected to go unattended for months at a time. Some level of scheduled inspection,
monitoring, and maintenance is required for the designed life of the protection and stabilization
treatment. The cycle of these visits should be tied to the quality and security of the mothballed
structure. If designed to last three to five years, an increase in the frequency of site visits
would be expected in the third year; by the fourth year, a new treatment would be required or
the previous one renewed. It is not unusual for a structure originally intended to be mothballed
for five years to have this time period stretch to eight or even ten years. If this situation
presents itself, be aware that certain aspects of the original five-year program will have to be
restored or renewed at that time.

Providing temporary protection and stabilization for vacant historic lighthouses and ancillary
structures (keeper quarters, oil houses, boat houses, sheds, outbuildings, privies, etc.) can arrest
deterioration and buy the owner valuable time to raise money for preservation or to find a
compatible use for the property. While these issues may seem simple, the variables and intricacies
of possible solutions make the decision-making process very important. Each building must be
individually evaluated before any work takes place. In addition, a variety of professional services
as well as volunteer assistance are needed for careful planning and repair, sensitively designed
protection measures, follow-up security surveillance, and cyclical maintenance. In planning for the
future of the structure, complete and systematic records should be kept and generous funds
allocated for mothballing to ensure that the historic property will be in stable condition for its
eventual preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration.
(See NPS Preservation Briefs 31: Mothballing Historic Buildings for more information.)

Part IV, Page 6

Historic Lighthouse Preservation: Introduction

Repair (Stabilize, Consolidate, and

Conserve) Historic Materials and
Features
When the physical condition of the characterdefining materials and features requires
additional work, repair by stabilizing,
consolidating, and conserving is
recommended. Repair generally focuses upon
the ongoing maintenance of historic materials
and features rather than extensive replacement
and new construction.
Preservation strives to retain existing materials
and features while employing as little new
material as possible. Consequently, guidance
for repairing a historic material such as
masonry again begins with the least degree of
intervention possible, such as strengthening
fragile materials through consolidation, when
appropriate, and repointing with mortar of
appropriate strength. Repairing masonry as
well as wood and architectural metal features
may also include patching, splicing, or
otherwise reinforcing them using recognized
preservation methods. Similarly, within the
preservation treatment, portions of a historic
structural system could be reinforced using
contemporary materials such as steel rods or
wood bracing. All work should be physically
and visually compatible, identifiable upon
close inspection, and documented for future
research.

Limited Replacement In Kind of

Extensively Deteriorated Portions
of Historic Features
If repair by stabilization, consolidation, and
conservation proves inadequate, the next level
of intervention involves the limited
replacement in kind of extensively deteriorated
or missing parts of features when there are
surviving prototypes (for example, gallery
brackets, steps, window casings, hardware,
railings, or portions of roofs). The
replacement material needs to match the old

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

both physically and visually, i.e., oak with

oak, cast iron with cast iron, etc.
Thus, with the exception of hidden structural
reinforcements and new mechanical system
components, the wholesale use of substitute
materials is generally not appropriate in the
preservation treatment. Although using the
same kind of material is always the preferred
option, substitute materials may be acceptable
in certain instances, i.e., repairing a damaged
piece of historic lantern glazing, if the form
and design, as well as the material itself,
convey the visual appearance of the remaining
parts of the feature and finish. Again, it is
important that all new material be identified
and properly researched for future needs.
If prominent features such as interior staircase,
exterior cornice, or roof ventilator are missing,
then a rehabilitation or restoration treatment
may be more appropriate.
These treatments are critical components of
the process and should not be overlooked.
Treatment measures should not result in
permanent damage, and so each should be
weighed in terms of its reversibility and its
overall benefit. New exterior additions or
reconstruction are not within the scope of any
of these treatments.

Preserving Materials and Features

in Historic Lighthouses
The following sections recommend treatments
for the preservation of historic lighthouses
based on the Secretary of the Interiors
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties.
The information presented is designed to be
used as a general preservation treatment guide
for managers of historic lighthouses. The
materials and features are divided into eight
sections: masonry, iron, wood, and concrete
construction; windows; doors; lanterns;
interiors; and grounds. Each section deals

Part IV, Page 7

with two levels of preservation: protection/

stabilization (mothballing) and repair.
The raw data used for this text were collected
during a lighthouse condition assessment
project performed by the NPS Historic
Preservation Training Center (formerly the
Williamsport Preservation Training Center) in
cooperation with the U.S. Lighthouse Society
and the NPS National Maritime Initiative.
During this project, site visits were made to 21
DoD- and USCG-owned light stations. These
structures were located in various parts of the
country; states visited included California,
Delaware, Florida, Maine, Maryland,
Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and North
Carolina, Oregon, and Virginia. The sites
were chosen because they represented the full
range of construction types.
In addition to the raw data, resources for the
treatment sections of this handbook include
the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties, technical
information from the National Park Service
Preservation Briefs series, National Park
Service Tech Notes series, U.S. Coast Guard
maintenance manuals, and other technical
information sources. The bibliography cites
the primary sources of information listed by
chapter.
For more project-specific questions, a
historical architect or engineer should be
consulted. The State Historic Preservation
Officer can also provide useful guidance and
needs to be consulted before the start of any
project impacting a historic property as part of
Section 106 compliance. (For more
information on Section 106, see Laws and
Regulations under Part I., Why Preserve
Lighthouse?

IV is designed to be referenced in both a

general and specific fashion. When planning
a preservation treatment for a lighthouse, refer
to the sections relating to construction type,
i.e., masonry, iron, wood, or concrete. In
addition to information relating to treatments
of specific construction types, the text will
guide you through an inspection procedure.
The inspection will more than likely indicate
problems not specific to construction type.
Refer to the sections on windows, doors,
lanterns, interiors, and grounds for guidance
on these components.
General guidelines for both protection/
stabilization (mothballing) and repair
treatments are given for lighthouse
construction types and components. As stated
in Part III., protection and stabilization is an
interim treatment to prevent a lighthouse from
further decay until resources are available for a
more extensive preservation treatment. With
this in mind, protection and stabilization in the
following sections should be considered as
temporary fixes or band aids to keep
deterioration in check for a limited period of
time. The repair treatments outlined in the
following sections are designed to be used a
guide for actions taken to correct deteriorated
and/or damaged components of historic
lighthouses. All guidance is intended to assist
the lighthouse manager in putting together a
comprehensive long-term preservation
treatment plan for his or her lighthouse with
maximum retention of historic fabric.
For treatments that go beyond basic
preservation, refer to the case studies in Part
V., Beyond Basic Preservation.

How to Use Part IV of this

Handbook
This handbook is lighthouse specificit does
not address all the issues concerning other
light station buildings. The information in Part
Part IV, Page 8

Historic Lighthouse Preservation: Introduction

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

USCG photo

MASONRY

Figure 1. West Quoddy Head Lighthouse near

Lubec, Maine

Brick and stone masonry is the most

commonly used building material in
lighthouse construction.1 Because of the
harsh conditions associated with the
locations of most lighthouses, brick and
stone masonry was chosen for its durability.
The use of masonry construction ranges
from stone foundations of wood frame
towers to the brick walls of tall towers (see
Figures 2 and 4).

The quality of the materials used for

lighthouse construction varied. In some
lighthouses soft bricks or stones were used.
These materials tended to be susceptible to

Brick and stone are typically referred to as masonry

construction. Because of the similarities in their
preservation treatment, brick and stone are being
grouped together. Concrete, which is sometimes
referred to as masonry, requires different preservation
treatment and will be discussed separately.

WPTC photo

The brick or stone used in lighthouse

construction was typically quarried (in the
case of stone) or made (in the case of
bricks) as close to the site as possible. If the
raw materials were not readily available,
they would be shipped to the site.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Figure 2. Stone masonry foundation in a 38foot-tall wood-frame lighthouse in Maine.

Part IV. A, Page 1

Figure 3. This construction drawing for Mosquito Inlet Lighthouse, Florida, shows the voids or cavities in the walls of tall
masonry towers.

Part IV. A, Page 2

MASONRY

WPTC photo

In some instances the vulnerable, softer

masonry surfaces were not covered with a
protective coating, or the protective coating
was not maintained and the masonry has
since deteriorated. In these cases the
protective coating needs to be reinstalled
after the required repairs are made, or the
masonry may need to be consolidated by a
qualified architectural conservator.

Figure 4. Brick masonry construction in the 171-foot-tall

Pensacola Lighthouse in Florida.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Masonry lighthouses are typically

constructed in one of two configurations:
solid wall or hollow cavity wall. Shorter
towers tend to be solid-wall construction
because the cross section of wall can be
thin enough to support the lantern and
interior stairs as well as economical to
build. Tall towers are typically constructed
with radiating cavities or voids. The
exterior of the tower is the frustum of a
cone while the interior is typically a
cylinder. From the cylinder are radiating
walls that tie into the exterior walls and
create voids or cavities. The voids in the
wall structure save weight while at the
same time do not compromise the strength
of the wall. The voids are typically vented
to encourage air movement through the
internal cavities. This ventilation system
should be preserved and maintained.

Bender & Associates, Architects

accelerated deterioration; therefore they

were painted or covered with stucco for
protection. This treatment not only
provided protection for the lighthouse but
also gave the lighthouse a distinct patterning
or daymarkcharacteristics which should be
preserved.

Figure 5. The coating that once protected the soft bricks of

this lighthouse was not maintained; the severe deterioration
required the replacement of nearly 25,000 bricks.

Part IV. A, Page 3

WPTC photo

Masonry features (such as brick cornices

and door pediments, stone window
architraves) as well as masonry surfaces
(modeling, tooling, bonding patterns, joint
size, texture, and color) are usually
important in defining the historic character
of the lighthouse. The character-defining
features should be retained during any
treatment. While masonry is among the
most durable of historic building materials,
it is also susceptible to damage by improper
maintenance or repair techniques and by
harsh or abrasive cleaning methods.
Therefore, all treatments should be
executed using the gentlest means possible.

Figure 6. The once crisp edges of this decorative granite

lintel have been eroded by constant high winds and airborne
sand.

Why Does Masonry Deteriorate?

Brick and stone are subject to attack by a host of forces. The success of a lighthouse resisting
these pressures depends on how well it was designed, constructed, and maintained. A well-built
lighthouse may withstand damage indefinitely. Lighthouses with weak foundations and parts that
do not shed water or absorb movement, and those made of inferior brick or stone, will deteriorate
at an increased rate.
The leading causes of deterioration are
excessive moisture within the masonry that gives rise to the destructive crystallization action of
soluble salts as well as freeze-and-thaw expansion-and-contraction action in northern climates;
water flowing through walls which can lead to differential settlement, deterioration of adjacent
materials (rusting iron anchors or rotting window lintels, for instance), washing out of internal
bonding and mortar, and other structural problems;
inappropriate rehabilitation techniques such as sandblasting; and
use of mortars that have a high compressive strength, i.e., are harder than the brick or stone.

Secondary factors are

abrasion by the wind and wind-born solids;
differential expansion that places internal stresses on the lighthouse when one part responds to
thermal stresses more than another or;
uneven settlement when a lighthouse shifts because of weaknesses in the soil, foundations, or
structure;
mechanical impact caused by accidents, wear and tear by users, or some renovation techniques such
as installation of aids to navigation equipment;
chemical disintegration caused by pollutants in the atmosphere; and
inadequate ventilation that causes a buildup of moisture on the inside of the tower.
coating of internal walls with impermeable paint that does not allow moisture to escape.

Part IV. A, Page 4

MASONRY

Inspecting for Masonry Problems

In order to develop an effective treatment plan for masonry problems, an in-depth
inspection must be made of the lighthouse and its immediate surroundings. The following
chart, derived from Masonry: How to Care for Historic Brick and Stone (Mark London,
Preservation Press, 1988), is a listing of locations that should be inspected regularly.
Associated with these locations are the possible problems to look for during the inspection.

Inspection Chart for Masonry Lighthouses

THE SITE
Look For:

Possible Problems:
Environment

Typical climatic conditions, including average

temperatures, wind speeds and directions,
humidity levels, average snow accumulation, ice,
wave action, salt spray, and blown sand

Severe conditions can lead to masonry

deterioration, including cracking, spalling, surface
erosion, and efflorescence. Masonry lighthouse
features can be broken or damaged by the weight
of excessive ice build-up or by the impact of
violent wave action or wave-carried debris.

Number of freeze-thaw cycles

Severe cycles can produce damage from frost

action if moisture is trapped in walls or there is a
lack of total structure ventilation. Daily freezethaw cycles may also cause excessive
condensation build-up within the tower that may
promote fungal growth and rot as well as cause
iron components such as stairs, landings, and
hatches to rust and deteriorate.

Location near sea

Salt in the air can lead to efflorescence forming on

the masonry.

Acid rain in the region from nearby industry or

from automobile exhaust

Acid rain can cause damage to limestone, marble,

sandstone, and concrete.

Proximity to a major road, highway, railroad, or

airport

Excessive vibrations can be harmful to mortar

joints and other lighthouse parts.

Location in the flood plain of a river, lake, or sea

Prolonged immersion in floodwaters can cause

moisture damage to foundations and walls.

Exposed or sheltered locations/elements of a

lighthouse

Exposure to the sun and elements affects moisture

evaporation and rain penetration. Portions of the
lighthouse that do not receive sunlight are
susceptible to mildew and other forms of
biological attack.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. A, Page 5

Look For:

Possible Problems:
Terrain

Soil typeclay, sand, rock

The type of soil influences water drainage around

the structure. Excessive water in the soil can cause
rising damp, leading to structural problems.

Slope away from lighthouse on all sides

If no slope exists, puddles will form at the base of

the lighthouse during heavy rains. This may lead
to localized ground saturation and water
penetration. Localized ground saturation may
cause soil around the lighthouse to shift, possibly
resulting in uneven settlement.

Earth covering part of a brick or stone wall or

foundation

Moisture accumulation or penetration is possible.

Asphalt or other impervious paving touching the

lighthouse foundation (if exposed) or walls

Detrimental water accumulation and rain splashback onto the walls can result. Splash-back can
wash mortar out of the joints as well as saturate
the masonry causing premature failure of exterior
coatings (if present).

Trees and Vegetation

Species of trees within 50 feet of lighthouse
Elms and some poplars dry up clay soil, possibly
leading to foundation failure.

Branches rubbing against a wall or roof

Branches may abrade surfaces

Ivy or creepers on walls

Leaves prevent proper drying of the masonry

surface. Tendrils from some species can penetrate
mortar joints, ultimately leading to erosion of the
mortar joints and possibly dislodging the brick or
stone.

THE LIGHTHOUSE
Exterior Walls
General state of maintenance and repair

A well maintained lighthouse should require fewer

major repairs.

Evidence of previous fire or flooding

Such damage may have weakened structure

members or caused excessive moisture.

Signs of settlement such as cracks and sloped or

wavy mortar joints.

These indicate previous water movement. The

resulting cracks can allow water to enter the
lighthouse walls.

Construction methodsolid or cavity wall

Knowing how a tower wall is constructed will

help in analyzing problems and selecting
appropriate treatments.

Part IV. A, Page 6

MASONRY

Look For:

Possible Problems:

Embedded iron (steel) anchors, structural

members, etc.

As iron (steel) rusts, it expands; this expansion can

damage the surrounding masonry.

Evidence that parts of the lighthouse were

constructed at different times or of different
materials

Similar problems with various parts may need

different treatments because of different materials.

Weep holessmall holes at the bottom and top of

walls

Holes allow ventilation from the air space in a

cavity wall. The holes should be clear to allow for
ventilation. If missing, they can be added during
rehabilitation.

Attached antennas, range finders, auxiliary or

replacement lights, etc.

Heavy devices which are cantilevered off the side

of the tower wall may cause eccentric loading. If
this load is improperly distributed, severe cracking
and possible localized failure (i.e., blowout) may
result.

Bulges

Bulges indicate that the wall has moved and

corrective action may be necessary.

Outer-face bulge

Solid walls tolerate movement less if only the

outer face is moving; immediate remedial action
may be necessary.

Cracks

Cracks indicate movement has occured within the

wall. Small cracks may be patched; large cracks
may require reconstruction of the affected area.

Enlarging cracks

Active cracks indicate a continuing problem. The

cause must be dealt with before the crack itself is
repaired.

Consistent wall plane

A crooked or skewed wall indicates movement has

occurred and may still be occurring. This
condition should be monitored to determine
whether the movement is continuing and the
lighthouse is in danger of collapsing.

Windows and Doors

Straight and square openings

Deformed openings may indicate uneven structure

settlement or failure of concealed structural
members, i.e., wood lintels.

Sills sloped to shed water; drips under sills to

prevent water from running back underneath;
caulking

If any of these is inadequate, water can penetrate

into the lighthouse wall.

Sealed window and door frames

If caulking is missing or deteriorated around

window and door frames, moisture can pentrate
into the wall cavity and cause deterioration of the
window or door frame as well as of the masonry.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. A, Page 7

Look for:

Possible Problems:
Foundation

Uneven settlement

This may cause the leaning tower effect and

possibly result in collapse of the lighthouse.

Composition of foundation walls

Stone or brick is more likely than concrete to

allow water to infiltrate.

Damp proof course

This will impede rising damp, lessening

deterioration of the masonry wall. If work is
performed on the wall, the integrity of the damp
proof course must be maintained.

Rising dampdiscoloration along wall in

approximate horizontal line

Could indicate serious foundation or drainage

problem.

Interior
Cracked plaster, signs of patching, stairs and
landings askew

These may be signs of lighthouse settlement.

Damp walls, mold or mildew stains on walls,

efflorescense, bubbling or blistering plaster,
rotting wood

These indicate water infiltration or severe

condensation or moisture buildup within the
lighthouse.

Masonry Components
Materials
Composition, including secondary materials;
characteristicscolor and color variation;
texturesmooth or patterned surfaces

Types of materials indicate the susceptibility to

damage and should be matched if the masonry
component is repaired or replaced.

Areas of delicate carving or fine moldings such as

decorated entry ways or window surrounds

These sections may need special attention or

protection during rehabilitation.

Missing or broken bricks or stones

Missing material may allow water penetration, as

well as indicate movement of the structure.

Evidence of sandblasting, such as a pitted surface;

evidence of erosion, crumbling, flaking, scaling, or
spalling

Sandblasting can remove the outer hard-baked

protective surface of the brick making the inner
softer core vulnerable to moisture penetration.
Sandblasted bricks are not only aesthetically
displeasing, but may be a point of moisture
infiltration as well.

Dirt or stains

Surface stains usually cause few problems other

than being unpleasant to look at. Streaking on the
surface of the lighthouse tower, however, may be
an indicator of deteriorating materials that are not
readily visible, such as rust streaks from embedded
iron anchors, etc.

Part IV. A, Page 8

MASONRY

Look for:

Possible Problems:
Moisture

Water penetration through joints between

masonry and other lighthouse components,
through masonry joints or, rarely, through brick or
stone units

Moisture can lead to deterioration of the masonry

and other parts of the lighthouse.

Staining or white deposits (efflorescence), mold

and mildew stains on walls

White deposits are evidence of excessive

dampness. Efflorescence on most new or newly
repointed walls (new construction bloom),
however, is natural and will disappear after
normal weathering.

Location and type of salt deposits on surface; or

standing water

Deposits can indicate a source of dampness, such

as rainwater or ground water, inside the lighthouse
materials.

Moisture buildup or condensation on interior

window panes

Indicates high moisture levels and poor

ventilation.

Coatings
Applied coating type: stucco, lime mortar wash

Stucco and lime mortar wash are common

lighthouse coatings. Applied stucco surfaces
should be inspected for cracks that could allow
water infiltration. Lime mortar wash or whitewash
is considered a sacrficial coating. The lime mortar
wash protects the lighthouse masonry by wearing
away over time. This coating is meant to be
reapplied periodically like paint.

Paint; type of paint

Paints and other coatings are designed with a

specific permeability rating. A paint or coating
with a low permeability rating may trap moisture
and cause masonry to spall or the coating to
blister.

Blistering, flaking and peeling paint (interior or

exterior), failure of plaster or stucco

These conditions indicate there is an excessive

amount of moisture within the masonry substrate.
Escaping moisture literally pushes the paint film off
the masonry. The amount of moisture
transpiration may exceed the permeability of some
coatings, therefore even coatings that breathe
may fail if the moisture content of the substrate is
high enough.

Waterproof or water repellent coating

Such coatings often trap moisture within the

masonry.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. A, Page 9

Look for:

Possible Problems:
Mortar Joints

Type of mortar used during the original

construction of the lighthouselime based,
usually whitish; or portland cement, grayish and
very hard

A portland based cement mortar may be too hard

for certain masonry bricks and can lead to
cracking or other damage of the brick or stone
units. Replacement mortar should be compatible
with the compressive strength of the masonry
units.

Condition of mortarcrumbling, eroded, missing

Crumbling mortar may be an indicator that the

original mortar mix was made with salt water or
salt water contaminated sand (vs. potable water
and clean sand). If this condition exists the
lighhouse may require a comprehensive
inspection and repointing with a mortar that
matches the compressive strength of the brick or
stone. Damaged or missing mortar can allow
moisture to penetrate; repointing may be required.
This condition may also lead to differential
settling, eccentric loading, cracking or
displacement of masonry, and/or the possible
failure of load bearing wall sections.

Broken or chipped edges of brick or stone along

joints

Damage may indicate mortar in joint is too hard.

Chimneys and Other Openings

Boarded or closed openings such as windows,
doors, fireplaces, etc.

When removing coverings, personal injury may

result from falling debris.

Chimneys, fireplaces, and other types of flues

Different types of soot found in chimneys and

other types of flues may cause serious health
problems. When inspecting these features of a
lighthouse, it is essential to wear personal
protective gear such as a respirator, eye protection,
and if there is a potential danger of falling debris, a
hard hat.

Part IV. A, Page 10

MASONRY

PRESERVATION TREATMENTS
Many of the maintenance and repair techniques described in this text, if not properly
performed, can cause potentially irreversible damage to the character-defining features and
historic fabric of a masonry lighthouse. Therefore, if the tasks to be performed are beyond
the skills of on-site personnel, they should be carried out by experienced and qualified
workmen. A historical architect or building conservator may be required to assess the
condition of the masonry and prepare contract documents for its treatment. In Part V.,
Beyond Basic Preservation, examples of treatments that are considered rehabilitation and
restoration are illustrated and discussed.

Protection and Stabilization (Mothballing)

Despite their inherent durability, a historic masonry lighthouse that is vacant and receives
only minimal routine maintenance is highly vulnerable to decay if not protected and
stabilized properly. To properly protect and stabilize a historic masonry lighthouse, a
thorough inspection and diagnosis should be performed using the inspection chart in the
preceding section as a guide. The results of this inspection can then be used to develop a
protection and stabilization plan. The following recommended protection and stabilization
guidelines for vacant historic masonry lighthouses are the minimum treatment
requirements to prevent any further damage from occurring.

WPTC photo

When a masonry lighthouse is mothballed,

the exterior envelope should be completely
weathertight. When moisture penetrates
into masonry walls and foundations, it can
be exceedingly detrimental to the masonry.
Moisture in a wall or foundation causes
various types of damage: it washes away
softer lime mortars, expands and cracks
surrounding masonry in freezing weather,
causes efflorescence (the leaching of salts
out of the mortar and masonry units),

Figure 7. Lantern glass with holes and/or cracks should be

replaced as soon as possible to minimize water infiltration.
If immediate replacement is not feasible, the glass can be
temporarily patched.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

causes adjacent wood elements to rot, and

encourages fungal growth.
To prevent moisture penetration, be sure
the following moisture infiltration points are
weathertight or functioning properly:
Lantern glass: Lantern glass, frames, and roofs
must be weathertight before mothballing. Refer
to the Lantern section of this handbook for
more information concerning weatherproofing
lantern components.

WPTC photo

Weatherization

Figure 8. Detail of an acceptable temporary repair to a

lantern glass using a piece of painted sheet metal that has
been adhered to the glass with a high quality, exterior grade
caulk. This type of temporary repair will prevent water
from entering the lantern and therefore help avoid further
damage. This fix should be considered only as an interim
treatment until replacement of the lantern glass.

Part IV. A, Page 11

 Gallery decks: In most masonry lighthouses

gallery decks are cast iron, sheet-metal-covered
wood, stone, or concrete. These decks are
generally laid directly on top of the masonry
wall structure. The decking should be sloped
away from the lighthouse to shed the water
away from the structure. If the decking material
is not weathertight, moisture can enter the
interior cavity of the masonry wall. See Figure
10 for signs that a gallery deck is failing. Refer
to the Lantern section of this handbook for
more information concerning the
weatherproofing of gallery decks.
Door and window frames: The joints along the
perimeter of door and windows where a wood
or metal frame is fitted into a masonry opening
should be caulked to prevent moisture from
entering the walls. See the Windows section of
this handbook for the proper caulk for this
application.
Loose or eroded mortar joints: If pointing
between masonry units is loose, cracked,
eroded, or is completely missing, moisture will
penetrate (see Figure 11). In order to prevent
this infiltration, all pointing that is in disrepair
must be removed and the affected joints
repointed. For more information refer to the
discussion on repointing under the Repair
treatment in this section of the handbook.

Part IV. A, Page 12

Figure 10. View of underside of gallery deck; the streaks

on the stucco indicate that water is passing between the
deck plates and possibly entering the masonry wall.

WPTC photo

Built-in gutter systems: All rainwater gutter

systems (lantern roofs, or other tower roof
forms) should be cleaned and checked for
holes. All holes and non-functioning gutter
system components should be repaired. For
more information refer to the discussion on
roofing in the Lantern section of the handbook.

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Figure 9. View of built-in gutter system on a mansardstyle roof; the arrow indicates where a fist-size hole exists.
This hole allows water to enter the interior of the
lighthouse.

Figure 11. Detail of severely eroded brick and painting.

Weep and vent holes: If the walls have cavities

between the interior and exterior walls, weep
holes may exist at or near the base of these
walls. Weep holes typically range in size from
small slits to large brick headers. These holes
allow any moisture that has entered the cavity
between the walls to drain out. These openings
must be kept clear in order to provide sufficient
drainage of the cavity. In some instances the
walls may have vent holes (larger than weep
holes) that allow the movement of air through
the cavities or voids. Typically vent holes open
into the interior. These openings must be kept
clear in order to provide sufficient ventilation
(see Figure 12).
Protective coatings: Lighthouses were often
painted as a protective measure and for
identification as a daymark. As part of a

MASONRY

WPTC photo

WPTC photo
WPTC photo

Figure 13. Vent hole located in the window well of a

brick lighthouse.

mothballing treatment, the exterior coating

should be checked for loose and flaking paint.
Any deteriorating areas should be scraped and
repainted to match the existing color.
Ultimately, as part of a mothballing treatment
the entire lighthouse should have all loose and
flaking paint removed and a new coating
applied according to the manufacturers
specifications. If the overall condition of the
coating system is sound and there are only a few
bare spots, however, the lighthouse can be spot
painted to provide a weatherproof coating.
Either of these actions will result in a coating

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

WPTC photo

Figure 14. Detail of failing paint, a problem which should

be addressed during stabilization and protection. In this
particular case, spot painting may be all that is required to
maintain a weatherproof protective coating.

Figure 12. Typical masonry lighthouse weep hole

locations. Each weep hole provides drainage for each
individual cavity within the masonry wall.

Figure 15. Cracks such these in a sandstone lighthouse

should be monitored for movement prior to treatment.

system that will require minimal service during

the mothballed period. For more information
refer to the discussion on repainting under the
Repair treatment in this section of the
handbook.
Open cracks in walls: Cracks in exterior
masonry walls indicate that movement has
occurred, either caused by shrinkage (in the
case of stucco) or by settlement or mechanical
impact. Cracks should be monitored to
determine if movement is still occurring and

Part IV. A, Page 13

mortar employed should be soft enough to

not permanently adhere to the historic
masonry, thus making the treatment
reversible. Other methods of door or
window opening stabilization include
fitting the opening with a structural wood
frame covered with a painted plywood
panel that has large louvers to aid in
venting the interior of the lighthouse. The
stabilization treatment utilized should not
permanently damage historic characterdefining features and should be easily
reversible so that when the budget allows,
the structure can be properly repaired.

structural stabilization is necessary before the

crack is filled. Refer to the following repair
section for more information concerning wall
repair.

Stabilization
When mothballing a masonry lighthouse,
all possible structural repairs should be
made before the beginning of the

WPTC photo

Ventilation

Figure 16. An example of a reversible masonry

stabilization treatment for the window opening that has
prevented structural deterioration and moisture infiltration.

mothballed period. If funds are

insufficient to make structural repairs,
structural stabilization should be performed
as a less expensive temporary alternative.
Temporary blocking in of window and door
openings and installation of interior or
exterior shoring or bracing are all
stabilization methods. Figure 16 illustrates
a window opening that has been stabilized
with brick infill. Brick is a historic
stabilization method in stone masonry
construction. If this method is used, the

Part IV. A, Page 14

The most difficult lighthouses to adequately

ventilate without resorting to extensive
louvering and/or mechanical exhaust fan
systems are masonry lighthouses in humid
climates. During the summer months
masonry lighthouses will need to be
ventilated to eliminate stagnate air and
damaging condensation on the interior
walls and woodwork. In order to achieve
this, almost every window opening will
need to be fitted with some type of passive
louvered ventilation. Installation of
window-mounted passive louver systems is
covered in the Windows section of this
handbook. For more information on
lighthouse ventilation refer to the Interiors
section of this handbook.

Fire Protection
Despite the fact that masonry is
noncombustible, fire is still a threat to
combustible components of masonry
lighthouses. The impacts of a fire are
devastating and will often cause serious
irreversible damage and loss to historic
interior fabric. For guidance on these
issues, refer to Fire Prevention and
Protection Objectives under Part V.,
Related Activities.

MASONRY

Repair
Before any preservation repair work is begun, all masonry features that are important in
defining the overall historical character of the lighthouse should be identified. These
features include brackets, cornices, window architraves, door pediments, steps and
pilasters, joint size and tooling and bonding patterns, coatings color and texture. During
all repair work measures should be taken to ensure that these features are not damaged.
Once a thorough inspection and diagnoses is performed, using the inspection chart starting
on page 5 as a guide, a treatment plan can be developed using the following basic
masonry lighthouse preservation guidelines.

Cleaning
The simple act of cleaning painted masonry
surfaces can effectively extend the life of
the coating as well as effectively enhance
the appearance of a historic masonry
lighthouse. In some cases where the
masonry has not been painted, a deep
cleaning of the porous masonry surfaces is
needed. This treatment should be used if a
buildup of pollution or salts is causing
deterioration to the masonry substrate. The
following are guidelines for cleaning
historic masonry lighthouses:

Carry out masonry surface cleaning tests after it

has been determined that such cleaning is
necessary. Do not clean masonry merely to
improve appearance.
Clean masonry surfaces with the gentlest
method possible, such as using low pressure
water and detergents and natural bristle brushes.
To select the gentlest method possible, tests
should cover a period of time sufficient to
determine both the immediate and long-range
effects.
Always allow for thorough drying time of the
masonry (months or possibly years) before
proceeding with any sealing of the exterior or
interior.
Always neutralize any chemical treatment.
Do not sandblast brick or stone surfaces using
dry or wet grit or other abrasives. These
methods of cleaning permanently erode the

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

WPTC photo

Clean masonry only when necessary to halt

deterioration or when heavy soiling must be
removed to prevent damage to the masonry.

Figure 17. Deeply eroded brick as a result of

sandblasting. The white areas are where
electrical components were attached to the wall at
the time of sandblasting.

surface of the material and greatly accelerate

deterioration.
Do not use a cleaning method that involves
water or liquid chemical solutions when there is
any possibility of freezing temperatures.
Do not clean with chemical products that will
damage masonry, such as using acid on
limestone or marble or leaving chemicals on
masonry surfaces.
Do not apply high-pressure water-cleaning
methods that will damage historic masonry and
the mortar joints.

Part IV. A, Page 15

External Coating Systems

Historically, external coatings were relied
upon to protect masonry, such as soft brick
or stone, that was susceptible to water
infiltration. The external coating was the
first line of defense against the elements.
Typically the coating was either a paint,
stucco, or whitewash/lime mortar wash. As
part of preserving the lighthouse, all
coatings should be maintained.
Each type of coating protects the lighthouse
in a slightly different manner. Paint
provides a film over the masonry that
prevents water from penetrating. Stucco is
a three-layer mortar and sand shell that
bonds to the masonry to prevent water from
penetrating. Whitewash and lime mortar
wash are lime and water based sacrificial
coatings that protect the lighthouse by
slowly deteriorating as they weather.
Lime mortar wash is typically a three-layer
coating. The first coat consists of lime,
water, and sand; the second, half as much
sand; the third, just lime and water.
Whitewash is lime and water only. Both of
these coatings are meant to be reapplied
every three to five years. More information
on this coating and its application can be
found in the Cape Florida Lighthouse
sidebar on page 23.
The key to the preservation of an external
coating system, especially a lighthouse
coating that is subjected to severe marine
environment conditions, is a thorough study
of the mechanics of the system. Whether
simply touching-up the coating or following
through with a complete restoration of the
external coatings, it is wise to seek the
advice of paint manufacturers technical
representatives.
A thorough study of materials is
recommended before starting any coating
program. An understanding of the
substrate, or base material, must also be

Part IV. A, Page 16

had. This can best be achieved by a

thorough inspection of both the substrate
and the existing coating system. Any areas
of deteriorated substrate should be
examined and repaired before recoating.
Coatings applied to masonry surfaces
should breathe, i.e., the coating should
allow the transpiration of moisture at the
microscopic level. Modern paint coatings
are able to do this. A successful coating
system for masonry surfaces is an
elastomeric acrylic paint system for the
exterior surfaces and a breathable acrylic
emulsion paint system for the interior
surfaces.
All external coatings, especially paints
which may date from the 19th and early
20th century, should be tested for lead
content. If lead is present, local codes on
health, life safety, and environmental
requirements must be met.
Lead found in otherwise sound paint layers
does not dictate the removal of that paint.
In most cases it is far safer and more costeffective to leave intact paint areas in place.
For further information refer to NPS
Preservation Briefs 37: Appropriate
Methods of Reducing Lead-Paint Hazards in
Historic Housing.
Follow the manufacturers specifications for
surface preparation and application of
paint. This will ensure the coating will
perform as designed. For more information
on types of masonry paints currently being
used in the field, refer to the case study on
Point Conception Light Station in Part V.,
Beyond Basic Preservation.
The following guidelines are to be followed
when recoating historic masonry
lighthouses.
Before recoating, inspect all painted masonry
surfaces to determine whether repainting is
necessary. If painting is the determined
treatment, a schedule of colors, locations, and
quantities should be developed.

MASONRY

 Do not remove historic masonry coatings and

leave the underlying layer exposed to the
elements.

Remove damaged or deteriorated material only

to the next sound layer, using the gentlest
method possible (e.g., hand scraping) before
recoating.

Do not apply a sealing type paint to the interior

of a lighthouse. This will potentially trap
moisture in the wall which will cause the wall
to deteriorate.

Recoat surfaces with a system designed for the

masonry substratebrick, stone, or stucco. The
system should be designed to breathe so that
moisture trapped within the masonry units can
escape. This quality is referred to as the
permeability of the coating system.

Repointing
Repointing is the process of removing
deteriorated mortar from the joints of a
masonry wall and replacing it with new
mortar. Properly done, repointing (also
called, somewhat incorrectly, tuck pointing)
restores the visual, physical, and structural
integrity of the masonry. Improperly done,
repointing not only detracts from the
appearance of the building, but may in fact
cause physical damage to the masonry units
and the overall structure.

Use colors that are historically appropriate to

the lighthouse or that maintain the characterdefining features of the daymark.
Do not remove any coating that is firmly
adhering to, and thus protecting, masonry
surfaces.
Do not use methods of removing coatings
which are destructive to masonry, such as
sandblasting, application of caustic solutions, or
high-pressure water blasting.
Do not apply coatings such as stucco to
masonry that historically has been unpainted or
uncoated.

NMI photo

Mortar joints bind together the individual

masonry elements of a wall into a structural
whole, ensuring a watertight seal. The
mortar bed compensates for irregularities in
the stones or bricks, which would otherwise
lead to uneven stresses and cracking of the
masonry unit. The more regular the stone
or brick, the thinner the joint can be.

Figure 16. Daymark patterns are a character-defining

feature and should be preserved.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

A wall made up of many small units such as

brick or stone is both easy to construct and
absorbs inevitable slight movements,
including variations in temperature,
settlement of the building, and vibrations.
To absorb these movements, the mortar
joints must be somewhat weaker than the
masonry units to allow for compressive
loading. If a mortar is used which is high in
compressive strength (i.e., portland
cement), the masonry units become the
weakest part of the wall, and slight
movements can cause the brick or stone to
crack or spall. As mortars become stronger,
they tend to become more impermeable to
moisture than the masonry units and thus
prevent drying through the joints. Moisture
movement then is concentrated in the brick

Part IV. A, Page 17

or stone, leading to damage of the masonry

structure.

When repointing joints in historic

lighthouses, special care must be given to
the matching of the strength of the
replacement pointing mortar with that of
the original pointing mortar. Historically,
softer lime-based mortars were used for
pointing. If the compressive strength of the
original mortar cannot be readily
determined, i.e., the lighthouse had been
improperly repointed with a hard portland
cement based mortar, the mortar should be
matched to the compressive strength of the
brick on stone. For more information on
repointing historic lighthouses refer to NPS
Preservation Briefs 2: Repointing Mortar
Joints in Historic Brick Buildings. These
softer mortars were flexible enough to
expand and contract with the expansion
and contraction of the masonry units which
made up the wall structure.

WPTC photo

Unlike most other parts of a lighthouse,

mortar joints are not designed to be
permanent, although a good pointing job
should last 50 to 100 years. When the time
comes to repoint, shortcuts and poor
craftsmanship will result in a job that needs
to be done soon again or, in the worst case,
in a structural failure.
Figure 19. The use of hard portland cement mortar and
sloppy pointing technique have aided in the deterioration of
this soft sandstone wall.

Modern portland cement has a higher

compressive strength than the lime-based
mortars. This quality makes the portlandbased cements less flexible than the limebased mortars; therefore, the pointing tends
to resist the expansion and contraction of
the softer historic bricks. This resistance
will ultimately cause the faces of the bricks
to fracture and spall off the body of the
brick. In some cases the exterior wythes of
brick may shear from the inner core of the
wall, resulting in the failure of the outer
sections of the wall.
Before repointing, a thorough inspection of
the masonry should made to determine the
extent of repointing needed. Pointing that

Figure 20. Diagram

showing the behavior
of lime-based mortar
and cement-based
mortar during relative
temperature changes
of the surrounding
masonry. (Source:
NPS Preservation
Briefs 2, 1980)

Part IV. A, Page 18

MASONRY

is in need of repair shows signs of

deterioration such as disintegrating mortar,
cracks in mortar joints, loose bricks, or
damp walls. The following are guidelines
that should be followed when repointing
masonry in historic lighthouses.

Do not use electric saws and hammers rather

than hand tools to remove deteriorated mortar
from joints prior to repainting.
Do not repoint with mortar of high portlandcement content (unless it is the same content of
the historic mortar). This can often create a
bond that is stronger than the historic material
and cause damage resulting from the differing
coefficient of expansion and the differing
porosity of the material and the mortar.

Remove deteriorated mortar by carefully hand

raking the joints to avoid damaging the
masonry.

Do not repoint with a synthetic caulking

compound.

Consider leaving the intact portland cement

pointing in place because removal may damage
the masonry.

Damaged Masonry Repair

Duplicate the historic mortar in strength,

composition, color, and texture. A mortar
analysis can be performed by most preservation
professionals.
Duplicate old mortar joints in width and in joint
profile.

WPTC photo

Do not remove non-deteriorated mortar from

sound joints for purely cosmetic reasons.

Figure 21. Detail of eroded pointing.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

WPTC photo

Repair of damaged masonry features can be

performed in a variety of ways. Repairing
masonry features by patching, piecing in,
replacement in kind, or consolidating the
masonry using recognized preservation
methods is a task best performed by

Figure 22. A failing repair made to a stone gallery deck

using a simulated stone material. A stone dutchman repair
should have been used.

Part IV. A, Page 19

professionals specializing in such work.

The following are general guidelines to
consider when repairing historic masonry.
Repair only damaged materials. If possible,
limit this type of work to replacement of
damaged masonry units only, i.e., isolated
removal of a single damaged brick or stone.
When repairing stone, use traditional dutchman
repair techniques as a first choice; consider
substitute materials only as a last resort.
For replacement, use only substitute materials
that convey the visual appearance of the
surviving parts of the masonry feature and that
are physically and chemically compatible.
Do not apply waterproof, water-repellent, or
non-historic coatings such as stucco to masonry
as a substitute for repainting and masonry
repairs. Coatings are frequently unnecessary,
expensive, and may change the appearance of
historic masonry as well as accelerate its
deterioration.

Stucco
Stucco is an exterior plaster which has
historically been used to weatherproof and
in some cases decorate masonry lighthouse
exteriors. Although stucco is nonstructural,
it offers a protective coating and prolongs
the life of a lighthouse. Stucco is both
convenient and affordable: its ingredients
are readily available; it can be readily
applied over stone or brick; and it is
repairable when cracked or broken.
The choice of materials for the aggregate
and binder is critical to match an existing
stuccoed surface. Stucco is an inexpensive
material that forms a resistant exterior shell
to protect more costly and vulnerable
materials, i.e., soft bricks or stone, in the
substrate from exposure and decay; it may
considerably prolong the life of a masonry
lighthouse by sheltering major components
from wear. Also, though stucco application
requires a skilled worker, only a minimal
amount of specialized equipment is
necessary.

Part IV. A, Page 20

Stucco failure is caused by the breakdown

of the its water-shedding capacity and the
ultimate deterioration of the supporting
structure. Poor original materials and
techniques, incompatible building materials
with different expansion rates, structural
settlement, seismic movement, and
biological growth can all cause cracking or
adhesion failure between the stucco and its
backing or between individual stucco
layers. Lack of proper maintenance
increases the likelihood of problems that
can lead to the breakdown of the stucco
skin.
An aggregate and a binder are the two basic
stucco constituents. The aggregate consists
of a fine granular substancesuch as
crushed sea shells, crushed brick and stone,
sand, or old mortarwhile traditional
binders include lime, gypsum, or natural
and manmade (portland) cements. In
addition, mineral pigments can be added
for color and synthetic additives used to
further improve the performance of the
stucco mixture.
A mechanical key must be created to
ensure a strong bond between the stucco
and its support. For masonry, either raking
out the mortar joints or texturing the
masonry surface is usually necessary.
Generally, stucco is applied in one to three
coats; three-coat work is most common.
Layers usually differ slightly in composition,
and each coat is scored to provide a key for
the next layer.
Although the earliest stuccoes used lime as
a binder, by the middle of the 19th century
stucco included other elements such as
imported natural cement. Gray portland
cement stucco, harder and denser than
earlier stuccoes, appeared in the 1880s;
with the introduction of white portland
cement in the early 20th century, a range of
tinted stuccoes became available.

MASONRY

The following are guidelines to consider

when repairing historic stucco:

The gentlest method should be selected and

tested to avoid unnecessary damage.

Identify, retain, and preserve stucco

coatings that are important in defining the
overall historic character of the building.

Remove soiling and biological growth, such as

mold, using a low-pressure water rinse and mild
detergent applied with natural fiber brushes.
Poultice-applied solvents are probably the most
appropriate method for removing graffiti and
metallic stains.

Determine whether the historic finish coat of

stucco was painted, unpainted, or integrally
colored.
When repairing stucco, identify original
components of the stucco mix through
laboratory analysis to match strength,
composition, color, and texture.
Identify substrate and method of keying stucco
to the underlying structure.
Identify finish trowelling techniques to duplicate
the original finish in replacement stucco.
Do not remove stucco from surfaces that
historically featured a stucco finish.
Do not remove and reapply a major portion of a
stucco coating that could be repaired.
Do not apply paint to stucco that has been
historically unpainted or, conversely, remove
paint from historically painted stucco.

Maintain:
Maintain lantern roofs, gutters, and gallery
decks to prevent moisture from penetrating
walls.
Remove all plant materials from the base of
stuccoed lighthouse walls.
Survey stucco surfaces for conditions such as
biological growth, water or metallic staining, or
leaching deposits, which may indicate active
water penetration or damage that is masked by
the stucco coat.
Determine the extent of detached stucco by
systematically sounding the surface with a wood
or acrylic mallet. Areas where stucco layers
have delaminated or are no longer keyed to the
substrate will produce a characteristic
reverberating or hollow sound and should be
repaired as outlined below.

Clean stucco only when necessary to halt

deterioration. It is difficult to clean most
stucco without also removing some of the
textured surface. Test cleaning methods in a
discreet location before full-scale treatment.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Do not use abrasive cleaning techniques on

stuccoed surfaces, which can pit the surface and
increase moisture penetration.
Remove damaged or deteriorated paint from
stucco only to the next sound layer using the
gentlest method possible, such as hand-scraping
or natural bristle brushes.
Maintain paint coatings by applying a vaporpermeable coating when necessary, matched to
existing color.

Repair most stucco by removing damaged

material and patching with new stucco that
duplicates the old in strength, composition,
color, and texture.
Repair cracks in stuccoed surfaces by raking out
the crack and undercutting the edges to provide
a mechanical key for new stucco. Cracks are
most likely to occur at doors, windows, and
where stucco covers joints between dissimilar
masonry materials, i.e., brick and stone.
Do not insert a metal lath over masonry.
Attaching the lath will damage the masonry;
moisture penetration can cause the metal lath
and attachments to corrode.
Do not apply a stucco patch without remedying
the underlying problem.
Remove incipient spalls or bulges back to sound
plaster. Identify and rectify the cause of
deterioration before patching.
Remove previous patches that do not match
texture, color, or strength of the original stucco.
Undercut the repair boundaries to create a
dovetail-shaped mechanical bond between the
old and new stucco.
Test new stucco in an inconspicuous location
and allow test samples to weather as long as
possible, ideally for one year. Matching the
original material will probably require a number
of test samples.

Part IV. A, Page 21

 Do not remove sound stucco or use new stucco

which is stronger or denser than the historic
material. Doing so will damage underlying
masonry as well as alter the appearance.
Patch stucco rather than replace. It is difficult to
match stucco and to conceal patched areas,
especially on smooth-finished stucco. A color
match may not be critical if the surface was
originally painted and will be repainted
following repairs.
Thoroughly wet the substrate before patching to
prevent it from drawing moisture out of the
stucco too rapidly which could affect the curing
time and eventual strength.
Do not patch cracks with commercial caulking
compounds. This type of patch is highly visible
because the material has a different texture and
sheen than stucco. It also tends to attract dirt
and weathers differently.
Do not apply new stucco when there is danger
of frost, or in temperatures below 40 F.
When applying stucco, provide adequate
separation from the ground. Moisture from the
ground can rise through the stucco and into the
supporting structure.
Do not apply paint to repair patches before the
new stucco has fully cured.
Do not apply a bonding agent where a
mechanical bond is possible. A good
mechanical bond is always preferable to
reliance on bonding agents. Only substrates
that do not offer a good bonding surface may
require the use of a bonding agent.
Prevent new stucco from drying too rapidly
during hot weather by shading or repeated
misting for 48 to 72 hours.
Reintegrate detached or delaminated stucco by
low pressure injection grouting with fluid
mortars or synthetic adhesive materials. These
substances must be compatible with the original
stucco. This treatment is generally appropriate
only for decorative stucco that may be difficult
to replicate. The work should be executed
under the supervision of a qualified preservation
maintenance professional.

Figure 23. The five basic steps of stucco repair; each layer
of stucco must be patched separately. (NPS drawing)

Part IV. A, Page 22

Use chemical consolidants on deteriorated

stucco only when deemed necessary by a
trained conservator. The need for this type of
treatment on most stucco-covered lighthouses is
limited. Materials and methods must be tested

MASONRY

before attempting full-scale treatment; different

stuccoes may require different consolidation
materials for chemical compatibility.

Limited Replacement In kind

If repair by stabilization, consolidation, and
conservation proves inadequate, the next
level of intervention involves the limited
replacement in kind of extensively
deteriorated or missing parts of features
when there are surviving prototypes (for
example brick cornices and door
pediments, stone window architraves, wall
structure masonry units). The replacement
material needs to match the old both
physically and visually, i.e., sandstone for

sandstone or dark red, hard-fired brick for

dark red, hard-fired brick, etc. Thus, with
the exception of hidden structural
reinforcement and new mechanical system
components, substitute materials are not
appropriate in the preservation treatment.
Again, it is important that all new material
be identified and properly documented for
future research.
If prominent features are missing, such as
formal stone or brick entry stairs or interior
decorative brick or marble floors, then a
rehabilitation or restoration treatment may
be more appropriate.

Bender & Associates, Architects

SIDEBAR: Brick Replacement and

Coating of Cape Florida
Lighthouse
The original Cape Florida Lighthouse on Key
Biscayne, Florida, was built in 1825 to a height
of 65 feet. The tower wall was constructed
with a solid brick wall five feet thick at the base
and tapering to two feet at the top. The
present Cape Florida Lighthouse was
constructed around 1846 with a four-feet-thick
brick masonry wall at the base. To meet the
aid-to-navigation needs, in 1855 the towers
height was raised to 95 feet with a focal plane at
100 feet above sea level. From 1869 until the
light was discontinued in 1878, the lighthouse
received numerous repairs.

After 1878, the lighthouse began deteriorating

because of lack of maintenance. It was restored
and the foundation upgraded in 1915 and 1918
respectively. The deterioration was reinitiated
Figure 24. Cape Florida Lighthouse with
when a hurricane in 1926 eroded the tip of the
scaffolding used during the 1996 restoration. The
white coating on the tower is the lime mortar wash
Cape, increasing the vulnerability of the tower
applied to help protect the damaged brick and to
to further decay and deterioration. In 1966
restore the tower to its 1846 appearance.
when the state of Florida acquired the
lighthouse, a four-year renovation effort was
instituted for the entire station. During this time a replica of the keepers quarters and a new
lantern was constructed.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. A, Page 23

Bender & Associates, Architects

Bender & Associates, Architects

Figure 25. View of the lower portion of the tower

showing the more severe deterioration. Note that a
large percentage of the first brick wythe is missing or
has been removed. The white areas are remains of a
portland-cement-based parging applied in the late
1960s in an effort to protect the deteriorating bricks.

Figure 26. View of the lower tower window; note

the depth of the brick deterioration at the window
openings. The face of the protruding granite lintel
above the window opening represents the face of
the original wall.

Part IV. A, Page 24

A condition assessment performed in 1989

stated that the outer brick surface was
severely deteriorated with large areas
covering approximately 40% of the first brick
wythe missing.2 Two causes contributed to
the deterioration of the lighthouses exterior
brick. First, there was the lack of
maintenance for the circa-1870-applied
mortar wash coating after deactivation of the
lighthouse in 1878. Second, the remaining
remnants of the exterior mortar wash coating
were removed from the brick during the
1960s renovation by sandblasting.
Sandblasting is a treatment method that pits
the masonry surface, exposing the soft inner
core of the bricks, thus accelerating
weathering and deterioration. Despite this
deterioration the condition assessment
determined that the tower was constructed of
good quality bricks, and the tower remained
structurally sound.
In 1996, the Cape Florida Lighthouse was
restored to its 1846 appearance. The severe
deterioration of the exterior brick required
the replacement of nearly 26,000 bricks.
Before installing the replacement bricks, the
exterior surface of the lighthouse was
stabilized by removing the deteriorated
mortar and repointing with a similar mortar
mix that was used historically. The mortar
used was designed to be compatible with the
strength of the extant bricks. The areas of
missing bricks were repaired using new
replacement hand-molded bricks and
masonry anchors. The masonry anchors
were placed in holes drilled into the existing
bricks and then set with mortar. This
treatment helped to tie together the old and
new masonry.
To protect the historic bricks from further
deterioration, the exterior of the tower was
coated with a sacrificial lime mortar wash.
Protection of the soft masonry is vital to

Bert L. Bender, Architectural and Engineering

Report, Cape Florida Light, Key Biscayne, Dade County,
Florida, Key West, Florida, November 1989.
2

MASONRY

Bender & Associates, Architects

Bender & Associates, Architects

Figure 27. View of repairs being made to the exterior

wall. A new brick wythe is being installed where
bricks were missing, using mortar that matches the
strength of the new and historic bricks. Masonry
anchors are used to attach the new wythe to existing
wall. The deteriorated mortar joints in the extant wall
were repointed with a matching mortar mix.

Figure 28. Here a mason is implementing repairs to the

exterior wall. The missing bricks were replaced with inkind materials: the bricks match the historic bricks in size
shape and strength. The mortar joint sizes are also being
made to match the historic in size, color, and texture, as
demonstrated in this photo. The vertical strings over the
brickwork define the wall plane, so when the mason
places the bricks, they maintain the taper of the conical
tower.

maintaining the historic fabric and character of the structure. The sacrificial lime mortar wash
is a three-coat system that was applied with natural bristle whitewash brushes. The specification
for the lime mortar wash mix was as follows:
3-coat lime mortar wash:
1st - 6 parts lime, 6 parts sand, 1 part portland cement.
2nd - 12 parts lime, 6 parts sand, part portland cement
3rd - 1 finish coat whitewash - water and lime mix (no sand)
This coating system allows the porous brick to breathe; therefore any moisture trapped in the
brick can escape. Non-breathable coatings tend to trap moisture in the walls, which can
accelerate the deterioration of the masonry. The life expectancy of this coating is approximately
ten years in this part of the country.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. A, Page 25

SIDEBAR: The
Building of Minots
Ledge Light Station

Minots Ledge Lighthouse,

located on a rock barely
visible above the sea near the
entrance to Boston Harbor,
Massachusetts, is Americas
Figure 29. Cross section for 114-foot
Minots Ledge Lighthouse.

Part IV. A, Page 26

National Archives photo

For many people, their vision

of a classic lighthouse is a
wave-swept tower. John
Smeaton, an Englishman,
built the first successful waveswept tower in 1759 at
Eddystone Rock, in the
English Channel, made
famous by the song Eddystone
Light. This was the first
interlocking-masonry-block
lighthouse tower. Later
Smeaton developed a cement
that would set up in water.
These two inventions
revolutionized open-sea
lighthouse construction and
remained the principal
method for their construction
until concrete and steel came
into use just after the turn of
the 19th century. Waveswept towers were built by
interlocking large cut stones,
both horizontally and
vertically. This integral intertonguing formed a monolith
of great weight, which
combined with their conical
shape, diverted the energy of
the waves away from the
tower, enabling them to
withstand the heavy
pounding of the surf.

MASONRY

version of Eddystone Lighthouse. The first wave-swept stone tower to be built in the United
States, it took five years to complete and cost approximately $300,000 to build. Between 1832
and 1841 over 40 vessels had been lost in the area of Minots Ledge. In 1847 Congress
appropriated $20,000 for construction of the first Minots Rock Lighthousethe first iron
straight-pile lighthouse built in the United States. The lighthouse consisted of a skeletal
wrought-iron pile tower built with one central and eight periphery wrought-iron piles, wedged
into holes drilled in the ledgedesigned to provoke the least amount of resistance to the sea.
Construction equipment was twice swept from the rock during summer storms; workmen
were several times swept into the sea by unexpected waves, but none were drowned. The first
Minots Ledge Lighthouse, lit on January 1, 1850, was destroyed in a storm on April 16, 1851;
both keepers were lost. The piles were found twisted and broken, leaving stubs still wedged in
place.

National Archives photo

On August 31, 1852, Congress approved the erection of the second and still standing lighthouse
on the Outer Minots rock. This time the design chosen was one of interlocking granite
blocks. The plans consisted of a masonry tower in the form of a frustum of a cone, solid for
the lower 40 feet of its 114-foot height. Because the ledge was exposed only at low tide and on
calm days, the work was very slow. Tides were found to be right only six times during any
one lunation, three at full moon and three at the change. It took three years to prepare the
ledge for the first course of granite masonry which was cut and test assembled on nearby Gulf
(later called Government) Island, near Cohasset, where the government acquired 7.3 acres of
farmland for a staging area for the building of the second lighthouse. Here stone-sheds were
erected for the stone cutters and a perfectly flat pavement prepared so the stones once cut could
be pre-assembled for correct fitness. Granite from Quincy was chosen as being finest of grain,
toughest and clearest of sap. An iron scaffold was erected on the ledge for the safety of the

Figure 30. Workers on a calm day, completing the first course of granite block for the foundation of Minots Ledge
Lighthouse, 1858

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. A, Page 27

workmen and to facilitate the tedious and

difficult operations on the rock. Captain
Michael Neptune Brennock was hired
as lifeguard. He stationed himself in a
sloop along side the rock to pick up
workmen whom the waves swept from
the ledge. Additionally a man was posted
to warn the workmen of incoming large
waves, hollering out roller coming!
when necessary.

National Archives photo

Permanent iron shafts, about 20 feet high

were set in eight of the holes in which the
old lighthouse piles had been placed,
while the central hole was left open to
form a cavity for the base circle of
stoneslater formed into a 2,200 gallon
capacity cistern. Ropes attached to the
piles were used by the workman to grasp
when waves washed over the ledge. The
piles were also used as derricks in laying
the stones. This framework was
destroyed on January 19, 1857, when the
bark New Empire struck the ledge during
a severe storm and altered the rock
surface, necessitating a change in the
shape of the foundation stones. New
pilings were inserted in the holes, this
time 25 feet long. Temporary cofferdams
Figure 31. Work on Minots Ledge Lighthouse as it
were constructed from sand bags so the
progressed just above the entrance level which is visible
foundation stones, which lay more than
on the left. The tower below this level was essentially
two feet below low tide, could be
solid.
cemented to the rock ledge. After much
experimentation, it was determined that the mortar should be spread on muslin cloth and
wrapped around each stone before it was lowered into place. The mortar was then
compressed by the weight of the stone and oozed through the cloth and formed a good
adhesion with the rock-surface. Each stone was dovetailed and doweled to each other in the
securest manner so that the pressure from the impact of the waves tightened instead of
weakening the union. Each foundation stone weighted about two tons and was fastened to
the rock by 2-inch galvanized wrought-iron bolts. Strap irons attached between the piles
kept the stone courses apart until the cement hardened.
The lighthouse was ceremoniously lit August 22, 1860, one day short of five years after
beginning construction. But the light was not regularly shown until November 15 when the
keepers assumed their official duties. Unlike the first pile structure, the stone wave-swept
tower has survived to the present. Minots Ledge Lighthouse is considered the most
important engineering work constructed by the U.S. Lighthouse Board; it ranks, by the
engineering difficulties surrounding its erection, and by the skill and science shown in the
details of its construction, among the chief of the great sea-rock light-houses of the world.

Part IV. A, Page 28

MASONRY

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

WPTC photo

IRON
Figure 1. Cast-iron-and-steel skeletal 191-foot-tall tower at
Cape Charles, Virginia

Second to masonry, iron was the most

common lighthouse construction material.
For lighthouse construction, iron was used
in a variety of its commercially
manufactured alloys: wrought iron, cast
iron, steel, galvanized iron and steel, and
stainless steel. In historic lighthouses the
most widely used alloy was cast iron. The
use of cast iron in lighthouse construction
ranged from simple prefabricated lanterns
to caisson-style foundations to 190-foot-tall
first-order coastal towers. For more on the
variety of iron lighthouse construction types
refer to Part II., History of the Lighthouse
Service and Lighthouse Construction
Types.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Iron was also used for the production of

architectural trim features such as gallery
deck brackets, entryway pilasters and
pediments, doors, and prefabricated lantern
components. These iron features were used
on masonry and wood as well as iron
lighthouses. Other iron alloys such as steel,
galvanized iron and steel, and stainless steel
are mostly found in modern additions such
as handrails, equipment brackets, security
doors, etc.
This section will discuss the preservation of
iron alloys used in lighthouse tower
construction and decoration. Because of
their similar properties, the various iron
alloys will be discussed together; special
treatments concerning a specific alloy will

Part IV. B, Page 1

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Figure 2. Example of a keeper's quarters fitted with a

prefabricated cast-iron-and-steel lantern.

Figure 4. Double-wall, cast-iron, first-order 163-foot-tall

coastal tower at Cape Henry, Virginia.

Figure 3. Example of an all-cast-iron construction

"sparkplug" caisson-style lighthouse.

be discussed accordingly. The use of iron

in the construction of lanterns and the
special considerations associated with iron
in the presence of unlike metal corrosion
(galvanic corrosion) will be discussed in the
Lantern section. Other metals such as brass
and bronze will also be discussed in the
Lantern section.

Iron Alloys Found in Historic

Lighthouses
Of the iron alloys, cast iron was a perfect
choice for lighthouse construction for two
principal reasons. First, cast iron is
relatively resistant to corrosion because of
its microstructure component compounds
graphite and phosphide eutectic. These
compounds are not present in steel, which
explains why the two materials corrode in

Part IV. B, Page 2

different manners. Second, cast iron can be

cast into virtually any shape that is required
for structural or decorative purposes. To
form complex shapes and structural
systems, these castings were designed with
flanges that made it possible to bolt the
component parts together. This
prefabricated style of construction
facilitated the erection of lighthouses in a
timely, economical manner. This method
also allowed for the dismantling and
relocation of a lighthouse if site conditions
were compromised by encroaching erosion.
The various steel alloys were used
throughout the structure of a historic
lighthouse, but to a lesser degree than cast
iron. Most mild steel, stainless steel, and
galvanized steel components have been
used in modern additions or repairs. These
components appear mostly as pre-

IRON

WPTC photo

Figure 5. A view of decorative-rope nautical-style castiron window surrounds on Cape Canaveral Lighthouse.

WPTC photo

manufactured items such as structural I

beams, replacement handrails, equipment
brackets, and items that can be fabricated
into functional parts of the lighthouse.
Figure 6. A view of the inner cavity and skeletal structure
of the Cape Henry Lighthouse.

Iron Alloys Commonly Found in

Historic Lighthouses

National Archives

Wrought iron is relatively soft, malleable,

tough, fatigue-resistant, and easily
worked by forging, bending, rolling, and
drawing. Until steel was available,
wrought iron was used structurally for
beams and girders as it had strength in
both tension and compression. During
the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it
was not unusual to find a mixture of castiron columns and wrought iron or steel
beams in the same lighthouse. Currently,
very little wrought iron is being produced.
Cast iron is an iron-carbon alloy with a
high carbon content. It is easily poured
while molten into molds, making possible
numerous decorative and structural uses.
Cast iron is too hard and brittle, however,
to be shaped by hammering, rolling, or
pressing. Cast iron contains in its
microstructure several relatively
corrosion resistant components which are
mostly absent from the microstructure of
steel. Because of this, the two materials
corrode in different manners. It is more
rigid (highly resistant to buckling) than
other forms of iron and can withstand

Figure 7. Shop drawings used for the production of cast-iron

lighthouse parts for a screwpile lighthouse.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. B, Page 3

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Figure 8. An example of the level of detail

achieved with cast-iron construction.

great compressive loads, which helps account for its

ubiquitous use for lighthouse tower structure
components such as wall plates, columns, sockets,
struts, deck plates, etc. Cast iron does have some
drawbacks. There is the potential for inherent flaws in
cast pieces such as trapped air pockets or foreign
material such as casting sand or slag trapped in the iron
during the casting process. These flaws can be avoided
if the castings are thoroughly inspected and the casting
process is performed to accepted industry tolerances.
Steel is an alloy of iron and carbon that contains not
more than 2% carbon, and is malleable in block or
ingot form. Steel may include phosphorus, sulfur,
oxygen, manganese, silicon, aluminum, copper,
titanium, molybendum, and nickel. The properties of
steel can vary greatly in relation to the chemical
composition and the type of heat treatment and
mechanical working used during manufacture.
Characteristics affected by these differences include
strength, hardness, ductility, resistance to abrasion,
weldability, machinability, and resistance to corrosion.
A grade of medium carbon steel is used for most
lighthouse applications today such as handrails,
equipment brackets, new light support structures, etc.
Galvanized steel and iron consist of steel or iron with a
zinc coating, which makes it highly resistant to
corrosion. As in the past, zinc is still widely used as a
protective coating for iron and steel. A major
advantage of zinc coating on iron is that if the zinc is
worn away or broken and the iron is exposed to the
atmosphere, galvanic corrosion of the more base zinc
occurs, protecting the more noble iron. (The terms
base and noble refer to the relative reactivity of the zinc
and iron. A metal that is considered a base is more
reactive than a metal that is considered noble. These
properties are directly related to the number of free
electrons that exist in the molecular structure of the
metal.)
Stainless steel is defined as a steel containing sufficient
chromium, or chromium and nickel, to render it highly
resistant to corrosion. Stainless steel is malleable,
hardened by cold working, and resistant to oxidation,
corrosion, and heat. It has characteristics of high
thermal expansion and low heat conductivity, and can
be forged, soldered, brazed, and welded. Because of its
relatively inert properties, stainless steel components
are mostly found in replacement parts such as bolts
where the possibility of galvanic corrosion could occur.
Stainless steel is available in various grades. Given the
complexity of the issues and potential application, the
selection of the proper grade of stainless steel for use in
a marine environment requires careful evaluation by an
engineer.

WPTC photo

Figure 9. A modern range finder attached to the

gallery deck using modern steel members.

Figure 10. Close-up of a lantern glass frame: note

the use of stainless steel bolts; the lower clamps are
also stainless steel that have been painted black.

Part IV. B, Page 4

IRON

Causes of Iron Deterioration and

Failure

WPTC photo

Iron lighthouse components are subjected to

a host of forces associated with a marine
environment. How successfully a lighthouse
resists these pressures depends on how well
it is designed and maintained. Iron
lighthouses that are poorly maintained will
deteriorate rapidly.

Figure 11. Detail view of a steel ladder that has been

uniformly attacked by corrosion.

In scientific terms, deterioration is generally

defined as a decrease in the ability of the
material to fulfill the function for which it
was intended. It usually refers to the
breakdown of a material because of natural
causes, although deterioration can also be
either directly or indirectly caused by man.
Deterioration can also be defined as the
changing of a material from a higher to a
lower energy state. Although deterioration
usually implies a chemical change, under
some conditions the change can be physical.
There are five possible forces that can act on
an iron lighthouse component and cause its
failure: corrosion, inherent flaws,
mechanical breakdown, weathering, and
connection failure.

Corrosion
Corrosion, in one form or another, is the major cause of the deterioration of iron lighthouse
components. Often called oxidation, it is the chemical reaction of a metal with oxygen or
other substances. The deterioration of iron lighthouse components is a complex process
because the type and degree of corrosion is affected by minor variations in environment,
contact with other metals and materials, and the composition of the component itself.
Upon exposure to the atmosphere, almost all new or newly cleaned metals become coated
with a thin film of metallic oxide, which is a result of the reaction of the metal with oxygen.
This film may modify the properties of the metal and make it less susceptible to further
corrosion. In the case of rusting iron, however, the oxide does not form a protective coating
but rather promotes the continued corrosion of the metal. The three most common types of
corrosion experienced by iron lighthouse components are as follows:
Oxidation or rusting occurs rapidly when the iron component is exposed to moisture and air. The
minimum relative humidity necessary to promote rusting is 65%, but this figure can be lower in the
presence of corrosive agents, such as sea water, salt air, acids, acid precipitation, soils, and some
sulfur compounds present in the atmosphere, which act as catalysts in the oxidation process.
Rusting is accelerated in situations where the shape of the iron details provide pockets or crevices
to trap and hold liquid corrosive agents. Furthermore, once a rust film forms, its porous surface
acts as a reservoir for liquids, which in turn causes further corrosion. If this process is not arrested,
it will continue until the iron is entirely consumed by corrosion, leaving nothing but rust.
Galvanic corrosion is an electrochemical action that results when two dissimilar metals react
together in the presence of an electrolyte, such as water containing salts or hydrogen ions. The

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. B, Page 5

WPTC photo
WPTC photo

Figure 12. Close-up of localized corrosion or pitting

where the corrosion has eaten through the cast iron.

severity of the galvanic corrosion depends

on the difference in potential between the
two metals, their relative surface areas,
and span of time. If the more noble metal
(higher position in electrochemical series)
is much larger in area than the baser, or
less noble, metal, the deterioration of the
baser metal will be more rapid and severe.
If the more noble metal is much smaller in
area than the baser metal, the deterioration
of the baser metal will be much less
significant. Iron lighthouse components
will be attacked and corroded when they
are adjacent to more noble metals such as
lead or copper. For more on galvanic
corrosion refer to the Lantern.
Graphitization of cast iron, a less common
problem, occurs in the presence of acid
precipitation or seawater. As the iron
corrodes, the porous graphite (soft carbon)
corrosion residue is impregnated with
insoluble corrosion products. As a result,
the cast-iron element retains its appearance
and shape but is weaker structurally.
Graphitization occurs where cast iron is
left unpainted for long periods or where
caulked joints have failed and acidic
rainwater has corroded pieces from the
backside. Testing and identification of
graphitization is accomplished by scraping
through the surface with a knife to reveal
the crumbling of the iron beneath. Where
extensive graphitization occurs, usually
the only solution is replacement of the
damaged element.

Inherent Flaws

Castings may also be fractured or flawed as a

result of imperfections in the original
manufacturing process, such as air holes,
Figure 13. View of a steel railing where corrosion has
cracks, and cinders, or cold shuts (caused by
occurred in distinct locations either because of
the freezing of the surface of the molten
variations in composition or localized failure of the
iron during casting because of improper or
coating system.
interrupted pouring). Brittleness is another
problem occasionally found in old cast-iron
elements. It may be a result of excessive phosphorus in the iron, or of chilling during the
casting process.
The corrosion of iron lighthouse components takes several forms:
Uniform attack is where the iron component corrodes evenly where exposed to corrosive agents.
Pitting is the localized corrosive attack on the iron component.
Selective Attack can occur where an iron components composition is not homogeneous and certain
areas are attacked more than others.

Part IV. B, Page 6

IRON

Mechanical Breakdown

WPTC photo

Stress corrosion cracking can occur where

stresses were induced into the iron component
in the pulling or bending process of
metalworking and the component later
subjected to a corrosive environment. For
example, stainless steels can crack in
environments containing chloride, and carbon
steels in nitrate, cyanide, or strong caustic
solutions.
Erosion occurs when the corrosion-resistant
film or oxide or layer of protective corrosion
product is removed by abrasion, exposing fresh
metal to the corrosive agents.

Figure 15. As corrosion attacked this steel handrail,

wind and airborne sand eroded the loose and flaking
surface rust.

Iron lighthouse components can also fail

from purely physical causes such as abrasion,
or a combination of physical and chemical
attack, such as weathering and stress
corrosion cracking.

WPTC photo

Abrasion is the erosion of the iron component

caused by moving dirt, dust, sand, grit, sleet,
and hail, or rubbing by another lighthouse
component or human element. Abrasives can

WPTC photo

Figure 16. As corrosion attacked this steel turnbuckle,

wind and airborne sand eroded away the flaking rust.

Figure 14. Nearly 30% of this ventilation shroud has

been lost to two forms of abrasion: first, sand or grit
blasting abraded away a majority of the material;
second, human touch has smoothed the once rough
surface.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

also encourage corrosion by removing the

protective coating (paint) from the iron
lighthouse component.
Fatigue is failure of an iron component by the
repeated application of cyclic stresses below
the elastic limitthe greatest stress a material
can withstand without permanent deformation
after removal of the load. It results from a
gradual or progressive fracture of the crystals.

Part IV. B, Page 7

WPTC photo

Overloading is the stressing of an iron

lighthouse component beyond its yield point
so that permanent deformation, fracturing, or
failure occurs. It can fail through the
application of static loads, dynamic loads,
thermal stresses, and settlement stresses
either singly or in combination. Buckling
is a form of permanent deformation from
overloading which is usually caused by
excessive weight but can also be caused by
thermal stresses. Members can also be
overloaded if their support is removed and
loads are redistributed to other members
which can become overstressed and
deformed. An iron lighthouse component
can fail or become permanently deformed by
the phenomenon known as rust-jacking. The
failure or deformation is the result of the
expansion of the iron component as it
oxidizes. This expansion jacks the two
members apart.

Figure 17. The cyclic pressure of the different rates

of expansion and contraction of the exterior cast-iron
plates and the interior brick lining of the caisson-style
lighthouse has caused the cast-iron plates to fatigue
and crack.

An iron lighthouse component subjected to

the weather is exposed to various chemical
and physical agents singly and in
combinations of several at one time. The
result is a kind of synergism where the total
effect is greater than the sum of the
individual effects taken separately. For
example, the rate of corrosion accelerates
with increases of temperature, humidity,
and surface deposits of salts, dirt, and
pollution.

WPTC photo

Weathering

Figure 18. The internal structural skeleton of this

lighthouse is cracked because of overloading possibly
during assembly.

The failure of the connections of iron

lighthouse components, especially
structural members, can also be caused by
a combination of physical and/or chemical
agents. The most common type of
connections used for iron structural
elements of historic lighthouses include
bolting, riveting, pinning, and welding.
Figure 19. This handrail has been damaged by rustThese connections can fail through the
jacking; rusting began between the two pieces of flat
overloading, fatiguing, or corrosion of the
bar stock that formed the rail.
connectors. Common examples of this
type of failure include the corrosion, usually by concentration cells (or battery affect caused
by dissimilar metals), of bolt heads, rivets, and areas covered by fastening plates. The
effective cross-sectional area of the connectors is often reduced by corrosion, making the
connectors more susceptible to stress failure.

Part IV. B, Page 8

WPTC photo

Connection Failure

IRON

Inspecting for Possible Problems

In order to develop an effective treatment plan for iron lighthouse problems, an in-depth
inspection must be made of the iron lighthouse and its immediate surroundings. The
following chart is a listing of locations that should be inspected regularly. Associated with
these locations are the possible problems to look for during the inspection.

Inspection Chart for Iron Lighthouses

THE SITE
Look For:

Possible Problems:
Environment

General climatic conditions, including average

temperatures, wind speeds and directions,
humidity levels, and average snow accumulation

Severe conditions can lead to deterioration of the

masonry foundation, which in turn could lead to
differential settlement that could ultimately
damage the iron lighthouse structure.

Number of freeze-thaw cycles

Severe cycles can cause damage to iron lighthouse

components from frost action.

Location near sea

Salt (chloride) in the air can lead to accelerated

corrosion of exposed iron surfaces.

Acid rain in the region or from nearby industry

Acid rain can lead to accelerated corrosion of

exposed iron lighthouse components.

Proximity to a major road highway or railroad

Vibrations are harmful to masonry foundation

mortar joints as well as iron lighthouse parts.
Repetitive vibration can cause premature failure in
iron components if the oscillation cycles fatigue
the metal to the point of failure.

Location in the flood plain of a river, lake, or sea

Floodwaters can bring damaging moisture to

foundations and walls; such damage can result in
differential settlement that could ultimately
damage the iron lighthouse structure.

Exposed or sheltered sections of a lighthouse

Exposure to the sun and elements affects moisture

evaporation and rain penetration into the joints
between iron members. Sheltered areas such as
the underside of an iron gallery deck are highly
susceptible to corrosion and rust pitting because of
a tendency to accumulate moisture and the slow
drying rate without direct sunlight.

Terrain
Soil typeclay, sand, rock

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

The type of soil influences water drainage around

the structure. Excessive water in the soil could
lead to differential settlement that could ultimately
damage the iron structure. This is a minimal
concern for most iron lighthouses. Most iron
lighthouses were constructed on sites that had
been chosen for their soil and/or underlying strata
stability.

Part IV. B, Page 9

Look For:

Possible Problems:

Slope away from lighthouse on all sides

If no slope exists, puddles will form at the base of

the lighthouse walls during heavy rains, causing
water penetration and possible damage to
foundation systems that could lead to differential
settlement and ultimately to damage of the iron
structure.

Earth covering part of a brick or stone wall or

foundation

Moisture accumulation or penetration is possible

and could lead to differential settlement and
ultimately to damage of the iron structure.

Concrete or other impervious paving touching

walls

Water accumulation and rain back-splash onto the

walls which could lead to accelerated corrosion of
the iron wall structure.

Trees and Vegetation

Species of trees within 50 feet

Elms and some poplars dry up clay soil, leading to

foundation failure and differential settlement that
could ultimately damage the iron lighthouse
structure.

Branches rubbing against a wall

Branches abrade surfaces, possibly exposing bare

iron surfaces to the elements and accelerating
corrosion of the iron lighthouse structure.

Ivy or creepers on walls

Leaves prevent proper drying of the painted iron

surface resulting in possible accelerated corrosion
of the iron surface. Tendrils from some species
can penetrate joints and can literally break the iron
lighthouse members.

THE LIGHTHOUSE
Overall Condition
General state of maintenance and repair

A well maintained lighthouse should require fewer

major repairs.

Evidence of previous fire or flooding

Such damage may have weakened the lighthouse

structural members or caused the introduction of
excessive moisture.

Signs of settlement

Uneven settlement can crack foundations and lead

to differential settlement that could ultimately
damage the iron lighthouse.

Part IV. B, Page 10

IRON

Look For:

Possible Problems:
Lantern

General condition

A well maintained lantern should require fewer

major repairs. A leaking lantern may leave stains
under the gallery deck on the exterior of the
lighthouse as well as streaks on the interior walls
of the tower spaces below. This condition can
introduce excessive moisture into the interior of
the lighthouse and possibly cause accelerated
deterioration of interior features and structure.

Roof drains (usually associated with larger firstorder lights) and covering

Clogged roof drains can hold water in the built-in

guttering system and accelerate deterioration of
the roof covering. Small holes in the roof covering
can be moisture infiltration points.

Gallery decks, copings, and structural seams

Gaps in gallery decking can allow water to

penetrate in the interior cavities of an iron tower
wall.

Condition of storm panels

Cracks and holes in storm panel glazing can

provide an infiltration point for moisture into the
lantern.

Humidity level within the lantern

Non-functioning lantern vents can inhibit the

release of humid air from within the tower. The
water vapor will ultimately condense on the
surfaces inside the tower and lantern and possibly
cause accelerated corrosion of iron lantern
components.

Windows and Doors

Straight and square openings

Deformed openings in the lighthouse structure

may be a sign of structure settlement.

Door and window sills sloped to shed water; drips

under sills to prevent water from running back
underneath; caulking

If any of these is inadequate, water can penetrate

into the wall and start corrosion from the inside
out.

Foundation
Composition of foundation walls

Stone or brick is more likely than concrete to

allow water to infiltrate.

Water condensation or other signs of moisture

Wood joists or iron structural members resting on

masonry foundation walls may begin to rot or
corrode at the ends. Termites or algae, mold,
mildew, or moss may be present, causing damage
to the wood or masonry.

Damp proof course

This can impede rising damp, lessening

deterioration of the masonry wall.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. B, Page 11

Look for:

Possible Problems:
Interior

Damp walls, stains on walls, rotting wood

These indicate water infiltration.

Walls
Construction methodiron plate, sheet iron
double wall, iron plate with masonry infill, wood
frame interior walls, etc.

Knowing how a tower wall is constructed will

help in analyzing problems and selecting
appropriate treatments.

Masonry-lined iron lighthouses

Rust-jacking of iron members captured by masonry

infill may cause cracking of the infill. If the
masonry infill becomes wet, the different rates of
expansion and contraction of the masonry infill
and the iron sheathing during a freeze-thaw cycle
can cause the iron and masonry both to crack.

Sheet iron cavity walls

Water infiltration will show as rust forms on the

interior of the cavity and appears as blistering on
the exterior of the panels. Rust streaks known as
rust weep or rust bleed appearing on interior
wall surface plate seams may indicate water
infiltration has occurred.

Iron Components
Materials
Type of ironwrought, cast, steel, galvanized
steel, or stainless steel

Types of materials indicate the susceptibility or

resistance to damage and proper repair method.

Areas of intricate castings or moldings

These sections may need special attention or

protection during treatment.

Missing or broken iron components

Missing material may allow water penetration.

Evidence of sandblasting, such as a pitted surface;

evidence of erosion, flaking, scaling, or other form
of corrosion.

Surface deterioration is not only aesthetically

displeasing but can lead ultimately to the complete
deterioration of the lighthouse.

Dirt or stains

Surface stains usually cause few problems other

than being unpleasant to look at. Accumulated
dirt or debris in built-in gutters or other pockets,
however, may trap water and cause accelerated
corrosion.

Moisture
Water penetration through joints between iron
components and between iron and other
lighthouse components

Part IV. B, Page 12

Moisture can lead to deterioration of the iron and

other parts of the lighthouse structure through
corrosion and rot. Water that has entered a cavity
may go unnoticed until extensive corrosion has
occurred.

IRON

Look for:

Possible Problems:

Location and type of corrosion on surface

The type of corrosion may indicate the source of

the deterioration; refer to the following section on
corrosion for more information.

Rust streaking or rust weep present on interior or

exterior wall surfaces near seams or construction
joints in the iron structure

This condition indicates that moisture has

penetrated the joint or interior cavity of the iron
wall. The water entry point should be identified
and sealed or the damaged area repaired.

Coatings
Paint; type of paint

Various paint types require different treatment

methods and safety precautions, i.e., lead-based
paint hazards, etc.

Blistering, flaking, and peeling paint

These conditions indicate the paint is at or near

the end of its effective life span.

Rust streaks or rust weep

This indicates localized failure of the coating

system which has caused the exposed iron to
begin to rust. The rust scale should be removed
and the area spot painted in the interim until the
next repainting of the lighthouse.

Construction Joints
Joints between iron lighthouse components were
typically sealed with white lead mixed with
linseed oil

The white lead/linseed oil mixture hardens and

becomes brittle over time and eventually falls out,
thus allowing open joints for water infiltration.

Concrete or mortar used as a seam or cavity filler

The concrete and mortar are very hard and can

easily break and thus allow for water infiltration;
cavities in an iron lighthouse that have been filled
with concrete or mortar are susceptible to
corrosion because of the alkalis present in the
concrete and mortar and the possible trapping of
water between the filler and the iron.

Iron copings over masonry portions of the

lighthouse such as watertables and window and
door surrounds.

The alkali nature of the mortar used in the

masonry may cause the iron to prematurely rust.
These areas are prone to rust weep and should be
thoroughly cleaned of rust scale and painted
during the scheduled lighthouse repainting.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. B, Page 13

PRESERVATION TREATMENTS
WARNING: Many of the maintenance and repair techniques described in this text, particularly those
relating to cleaning and painting, are potentially dangerous and should be carried out only by
experienced and qualified workmen using protective equipment suitable to the task. It may be
necessary to involve a USCG engineer or architect, preservation architect, or building conservator
familiar with lighthouse preservation to assess the condition of the iron and prepare contract
documents for its treatment.

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Cast-iron and steel features such as gallery deck brackets, handrails, skeletal structures,
pilasters and door pediments, window architraves, as well as textured, finished surfaces
such as raised diamond pattern non-skid surfaces, are important in defining the historic
character of the lighthouse (see Figures 20 and 21). It is essential that the characterdefining features are retained during any treatment. It should also be noted that while cast
iron is among the most durable of historic building materials, it is also the most susceptible
to damage by improper maintenance or repair techniques and by harsh or abrasive
cleaning methods. Therefore, all treatment should be executed using the gentlest means
possible. In Part V., Beyond Basic Preservation, examples of treatments that are
considered rehabilitation and restoration are illustrated and discussed.

Figure 20.

Part IV. B, Page 14

Figure 21.

IRON

Protection and Stabilization (Mothballing)

Despite their inherent durability, a historic iron lighthouse that receives only minimal or
no routine maintenance is highly vulnerable to decay if it is not protected and stabilized
properly. To properly protect and stabilize a historic iron lighthouse, a thorough
inspection and diagnosis of all iron features: caisson structures, cast-iron plate walls,
decorative features (cornices, door and window surrounds, decks, etc.) should be
performed using the inspection chart in the preceding section as a guide. The results of the
inspection are then used to develop a protection and stabilization plan. The following
recommended protection and stabilization guidelines for vacant historic iron lighthouses
are the minimum treatment requirements to prevent any further damage from occurring.

It is essential that all iron components be

completely weathertight. Water intrusion
can be extremely detrimental to iron
components. If water enters the interior
cavity of an iron component it will cause
corrosion to occur, or accumulated water
can freeze and the resulting expansion can
possibly crack the component.
To prevent moisture penetration be sure the
following infiltration points are weathertight
or functioning properly:

WPTC photo

Weatherization

Figure 22. Interior of a sheet-iron parapet wall that

is rusting from the inside to out along the lantern
room door. This is the result of water entering the
interior cavity of the parapet wall.

WPTC photo

Lantern system: Cast-plate or sheet-iron lantern

parapet walls, all lantern glass, cast-iron frames,
and roofs must be weathertight. Caulk patches
should be used only as a temporary fix and not
relied on as a long-term treatment as they have a
limited functional life span. Refer to the
Lantern section of this handbook for more
information concerning the weatherproofing of
the lantern components.

Gallery decks: The seams between cast-iron

gallery deck plates must be made weathertight.
If rust is already present, this must be removed
and the affected areas primed and painted. The
joints should be sealed with a high quality

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

WPTC photo

Built-in guttering systems: In order to prevent

water from entering the interior cavity of
double-wall iron or brick-lined iron wall
systems, all rain water guttering systems (lantern
roofs, or other tower roof forms) should be
cleaned and checked for holes. It is imperative
that all holes and non-functioning gutter system
components are repaired. For more information
refer to the discussion on roofing in the Lantern
section of the handbook.

Figures 23 and 24. Two types of gutters found on

iron lighthouses; the gutters must be in proper
working order and checked regularly during the
mothballing period.

Part IV. B, Page 15

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Figure 25. The seams between the deck and wall plates of
this lighthouse were not properly sealed; as a result the
areas collected water and began to rust.

sealant. The decking should be sloped away

from the lighthouse to shed the water away
from the structure. If the decking material is not
weathertight, moisture can enter the interior
cavity of the tower wall and cause damage that
may go undetected until severe deterioration
has occurred. See the Windows section of this
handbook for the proper caulk for this
application. Refer to the Lantern section of this
handbook for more information concerning the
weatherproofing of gallery decks.

Figure 26. This steel casement window frame was not

sealed properly and as a result has begun rusting from the
inside out.

Ultimately, as part of a mothballing treatment,

the entire lighthouse should have all loose paint
and corrosion removed and a new coating
applied to the entire surface according to the
manufacturers specifications. This action will
result in a coating system that will require
minimal service during the mothballed period.
For more information refer to the paint and
coating systems discussion under the repair
treatment later in this section.

Wall plates: The joints between cast-iron wall

plates must be kept weathertight. If rust is
already present, this must be removed and the
affected areas primed and painted. The joints
should be sealed with a high-quality sealant. If
the wall plates are not weathertight, moisture
can enter the interior cavity of the tower wall
and cause damage that may go undetected.

Protective coatings: As a protective measure

and for recognition as a daymark, lighthouses
were historically painted. As part of a
mothballing treatment, the exterior coating
should be checked for loose and flaking paint.
Any deteriorating areas should be scraped and
spot-painted to match the existing color.

Part IV. B, Page 16

WPTC photo

Door and window frames and trim: The joints

along the perimeter of iron door and window
trim and frames where the trim or frame is
attached to a masonry or iron tower must be
made weathertight. Open joints should be
cleaned of rust and loose paint. The affected
areas must be primed and painted, then sealed
with a high-quality caulking. This will prevent
water from entering the interior cavity of either
the iron trim or the wall itself. See the
Windows section of this handbook for the
proper caulk for this application.

Figure 27. Blistering paint, as pictured here, should be

removed and the affected areas properly primed and
painted.

IRON

Stabilization

Ventilation

When mothballing an iron lighthouse or a

lighthouse with iron components, all
possible structural repairs should be made
before the beginning of the mothballed
period. If repairs cannot be made because
of budget constraints, stabilization of the
primary structural components should be
first priority, followed by more general
stabilization of the rest of the lighthouse.
Temporary bracing and splinting may be
possible techniques for non-structural
components. More elaborate shoring may
be required to support structural members
that have failed or are in danger of failing.
For situations where sophisticated structural
bracing is required, a structural engineer or
historical architect should be consulted for
a proper stabilization treatment plan. The
stabilization treatment utilized should not
permanently damage historic characterdefining features and should be easily
reversible so that when the budget allows,
the structure can be properly repaired. For
more information refer to the discussion on
structural stabilization under the repair
treatment in this section.

Iron lighthouse towers are typically one of

four possible construction types: single-wall
cast-iron plate, double-wall cast-iron plate,
brick-lined cast-iron plate, cast-iron-andsteel skeletal. With any of these
construction types, adequate ventilation in
the unoccupied lighthouse is essential
during the mothballing period. Adequate
ventilation will achieve two goals: 1)
minimize excessive heat buildup which can
damage any sensitive electronic equipment
operating inside the tower; 2) minimize
condensation buildup inside the lighthouse
(especially brick-lined towers) that can
cause the iron to corrode on the interior of
the tower. In some extreme cases minimal
heating may be needed to minimize
moisture buildup in the lighthouse.
Ventilation of iron towers through passive
and mechanical systems is covered in the
Windows section.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Fire Protection
Despite the fact that iron is
noncombustible, fire is still a threat to
combustible components of iron
lighthouses and can possibly cause
permanent deformation to the iron
components exposed to intense heat. For
guidance on these issues, refer to Fire
Prevention and Protection Objectives under
Related Activities in Part VI.

Part IV. B, Page 17

Repair
Before any preservation repair work is begun, all iron features that are important in
defining the overall historical character of the lighthouse, such as walls, brackets, cornices,
window architraves, door pediments, steps and pilasters, coatings and color should be
identified. During all repair work it is imperative that measures are taken to ensure that
these features are not damaged or that the action taken will not result in damage to the
feature at a later date. The following are preservation repair treatments for iron lighthouses
and lighthouses with iron components that can be undertaken after a thorough inspection.

Cleaning
The simple act of cleaning painted iron
surfaces can effectively enhance the
appearance and extend the life of the
coating. In a marine environment a buildup
of potentially corrosive elements such as
salts, bird guano, and, in more urban
locations, industrial pollutants can cause
premature deterioration of iron

components. Simple but effective regular

cleaning will greatly extend the life of the
iron components found on historic
lighthouses. The following are guidelines
to follow when cleaning historic iron
lighthouse components:
Clean surfaces only when necessary to remove
buildup of corrosive agents such as salts, guano,
and industrial pollutants that are causing
damage to iron on the iron coating.
Clean surfaces with the gentlest method
possible, such as using low pressure water and
mild detergents and natural bristle brushes.
High pressure water blasting may damage
caulking between iron components and force
water into openings, leading to accelerated
corrosion and deterioration.
Do not use a cleaning method that involves
water or liquid chemical solutions when there is
any possibility of freezing temperatures within
48 hours of treatment.
Do not clean with chemical products such as
acids that will accelerate the corrosion of the
iron components.

WPTC photo

Paint Removal

Figure 28. Surfaces such as this sheet-steel-covered

parapet door that are covered with seagull guano should be
thoroughly cleaned before mothballing and should be
checked and cleaned once a year during the mothballing
period.

Part IV. B, Page 18

When there is extensive failure of the

protective coating and/or when heavy
corrosion exists, the rust and most or all of
the paint must be removed to prepare the
surfaces for new protective coatings. The
techniques available range from physical
processes, such as wire brushing and grit
blasting, to flame cleaning and chemical
methods. The selection of an appropriate
technique depends upon how much paint
failure and corrosion has occurred, the
IRON

fineness of the surface detailing, and the

type of new protective coating to be
applied. Local environmental regulations
may restrict the options for cleaning and
paint removal methods, as well as the
disposal of materials.
Many of these techniques are potentially
dangerous and should be carried out only
by experienced and qualified workers using
proper protective equipment such as full
face respirators, eye protection, protective
clothing, and optimum workplace safety
conditions. Before selecting a process, test
panels should be prepared on the iron to be
cleaned to determine the relative
effectiveness of various techniques. The

cleaning process will very likely expose

additional coating defects, cracks, and
corrosion that were not obvious before.
There are a number of techniques that can
be used to remove paint and corrosion from
cast iron:
Hand scraping, chipping, and wire brushing are
the most common and least expensive methods
of removing paint and light rust from iron. They
do not however, remove all corrosion or paint
as effectively as other methods. Experienced
craftsmen should carry out the work to reduce
the likelihood that surfaces will be scored or
fragile detail damaged.
Low-pressure grit blasting (commonly called
abrasive cleaning or sandblasting) is often the

SIDEBAR: Paint Removal

Tools
International Chimney photo

A variety of hand tools are commercially

available for the removal of paint from
iron lighthouses. Typically, these tools
are pneumatic or air powered and remove
the paint from the iron substrate with
rotating strippers and pulsating rods or
needles. The rotating strippers consist of
a shrouded, spindle-mounted head that
has 3 or 4 flaps outfitted with metal
Figure 29. Worker dressed in full personal protective gear.
studs that literally knock the paint off
The full-face-shield self-contained respirator provides both
the iron surface. Commercially these
respiratory and eye protection. The worker is wearing
protective coveralls, gloves, and boot covers to prevent lead
tools are referred to as flush plates. This
dust contact. The harness is part of a full protection system.
type of tool is best for the removal of
He is holding a pneumatic needle gun that is hooked to a
paint from broad flat surfaces or curved
two-stage HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air) filtered
surfaces with a radius of 5 inches or more.
vacuum system.
The tools with pulsating rods or needles
typically consist of 12 to 15 hardened metal rods contained in a tube that strike the paint
randomly as they pulsate. This action removes the paint by breaking or crushing it, thus
breaking the bond with the iron substrate. Commercially these tools are referred to as needle
guns or needle scalers. This type of tool is best for reaching tight-detailed locations such as
around gallery deck brackets, etc.
The choice of one of these tools should depend on its impact on the historic iron substrate.
Although iron is very hard, overly aggressive stripping methods can cause irreversible
damage. Stripping tools should be tested in discrete locations to determine their effectiveness
and potential impact on the historic iron substrate. In removing lead-based paint, these types
of tools create both small chips and fine dust. To contain the dust and chips, the tools can be

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. B, Page 19

most effective approach to removing excessive

paint buildup or substantial corrosion. Grit
blasting is fast, thorough, and economical, and
it allows the iron to be cleaned in place.
Grit blasting is performed by using compressed
air to blow a grit at a high velocity through a
hand held nozzle. The size and shape of the
grit and the pressure of the compressed air
determines the rate at which the paint and
underlying substrate (iron or steel in this case)
are removed.

Traditionally, the grit or abrasive used was sand.

The use of sand for grit blasting has been
discontinued because of the potential for the
operator to develop silicosis. Today, a variety
of grit mediums are available. These grits are
typically derived from mineral slags and are
available in a variety of grades engineered to
produce the desired surface profile required by
various iron and steel paint and coating systems.
For more delicate applications a variety of
alternative blast media are available. These
include materials such as walnut shells,

Figures 30 through 33 are paint removal tools

used during the Sand Key Lighthouse
rehabilitation. Sand Key Lighthouse is located
in open water off the coast of Key West. The
paint being removed contained lead; therefore it
was essential that all debris be contained for
proper disposal.

WPTC photo

outfitted with dust-collection hoods with

vacuum hookup. As with any paint removal
procedure, personal protective equipment
required for health protection should be worn.
Typical personal protective equipment includes
eye/face protection, respiratory protection,
gloves, coveralls, hard hat, and protection from
falling if working 6 feet or higher above the
ground (see Figure 29).

Figure 30.

Figure 31. The gun is activated by squeezing the lever on

the rubber pistol grip. The amount of air pressure controls
the speed and impact of the pulsating needles against the
iron substrate. The needles can be seen protruding from
the vacuum shroud.

WPTC photo

Figure 30. Close-up of a pneumatic needle gun. This tool

works well for hard-to-reach and detail areas. The needle
gun can be pressure-controlled to minimize impact on the
iron substrate. This figure shows the vacuum-shroud
connection on the right and air-hose connection on the base
of the pistol-grip handle on the left.
Figure 31.

WPTC photo

Figure 32. Close-up view of a pneumatic flush-plate tool.

During the Sand Key Lighthouse rehabilitation this tool was
used for all flat surfaces and for removing paint from the
light-tower columns. The rollers located at the top and
bottom of the shroud guide the tool over the flat and curved
surfaces. The amount of air pressure controls the speed and
impact of the rotating head against the iron substrate. To
contain the paint dust and chips, the shroud has been
outfitted with a vacuum hookup.
Figure 32.

Part IV. B, Page 20

IRON

bicarbonate of soda, and frozen carbon dioxide

(dry ice).

deep gouging or loss of detailed surfaces, and

the surface profile produced.

When selecting a grit media there are several

factors to consider:

Do not use blast pressures above 100 pounds

per square inch (psi). Keeping under 100 psi
will still effectively remove the paint and help
to minimize damage to the iron substrate.

A grit copper slag should be avoided because

of the potential for electrolytic reactions that
would corrode the iron surface.

The environmental impact of the residue

produced by the grit medium should be
considered because many lighthouses are
located in environmentally sensitive areas.

WPTC photo

The grit medium should be chosen after

testing has been performed to determine
effectiveness of paint removal and potential
impact or damage to the iron substrate, i.e.,

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Figure 33. Close-up of the studded flaps mounted on the

rotating head. To use the tool, it is held against the face of
the iron member and as the studded flaps spin they slap
the surface and knock the paint off the iron.

Figure 34. The small vacuums used at Sand Key Light are
shown in this photo. Each vacuum has a HEPA filtration
system to ensure that no lead dust escaped into the
atmosphere. The conditions at Sand Key Lighthouse made
the use of a large central vacuum system impractical. Using
portable vacuums allowed for paint removal at numerous
locations at any one time.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Figure 35. This motorized chair was used to hoist

workers as they removed paint from the cast-iron
columns at the Sand Key Lighthouse. The chairs motor
is attached to a hoist, so the chair actually climbs a cable
that has been strung alongside the column.

Part IV. B, Page 21

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Figures 36 and 37. The left image shows the condition of the iron exterior service room wall before rehabilitation.
The right image shows the same area after power hand tool cleaning and coating. The crescent shaped scars in the
iron are from the arc of a grinding wheel.

Some local building codes and environmental

authorities prohibit or limit dry grit blasting
because of airborne dust. To conform with
local codes, the lighthouse may have to be
tented during the removal to contain airborne
paint and aggregate dust.
Adjacent materials, such as brick, stone,
wood, and glass, must be protected to prevent
damage.

Flame cleaning of rust from metal with a special

multi-flame-head oxyacetylene torch requires
specially skilled operators, and is expensive and
potentially dangerous. It can be very effective,
however, on lightly to moderately corroded
iron. Wire brushing is usually necessary to
finish the surface after flame cleaning.
Chemical paint removal using alkaline
compounds, such as methylene chloride or
potassium hydroxide, can be an effective

Part IV. B, Page 22

Bender & Associates, Architects

Wet sandblasting is more problematic than dry

sandblasting for cleaning iron because the water
will cause instantaneous surface rusting and will
penetrate deep into open joints. Therefore, it is
generally not considered an effective technique.
Wet sandblasting reduces the amount of
airborne dust when removing a heavy paint
buildup, but disposal of effluent containing lead
or other toxic substances is restricted by
environmental regulations in most areas.

Figure 38. Service room bracket after chemical cleaning.

IRON

alternative to abrasive blasting for removal of

heavy paint buildup. These agents are often
available as slow-acting gels or pastes. Because
they can cause burns, protective clothing and
eye protection must be worn. Chemicals
applied to non-watertight, multi-piece features
(such as deck plates or wall plates) can seep
through crevices and holes, resulting in damage
to the lighthouses interior finishes and
corrosion to the backside of the iron
components. If not thoroughly neutralized,
residual traces of cleaning compounds on the
surface of the iron can cause paint failures in the
future. For these reasons, field application of
alkaline paint removers and acidic cleaners is
not generally recommended.

Following any of these methods of cleaning

and paint removal, the newly cleaned iron
should be painted immediately with a
corrosion-inhibiting primer to prevent 'flash
rusting' from forming. This time period
may vary from minutes to hours depending
on environmental conditions. Before
application, paint or coating systems may
require the iron or steel surface to be wiped
with a solvent that removes any
microscopic rust that has formed on the
surface.

External Coating Systems

The most common and effective way to
preserve iron lighthouse components is to
maintain a protective paint or coating on
the metal.
The effective protective life span of an
existing paint or coating can be greatly
increased by routinely touching up areas of
deterioration. A small break in the
protective finish can lead to accelerated
corrosion of the underlying iron (see Figure
39). Areas where the paint or coating has
been damaged by mechanical impact or
blistering has occurred should be addressed
immediately. These areas should have all
loose paint and rust scale removed using
one of the recommended methods

If priming is delayed, any surface rust that

has developed should be removed with a
clean wire brush just before priming. The
rust prevents good bonding between the
primer and the cast-iron surface and may
also prevent the primer from completely
filling the pores of the metal.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

WPTC photo

The buildup of salt or chloride residue on

bare metal surfaces will affect the paint or
coating performance. The metal surface
should be tested for chloride buildup from
the salt-laden air found in a marine
environment. If chloride levels are above
levels recommended by the paint or coating
manufacturer, the surface will need to be
wiped with a solvent to remove the
chloride buildup.

Figure 39. The finish on this tension rod failed and

localized corrosion (rust) has formed. The rust is
exfoliating in layers that are trapping moisture and causing
corrosion to occur deeper and deeper into the tension rod.
The result is pitting that will compromise the strength of the
tension rod. If the area had been touched up in time, the
corrosion might not have formed.

Part IV. B, Page 23

WPTC photo

previously described. Hand tool cleaning

and low pressure grit blasting are the most
effective for this scale of paint removal.
The bare metal should then be primed and
painted with a primer/top coat system that
will adhere to both the bare metal and the
existing paint or coating system. The top
coat should match the existing color to
maintain the lighthouse daymark.

Surface Preparation
Thorough surface preparation is necessary
for the adhesion of new protective coatings.
All loose, flaking, and deteriorated paint
must be removed from the iron, as well as
dirt and mud, water-soluble salts, oil, and
grease. Old paint that is tightly adhered
may be left on the surface of the iron if it is
compatible with the proposed coatings.
The retention of old paint also preserves the
historic paint sequence of the building and
avoids the hazards of removal and disposal
of old lead paint.
It is advisable to consult manufacturers
specifications or technical representatives to
ensure compatibility between the surface
conditions, primer and finish coats, and
application methods. If the composition of
the existing paint or coating is not known,
then a thorough analysis should be
performed to determine composition of the
existing coating to ensure compatibility
with the future paint or coating. For more
information refer to the Steel Structures
Painting Council publicationSteel
Structures Painting Manual.
When painting new stainless steel or other
new steel or iron surfaces, special surface
preparation steps must be taken. Typically
these surfaces have a shop coating of light
oil applied to prevent rusting. This oil must
be removed with a solvent before painting.
The surfaces of these materials may not
have the right profile or roughness for the
applied coating to adhere. To achieve the

Part IV. B, Page 24

Figure 40. The paint on this stainless steel replacement

gallery deck has begun to peel less than three months after
it was painted. This could have been prevented if the
stainless steel parts were first cleaned and then lightly glassbead blasted.

proper profile, the surfaces should be lightly

grit blasted with glass beads to achieve the
profile recommended by the manufacturer.
For the paint to adhere properly, the metal
surfaces must be absolutely dry before
painting. Unless the paint selected is
specifically designed for exceptional
conditions, painting should not take place
when the temperature is expected to fall
below 50 degrees Fahrenheit within 24
hours or when the relative humidity is
above 80%; paint should not be applied
when there is fog, mist, or rain in the air.
Poorly prepared surfaces will cause the
failure of even the best paints, while even
moderately priced paints can be effective if
applied over well-prepared surfaces.

Selection of Paints and Coatings

The types of paints available for protecting
iron have changed dramatically in recent
years as the result of federal, state, and local
regulations that prohibit or restrict the
manufacture and use of products containing
toxic substances such as lead and zinc
chromate, as well as volatile organic
compounds and substances (VOC or VOS).
Availability of paint types varies from state
to state, and manufacturers continue to

IRON

change product formulations to comply

with new regulations.
Traditionally, red lead has been used as an
anti-corrosive pigment for priming iron.
Red lead based paint forms a tough and
elastic film impervious to water that is
highly effective as a protective coating for
iron. At least two slow-drying linseed-oilbased finish coats have traditionally been
used over a red lead primer; this
combination is effective on old or partiallydeteriorated surfaces.
Today, alkyd paints are very widely used
and have largely replaced lead-containing
linseed-oil paints. They dry faster than oil
paint, with a thinner film, but they do not
protect the metal as long. Alkyd rustinhibitive primers contain pigments such as
iron oxide, zinc oxide, and zinc phosphate.
These primers are suitable for previously
painted surfaces cleaned by hand tools. At
least two coats of primer should be applied,
followed by alkyd enamel finish coats.
Latex and other water-based paints are not
for use as primers on cast iron or steel
because they cause immediate oxidation if
applied on bare metal. Vinyl acrylic latex
or acrylic latex paints may be used as finish
coats over alkyd rust-inhibitive primers, but
if the primer coats are imperfectly applied
or are damaged, the latex paint will cause
oxidation of the iron. Therefore, alkyd
finish coats are recommended over alkyd
primer.
High-performance coatings, such as zincrich primers containing zinc dust, urethane
based coatings and modern epoxy coatings,
can be used on cast iron to provide longerlasting protection. These coatings typically
require highly clean surfaces and special
application conditions.
One particularly effective system has been
developed to coat commercially blastcleaned iron with a zinc-rich primer,
followed by an epoxy base coat, and two
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

urethane finish coats. Some epoxy coatings

can be used as primers on clean metal or
applied to previously painted surfaces in
sound condition. Epoxies are particularly
susceptible to degradation under ultraviolet
radiation and must be protected by finish
coats which are more resistant. There have
been problems with epoxy paints which
have been shop-applied to iron where the
coatings have been nicked before
installation. Field touch-up of epoxy paints
is very difficult, if not impossible. This is a
concern since iron exposed by
imperfections in the base coat will be more
likely to rust and more frequent
maintenance will be required.
In recent years, moisture-cured urethane
coating systems have begun to take the
place of epoxy-based coating systems.
Moisture-cured urethane coatings are more
surface tolerant, can be used in lower
temperatures, and can be applied and work
better at higher humidities than epoxybased coatings. Moisture-cured urethane
coatings, however, have a tendency to
thicken quickly under humid conditions
and have the potential of being applied too
thickly, resulting in a loss of the characterdefining features of the substrate.
A key factor to take into account in
selection of coatings is the variety of
conditions affecting existing and new
materials on a particular lighthouse. One
primer may be needed for surfaces with
existing paint; another for newly cast,
chemically stripped, or blast-cleaned cast
iron; and a third for flashing or substitute
materialsall three followed by compatible
finish coats.
Another factor to consider when choosing a
high performance coating is that these
coatings tend to have a high gloss finish that
is slippery when wet. When painting
gallery decks and other iron or steel
walkways, anti-skid strips may need to be
installed for personnel or visitor safety.
Part IV. B, Page 25

SIDEBAR: Masonry and Iron Interaction

A common practice in masonry lighthouse construction is to use iron door and window
hoods, gallery deck brackets, belt courses, and water table caps. These details are both
decorative and structural components of the lighthouse; however, they pose special
preservation issues. The iron that is in contact with the masonry tends to corrode more
readily than the rest of the iron component. This condition is typically evidenced by rust
streaks on the masonry surface (see Figures 41 and 42). This rusting is caused by moisture
either from condensation or precipitation combined with chloride or salt buildup that
collects in the joint. If the joint is not sealed and the coating on the iron is failing, rust will
readily form.

WPTC photo

This condition can easily be remedied if the following issues are addressed during the
preservation treatment of the lighthouse. During any repairs or repainting, all masonry and
iron surfaces must be cleaned of all loose paint and rust scale. All mortar that has been
placed between the masonry and the iron should also be removed. The mortar helps trap
moisture against the iron. Once the joint is clean, all exposed iron must be coated with a
rust-inhibiting primer and top coat to provide a barrier between the iron and the mortar.
The void created by the missing mortar should be filled with a new mortar mixture that
matches the strength of the historic mortar (for more information on the matching of
mortar strength refer to the Masonry section). When filling the open joint with the mortar,
hold the mortar back about 1 inch. The joint should then be filled with a -inch-diameter
polyethylene foam backer rod. To seal the joint, use a high quality silicone or urethane
caulking. (Some caulks may require a painted surface to adhere to brick; therefore, the
surface of the brick that will come in contact with the caulk may have to be painted before
the caulk is applied). Ideally, the caulking depth should equal the joint depth up to a
inch. The profile on the caulking should be slightly concave to shed water. Refer to Figures
43 and 44 for more details.

WPTC photo

Figure 41 (left). This masonry lighthouse has been detailed

with a two-tier cast-iron water table (the iron portions are
painted black). Rust-bleed is occurring along lower edge of
the upper tier.

Part IV. B, Page 26

Figure 42 (above). The lower gallery deck of the same

masonry lighthouse has rust-bleed occurring along the
lower edge of the iron belt course that supports the gallery
deck brackets.

IRON

Figure 43.

Figure 44.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. B, Page 27

Application Methods
Brushing is the traditional and most
effective technique for applying paint to
iron. It provides good contact between the
paint and the iron, as well as the effective
filling of small pits, cracks, and other
blemishes in the metal. The use of spray
guns to apply paint is economical, but does
not always produce adequate and uniform
coverage. For best results, airless sprayers
should be used by skilled operators. To
fully cover fine detailing and reach
recesses, spraying of the primer coat, used
in conjunction with brushing, may be the
most effective application method. During
application, all overspray must be
contained; this may be achieved by tenting
the lighthouse. Because of the potential for
overspray drift and its environmental
impact, the industry standard for lighthouse
painting is to use brushes.

crumbled from weathering, cracked from

structural settlement, or destroyed by
mechanical cleaning. It is essential to
replace deteriorated caulking to prevent
water penetration. For good adhesion and
performance, an architectural-grade
polyurethane sealant is preferred. For a
more in-depth discussion of various types
of caulking compounds refer to the
Windows section.
Water that penetrates the hollow parts of
iron components causes rust that may streak
down over other elements of the
lighthouse. The water may freeze and the
expanding ice may crack the cast iron.
Cracks reduce the strength of the total castiron assembly and provide another point of

Rollers should never be used for primer

coat applications on metal and are effective
for subsequent coats only on large, flat
areas. The appearance of spray-applied and
roller-applied finish coats is not historically
appropriate and should be avoided on landbased lighthouses which are viewed up
close by the public.

Most iron components on historic

lighthouses were made of many small
castings assembled by bolts or screws.
Joints between pieces were caulked to
prevent water from seeping in and causing
rusting from the inside out. Historically,
the seams were often caulked with white
lead paste and sometimes backed with
cotton or hemp rope; even the bolt and
screw heads were caulked to protect them
from the elements and to hide them from
view. Although old caulking is sometimes
found in good condition, it is typically

Part IV. B, Page 28

WPTC photo

Caulking, Patching, and

Mechanical Repairs

Figure 45. Within three months after painting, the rust

began to bleed through this weep hole on the bottom of this
pediment bracket. Two lessons are to be learned from this
condition: 1) keep weep holes open to allow any water that
may have entered the casting to escape, and 2) keep joints
around applied castings sealed; apparently this was not
done and water has entered the hollow cavity of the
pediment, causing rust to form inside.

IRON

entry for water. Water entering seams may

also cause rust to form within the joint and
damage the surrounding iron through a
process known as rust-jacking. Thus, it is
important that cracks be made weathertight
by using caulks or fillers, depending on the
width of the crack.

Screws with stripped threads and seriously

rusted bolts must be replaced. To
compensate for corroded metal around the
bolt or screw holes, new stainless steel bolts
or screws with a larger diameter need to be
used. In extreme cases, new holes may
need to be tapped.

Filler compounds containing iron particles

in an epoxy resin binder can be used to
patch superficial, non-structural cracks and
small defects such as rust pits in cast iron.
The thermal expansion rate of epoxy resin
alone is different from that of iron, requiring
the addition of iron particles to ensure
compatibility and to control shrinkage.
Although the repaired piece of metal does
not have the same strength as a
homogeneous piece of iron, epoxy-repaired
members do have some strength. Polyesterbased putties, such as those used on auto
bodies, are also acceptable fillers for small
holes. For more information on metal paste
use in lighthouse restoration, refer to the
Point Bonita Lighthouse rehabilitation case
study in the Part V., Beyond Basic
Preservation.

The internal voids of hollow iron lighthouse

components should not be filled with
concrete; it is an inappropriate treatment
that causes further problems. As the
concrete cures, it shrinks, leaving a space
between the concrete and cast iron. Water
penetrating this space does not evaporate
quickly, thus promoting further rusting.
The corrosion of the iron is further
accelerated by the alkaline nature of
concrete. Where iron components have
been previously filled with concrete, they
need to be taken apart, the concrete and
rust removed, and the interior surfaces
primed and painted before the components
are reassembled.

In rare instances, major cracks can be

repaired by brazing or welding with special
nickel-alloy welding rods. Brazing or
welding of cast iron is very difficult to carry
out in the field and should be undertaken
only by very experienced welders.
In some cases, mechanical repairs can be
made to cast iron using iron bars and
screws or bolts. In extreme cases,
deteriorated cast iron can be cut out and
new cast iron spliced in place by welding
or brazing. It is frequently less expensive,
however, to replace a deteriorated cast-iron
section with a new casting rather than to
splice or reinforce it. Cast-iron structural
elements that have failed must either be
reinforced with iron and steel or replaced
entirely.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Flashing
In some instances, it may be necessary to
design and install flashing to protect areas
vulnerable to water penetration. Flashings
should be designed and fabricated carefully
so that they are effective, as well as
unobtrusive in appearance. The most
durable material for flashing iron is ternecoated stainless steel. Other compatible
materials are terne-coated steel and
galvanized steel; however, these require
more frequent maintenance and are less
durable. Copper and lead-coated copper
are not recommended for use as flashing in
contact with cast iron because of galvanic
corrosion problems. Galvanic problems
can also occur with the use of aluminum if
certain types of electrolytes are present.

Part IV. B, Page 29

Dismantling and Assembly of Iron

Components
If repairs cannot be successfully carried out
in place, it is sometimes necessary to
dismantle all or part of a cast iron
lighthouse structure during restoration.
Dismantling should be done only under the
direction of a preservation architect or
architectural conservator who is
experienced with historic cast iron.
Extreme care must be taken since cast iron
can be brittle, especially in cold weather.
Dismantling should follow the reverse order
of construction and re-erection should
occur, as much as possible, in the exact
order of original assembly. Each piece
should be numbered and keyed to record
drawings. When work must be carried out
in cold weather, care needs to be taken to
avoid fracturing the iron elements by
uneven heating of the members. Both new
castings and reused pieces should be
painted with a shop-applied prime coat on
all surfaces. All of the components should

be laid out and preassembled to make sure

that the alignment and fit are proper. Many
of the original bolts, nuts, and screws may
have to be replaced with similar fasteners of
stainless steel.
After assembly at the site, joints that were
historically caulked should be filled with an
architectural-grade polyurethane sealant or
the traditional white lead paste. White lead
has the advantage of longevity, although its
use is restricted in many areas.

Limited Replacement In Kind

The replacement of cast-iron components is
often the only practical solution when such
features are missing, severely corroded, or
damaged beyond repair, or where repairs
would be only marginally useful in
extending the functional life of an iron
element. For more information on
replacement iron or steel lighthouse
components refer to the case studies in Part
V., Beyond Basic Preservation.

SIDEBAR: Lighthouse Designer/Builder George Meade

General George Gordon Meade is famous to most people as the commander of the Army of
the Potomac which defeated General Robert E. Lee at the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863. But
to lighthouse enthusiasts, Meade is famous for his lighthouse work, specifically Florida Reef
screwpile lighthouses. A screwpile is a screw-like flange located on the end of a lighthouse
foundation pile, which when wound into the substrate, provided greater holding power than
a straight-pile. The first screwpile lighthouse in the United States was at Brandywine Shoal,
Delaware Bay, built by Major Hartman Bache, a distinguished engineer of the Army Corps
of Topographical Engineers. Work began in 1848 and was completed in 1850, with
construction cost at $53,317. Alexander Mitchell, an Englishman who invented the screwpile
principle, served as consultant. The screwpiles were turned by a four-foot capstan worked
by 30 men. Major Bache also built the second screwpile lighthouse in the United States with
construction of the Pungoteague River Lighthouse, Chesapeake Bay, built in 1854.
George Meade was also an engineer in the Army Corps of Topographical Engineers. He
worked with Bache designing and constructing screwpile foundation lighthouses in Delaware
Bay. Meade was also asked to survey and chart the Florida Reefs. The first screwpile skeletal
lighthouse to be built on this dangerous stretch of reefs between Cape Florida and Key West
was the Carysfort Reef Lighthouse, located off Miami and designed by I. W. P. Lewis. The

Part IV. B, Page 30

IRON

NMI photo

entire structure was first erected in

Philadelphia so as to obviate the
necessity of fitting parts at its isolated
site. It cost $105,069 to complete.
When the engineer in charge of the
Carysfort Reef Lighthouse project died,
Meade, now a lieutenant, was assigned the
task of completing the job. This was the
first of what was to become many
lighthouse jobs for which Meade had
total responsibility. Carysfort Reef
Lighthouse was successfully completed in
1852. The offshore Carysfort Reef
Lighthouse is believed to be the first
screwpile skeletal tower in the U.S. to use
foot plates or disks to help disperse the
weight of the tower over a broader
foundation base.
Two months after completing Carysfort
Reef Lighthouse, Meade was asked to
inspect the site selected for the Rebecca
Shoal screwpile lighthouse, also in the
Florida Keys. Meade commented that
no beacon of any kind had been erected,
either in the United States or in Europe,
in a position that is more exposed or
offered greater obstacles. His wroughtiron skeleton light tower was nearly
completed when a three-day storm
completely carried away the structure. A
second attempt was so severely racked by
the pounding seas that the piles worked
out of the sand and it collapsed. The
Lighthouse Board abandoned the
lighthouse project and marked the shoal
with buoys.

Meanwhile Meade went on to complete

the 132-foot-tall screwpile Sand Key
Figure 46. Bust of George Meade at Barnegat
Lighthouse in 1853 and the 142-foot-tall
Lighthouse, Long Beach, New Jersey.
screwpile Sombrero Key Lighthouse in
1858, also in the Florida Keys. One historian stated that Sombrero Key was the most
important lighthouse built by Meade. Meade also designed a five-wick, first-order, hydraulic
lamp which was adopted by the Lighthouse Board in about 1853. Meade was placed in
charge of both the Fourth and Seventh Lighthouse Districts. In 1855 Meade surveyed the
Barnegat Lighthouse, New Jersey, which had received many complaints by mariners. His
suggestion that the tower needed to be replaced with a first-order coastal tower was
approved; the present Barnegat Lighthouse was completed in 1859. Meade also supervised

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. B, Page 31

construction of the 167-foot-tall brick Absecon Lighthouse, Atlantic City, New Jersey,
completed in 1857. In 1860 Meade was transferred from Florida to direct the surveys of the
Northern Lakes, but with the advent of the Civil War, Meade requested and received active
military service. He was promoted to brigadier general of the Pennsylvanian Volunteers and
in June 1863 became commander of the Army of the Potomac.
While there are many monuments to George Meade because of his military achievements, few
people are aware of a monument commemorating his lighthouse work. At the base of the
Barnegat Lighthouse is a bronze bust of Meade and a dedication plaque. Ironically, even
fewer people are aware of Meades most important lighthouse contribution; his work with
Florida Reef screwpile lighthouses.

Part IV. B, Page 32

IRON

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

U.S. Lighthouse Society photo

WOOD
Figure 1. Wooden Mukilteo Light Station in Mukilteo, Washington.

Wood was the third most common building

material used in historic lighthouse
construction. As a general rule the first
towers at early light station sites were
constructed of wood and were used until
funds were available to build a more
durable structure of masonry or iron. In
some locations, however, the wood tower
remained or was chosen as the permanent
lighthouse structure.
Easily shaped by sawing, planing, carving,
and gouging, wood was used for virtually
all components of historic lighthouses.
Wooden towers were generally timber
frame construction covered with sheathing
and clapboards or shingles. All other
lighthouse components such as door and
window surrounds, cornices, deck railings,
decking, doors and windows were also
constructed of wood. The use of wood in
lighthouse construction, however, was not
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

limited to the structure. Many masonry and

iron lighthouses were fitted with wooden
parts. For example, a common Chesapeake
Bay lighthouse configuration is a masonry
tower fitted with wooden interior stairs and
wooden tongue-and-groove beadboard
lantern parapet walls. All wooden
components, both functional and
decorative, may be important in defining
the historic character of a lighthouse. The
retention, protection, and repair of these
features is important during any
preservation treatment.
Although wood is not as durable as iron or
stone, with proper preservation care,
wooden structures can last virtually forever.
As with all materials, the expected life span
of wood can be significantly shortened if
maintenance is deferred or treatments cause
damage to the wood.

Part IV. C, Page 1

NMI photo

Figure 2. Wooden Point Fermin Light Station in San Pedro, California.

Why Does Wood Deteriorate?

Wood in a marine environment is subject to a host of forces. How successfully a wooden
lighthouse resists these pressures depends on how well it is designed and maintained.
Leading causes of wood decay:
inherent design flaws or missing/damaged features that allow for the exposure of wood end grain to
moisture or allow water to puddle or collect on wooden components;
lack of trim elements and metal flashing to protect the wood elements by shedding water away from
the lighthouse;
failed coating systems that allow raw wood to come in contact with moisture;
moisture trapped within a cavity defined by wooden components such as within a wall; and
attack by fungus, insects, or other pests.

Part IV. C, Page 2

WOOD

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Figures 3 and 4.

Inspecting for Problems Associated with Wooden Lighthouses

In order to develop an effective treatment plan for problems associated with wooden
lighthouses and their components, an in-depth inspection should be made of the
lighthouse and its immediate surroundings. The following chart is a listing of locations that
should be inspected regularly. Associated with these locations are the possible problems
to look for during the inspection.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. C, Page 3

Inspection Chart for Wooden Lighthouses

THE SITE
Look For:

Possible Problems:
Environment

General climatic conditions, including average

temperatures, wind speeds and directions,
humidity levels, and average snow accumulation

Severe conditions can lead to wooden lighthouse

component deterioration, including cracking,
coating failure, and severe weathering.

Number of freeze-thaw cycles

Severe cycles can produce damage from frost

action that can cause wooden lighthouse
components to crack and split, as well as
premature coating failure.

Location near sea

Salt in the air can lead to severe chalking of the

paint surface and cause premature failure of latex
paint products.

Acid rain in the region or from nearby industry

Acid rain can accelerate the deterioration of paint

and exposed wood surfaces.

Proximity to a major road highway or railroad

Vibrations are harmful to mortar joints and other

lighthouse parts.

Location in the flood plain of a river, lake, or sea

Floodwaters can bring damaging moisture in

contact with wooden lighthouse components.

Exposed or sheltered sections of a lighthouse

Exposure to the sun and elements affects moisture

evaporation and rain penetration. In damp
climates mildew and other fungal growth tends to
grow on the north side of the lighthouse and
under gallery decks where the surface never
receives direct sunlight.

Terrain
Soil typeclay, sand, rock

The type of soil influences water drainage around

the structure. Excessive water in the soil can
cause rising damp within the foundation,
permitting moisture to migrate into adjacent
wooden lighthouse components.

Slope away from lighthouse on all sides

If no slope exists, puddles will form at the base of

the lighthouse walls during heavy rains, leading to
water penetration and splash-back. Splash-back
can cause localized saturation of the wooden
lighthouse walls, which will cause premature
paint or coating failure.

Earth covering part of a brick or stone wall or

foundation

Moisture accumulation or penetration is possible

which in turn can migrate into adjacent wooden
lighthouse components.

Part IV. C, Page 4

WOOD

Look for:

Possible Problems:

Asphalt or other impervious paving touching walls

Water accumulation and rain splash-back onto the
walls can result, causing wood members to be
constantly saturated. This condition will
encourage premature rotting and deterioration.

Trees and Vegetation

Elms and some poplars dry up clay soil, leading to
Branches rubbing against a wall

Species of trees with 50 feet

possible lighthouse foundation failure.

Branches abrade surfaces and cause premature

coating failure.
Ivy or creepers on walls
Leaves prevent proper drying of the painted surface

which can lead to mildew and prolonged damp conditions. Tendrils from some species can penetrate
joints in the wooden sheathing members and may ultimately cause the failure of the wooden lighthouse
component.

THE LIGHTHOUSE

Overall Condition

General state of maintenance and repair

A well maintained lighthouse should require

fewer major repairs.

Evidence of previous fire or flooding

Such damage may have weakened the wooden

lighthouse structure members or caused excessive
moisture.

Consistent wall plane

A crooked wall may be a sign of stabilized

Lantern

structural settlement as well as unstable

foundations and may possibly lead to partial or
total lighthouse collapse.

Gallery decks
Gaps in gallery decking (cast-iron plate, flat-seam
metal) and wood tower wall copings can allow
water to penetrate the interior cavities of wood

frame lighthouse walls.

Condition of lantern storm panels

Cracks and holes in storm panel glazing can
provide an infiltration point for moisture into the
lantern thus affecting the interior wooden

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. C, Page 5

components: stairs and interior parapet wall covering.

Wood parapet walls

Holes or damaged flashings could allow water to

penetrate the wall cavity causing the wood to
deteriorate from the inside out, as well as cause
corrosion on the interior iron structural members.

Look for:
Possible Problems:
Humidity level within the lantern

Non-functioning lantern vents can prohibit the

release of humid air from within the tower. The

water vapor will ultimately condense on the

surfaces inside the tower and lantern. Growth of
mildew and fungus will result, thus causing
premature deterioration of the wooden features.
Straight and square openings

Windows and Doors

Deformed openings are a sign of lighthouse

structural settlement.

Sills sloped to shed water; drips under sills to prevent water from running back underneath; caulking
If any of these are inadequate, water can penetrate

into the lighthouse wall.

Gaps around perimeter of the window frame

Moisture infiltration will result, causing premature

deterioration of the wood structural framing and

wood window frame.

Foundation
Composition of foundation walls

Stone or brick is more likely than concrete to

allow water to infiltrate and possibly allow
moisture to migrate into adjacent wooden

lighthouse components.
Water condensation or other signs of moisture

damage to the wood.

Wood joists resting on masonry foundation walls

may begin to rot at the ends. Termites, mold,
mildew, moss, or algae may be present, causing
Rising damp can cause deterioration of the

Damp proof course

masonry wall and adjacent wood lighthouse components.

Interior

These are signs of lighthouse settlement and

possibly deteriorated wooden structural
components.

Part IV. C, Page 6

Cracked plaster, signs of patching, floors or

landings askew
Damp walls, mold and mildew stains on walls,
rotting wood

WOOD

These indicate water infiltration.

Walls
Construction methodheavy timber or light frame; load bearing or not load bearing
Knowing how a lighthouse tower wall is
constructed will help in analyzing problems and

selecting appropriate treatments.

Evidence that parts of the lighthouse were
constructed at different times or of different
materials
Similar problems with various parts may need

different treatments because of different materials.

Look for:
Possible Problems:

Wood Components

Materials
Wood species, dimensions, and character defining

marks, textures, etc.

where the deteriorated wood component is in

Types of materials indicate the susceptibility or

resistance to damage and should be matched if
wood must be replaced. In hidden locations
contact with stone or subjected to moisture,
substitute materials such as preservative treated
lumber may be used.

Areas of delicate carving or fine moldings

These are typically character-defining features of

the lighthouse that will need special attention or

protection during rehabilitation.
Missing or broken foundation bricks or stones,

exterior wood siding, shingles, trim, etc.

Missing material may allow water penetration that

could cause damage to the lighthouses internal
structural framing.
Evidence of high pressure waterblasting, such as
eroded surfaces, flaking, scaling, or crazed paint

Damaged and deteriorated surfaces can allow

water to penetrate and promote rapid degradation

of wood lighthouse components.
Dirt or stains
Surface stains usually cause few problems other
than being unpleasant to look at. Mildew growth

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. C, Page 7

is a sign of damp conditions.

Bulges and Cracks

Bulges
Bulges indicate that the wall has moved because
of possible wooden structural component failure
or deterioration. Corrective action may be
Cracks in interior or exterior wall covering
indicate movement has occurred within the wall.
Enlarging cracks/active movement

necessary.
Cracks
Small cracks may be patched; large cracks may
require reconstruction of the affected area. A full
inspection of structural members should be
performed if cracks are present.
Active cracks in interior plaster wall covering
indicate a continuing problem. The cause must
be dealt with before the crack itself is repaired.
Cracks that are assumed to be the result of active
movement should be monitored to determine

level of activity and to properly address the problem.

Look for:

Possible Problems:
Moisture

Water penetration through joints between masonry

foundations and wooden lighthouse components,

i.e., along mudsill
Moisture can lead to deterioration of both the

masonry and the wooden lighthouse components

of the structure.

Water penetration between the lantern gallery

deck and the wooden lighthouse structure

Moisture can lead to deterioration of both the iron components and the wooden components of the
lighthouse.

Exposed end grain of window and door frame

members, trim components, and decking
All end grain is susceptible to moisture

infiltration; exposed end grain tends to actually

draw or wick water through capillary action. End

grain must be protected at all times by a well

maintained coating system or by inherent trim
detailing.

Coatings
Paint; type of paint
Latex paint products do not withstand the severe
conditions experienced in the marine environment
as well as oil-based products.
Blistering paint
Paint that blisters off the wood substrate in large
sheets is a sign of moisture infiltration within the
wood itself; the escaping moisture actually
pushes the paint off the wood.
Flaking, peeling, and crazed paint

Part IV. C, Page 8

This is usually a sign that the paint has lost WOOD

its
flexibility and is beginning or has already begun to

PRESERVATION TREATMENTS
Protection and Stabilization (Mothballing)
Although seemingly less durable when compared to masonry or iron, wooden lighthouses
can last almost indefinitely if they are properly protected and stabilized. To properly
protect and stabilize a historic wooden lighthouse, a thorough inspection and diagnosis
should be performed using the inspection chart in the preceding section as a guide. Use
the results of the inspection to develop a protection and stabilization plan. The following
recommended protection and stabilization guidelines for vacant historic masonry
lighthouses are minimum treatment requirements to prevent any further damage from
occurring.

Weatherization
When a wooden lighthouse is mothballed,
the exterior envelop should be completely
weathertight. Moisture penetrating into
wooden walls can be exceedingly
detrimental to the integrity of the structure.
Moisture within the wooden elements of a
wall may cause various types of damage.
High moisture content may literally push
paint off the face of the wooden
component, encourage fungal growth that
will cause the wood to decay and rot, or
attract termites and other wood eating
insects that will cause rapid deterioration of
the wooden components.
To prevent moisture penetration, be sure
the following infiltration points are
weathertight or functioning properly:
Lantern glass: Lantern glass, frames, and roofs
must be weathertight before mothballing (see
Figure 5). Refer to the Lantern section for more
information concerning the weatherproofing of
the lantern components.

the wooden wall structure. The decking should

be sloped away from the lighthouse to shed the
water away from the structure. If the decking
material is not weathertight, moisture can enter
the interior cavity of the wall. Refer to the
Lantern section for more information
concerning the weatherproofing of gallery
decks.

Figure 5. Storm glass with holes should be replaced as

soon as possible to minimize water infiltration. If
immediate replacement is not an option, the storm glass can
be temporarily patched.

Built-in guttering systems: All rainwater

guttering systems (lantern roofs, or other tower
roof forms) should be cleaned and checked for
holes. Water entering the structure will cause
premature deterioration of internal structural
components. For more information refer to the
discussion on roofing in the Lantern section.
Gallery decks: In most wooden lighthouses
gallery decks are wood covered in sheet metal.
These decks are generally laid directly on top of

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Figure 6. An acceptable temporary lantern glass repair

made using a small piece of sheet metal and caulking.

Part IV. C, Page 9

WPTC photo
WPTC photo

Figure 9. If the exterior of the wooden tower has been

covered with another sheathing material like this corrugated
metal, all joints in the exterior sheathing should be made
completely weathertight; at this particular lighthouse,
deterioration of interior wood framing members was caused
by moisture infiltration.

WPTC photo

Figure 7. Ponding is occurring on this gallery deck near

the base of the lantern parapet wall. This ponding has led
to an active leak that occurs even during light rain
conditions. A condition such as this should be remedied
before the mothballing period.

WPTC photo

Figure 10. This door sill has a positive slope to ensure

proper drainage; the joint where the door surround meets
the shingles should be checked for gaps and recaulked if
necessary.

should have a positive slope to ensure water is

drained away from the door or window
opening. See the Windows and Doors sections
for the proper caulk for this application.

Figure 8. View of a wood-framed lighthouse roof; the

arrow indicates where a large hole (approximately 2 by 4
inches) is present in the built-in gutter system. Water
entering this hole has caused extensive damage to the
interior wood framing members and wood interior wall
paneling.

Loose or open joints: If the seams between

siding boards are open or if the putty in those
joints is loose, moisture can penetrate. In order
to prevent this infiltration, all putty that is in
disrepair must be removed and the affected
seams sealed with caulking. For more
information on various types of caulking
available, refer to the Windows section.

Door and window frames: The joints along the

perimeter of door and windows where a wood
or metal frame is fitted into a wall opening
should be caulked to prevent moisture from
entering the walls. Both door and window sills

Protective coatings: Lighthouses were

historically painted as a protective measure and
for identification as a daymark. As part of a
mothballing treatment, the exterior coating
should be checked for loose and flaking paint.
Any deteriorating areas should be scraped and

Part IV. C, Page 10

WOOD

WPTC photo

repainted to match the existing color.

Ultimately, as part of a mothballing treatment
the entire lighthouse should have all loose and
flaking paint removed and a new coating
applied according to the manufacturers
specifications. This action will result in a
coating system that will require minimal service
during the mothballed period. In lieu of a total
repainting, spot painting can be an effective
alternative. The removal of loose and flaking
paint followed by spot priming and painting
areas of bare wood will greatly increase the
effective life span of a wooden lighthouse. For
more information refer to the discussion on
repainting under the Repair treatment in this
section.

Figure 12. View of underside of a screwpile lighthouse.

Although these bare wood surfaces are not directly exposed
to rain, they are susceptible to mist and condensation
moisture; and because there is no exposure to direct
sunlight, the surfaces are seldom dry. For adequate
protection during the mothballing period, these surfaces
should be painted.

WPTC photo

Ventilation

Figure 11. Open joints like those between these skirt

boards must be properly primed, painted, and filled before
mothballing the lighthouse.

Stabilization
When mothballing a wooden lighthouse, all
possible structural repairs should be made
before the official beginning of the
mothballed period. If budget constraints
prevent repairs, structural stabilization is
the next option. Temporary wood shoring
of window and door openings, installation
of interior or exterior shoring, or bracing are
all stabilization methods. A structural
engineer or historical architect should be
consulted for a proper stabilization
treatment plan. The stabilization treatment
utilized should not permanently damage
features that define historic character. The
treatment should also be easily reversible so
that when the budget allows, the structure
can be properly repaired.
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

When the exterior has been made

weathertight and secure, it is essential to
provide adequate air exchange throughout
the lighthouse. Once closed up, a
lighthouse interior will still be affected by
the temperature and humidity of the
exterior. Without proper ventilation,
moisture from condensation may occur and
cause damage by wetting plaster, peeling
paint, staining woodwork, warping floors,
and in some cases even causing freeze-thaw
damage to plaster. If moist conditions
persist in a wooden lighthouse, structural
damage can result from rot or returning
insects attracted to moist conditions.
The average required minimum air
exchange for most mothballed lighthouses
is one to four air exchanges every hour; in
the winter one or two air exchanges per
hour. Twice this amount is typically
required in the more humid summer
months. In order to achieve this, almost
every window opening will need to be
fitted with some type of passive, louvered
ventilation. Even this minimal exchange
may permit mold and mildew in damp
climates. Monitoring the lighthouse for
several months during the initial
Part IV. C, Page 11

weatherization period and after the building

has been fitted with ventilation louvers and
mothballed will provide useful information
on the effectiveness of the ventilation
solution. Installation of window-mounted
passive louver systems is covered in the
Windows section.

Fire Protection
Fire is a threat to wooden lighthouses. For
guidance on this issue, refer to Fire
Prevention and Protection Objectives
under Related Activities in Part VI.

Repair
Once a thorough inspection and diagnosis is performed, using the inspection chart on page
4 as a guide, a preservation treatment plan must be developed. The following are general
guidelines for preservation repair and maintenance for wooden lighthouses.

Cleaning

Failing Paint

The simple act of cleaning painted surfaces

can effectively enhance the appearance and
extend the life of the coating of historic
wooden lighthouse components. In a
marine environment a buildup of
potentially damaging elements such as salts,
bird guano, and in more urban locations,
industrial pollutants, can cause premature
deterioration of coatings on wooden
lighthouses. Simple but effective regular
cleaning will greatly extend the life of the
wooden components. The following are
general guidelines to follow when cleaning
historic wooden lighthouse components:

Paint is the primary defense used to protect

wooden lighthouse building components
from the harsh marine environment. Paint
applied to exterior wood must withstand
yearly extremes of both temperature and
humidity. While being merely a temporary
coating designed to last between five and
eight years, paint is responsible for the
exclusion of moisture for the wood
substrate. Its role is pivotal because
moisture penetration causes most of the
wooden component failures in historic
lighthouses.

Clean surfaces only when necessary to remove

buildup of salts, guano, mildew and industrial
pollutants.
Clean surfaces with the gentlest method
possible, such as low pressure water and mild
detergents and natural bristle brushes. Do not
use high pressure water blasting. This treatment
may damage the wood substrate by breaking
through the paint layer and erode the wood or
by passing through gaps and saturating interior
finishes and exposed bare wood within the wall
cavity.
Do not use a cleaning method that involves
water or liquid chemical solutions when there is
any possibility of freezing temperatures.

Part IV. C, Page 12

The treatment of failing paint depends on

the condition of the paint surface. Paint
surface conditions can be grouped
according to their relative severity: Class I
conditions include minor blemishes or dirt
collection and generally require no paint
removal; Class II conditions include failure
of the layer or layers of paint and generally
require limited paint removal; and Class III
conditions include substantial or multiple
layer failure and generally require total
paint removal.

WOOD

A Guide to Paint Treatment Organized by Surface Condition Classification

Class I: Generally no paint removaldirt, soot,
pollution, chalking, mildew etc., (see Figure 13).

WPTC photo

Recommended Treatment: This condition presents

a problem only if the surface is to be painted over.
If not removed, the surface deposits can be a barrier
to proper adhesion and cause peeling. Most surface
matter can be loosened by a strong, direct stream of
water from the nozzle of a garden-type hose.
Stubborn dirt and soot will need to be scrubbed off
using a 1/2 cup of household detergent in a gallon
of water with a medium soft-bristle brush. (For the
removal of mildew add 1 cup of bleach to the nonammoniated detergent.) The cleaned surface
should be thoroughly rinsed and permitted to dry
before further inspection to determine if repainting
is necessary.
Class II: Generally limited paint removal
crazing, intercoat peeling, solvent blistering,
wrinkling (see Figure 14).

Crazing: Fine jagged interconnected breaks in the top

layer of paint; results when paint that is several layers
Figure 13. This image shows a Class I paint
condition: virtually no deterioration, only some
thick becomes hard and brittle with age and is no longer
soiling and possible salt buildup resulting from the
able to expand and contract with the wood.
open-water location of the lighthouse.
Recommended Treatment: Crazing can be treated by
sanding the surface by hand or mechanically, then repainting. Although hairline cracks may tend to show
through the new paint, the surface will be protected from moisture penetration.
Intercoat peeling: Can be the result of improper surface preparation before the last repainting. This
most often occurs in protected areas such as under covered lighthouse entry ways or under the shadow
of an overhanging gallery deck. These surfaces do not receive a regular rinsing from rainfall, and salts
from airborne pollutants thus accumulate on the surface. If not cleaned off, the new paint coat will not
adhere properly and that layer will peel.
Another common cause of intercoat peeling is incompatibility between paint types. For example, if oil
paint is applied over latex paint, peeling of the top coat can sometimes result when, upon aging, the oil
paint becomes harder and less elastic than the latex paint. If latex paint is applied over old, chalking oil
paint, peeling can also occur because the latex paint is unable to penetrate the chalky surface and adhere.
Recommended Treatment: First, where salts or impurities have caused the peeling, the affected area
should be washed down thoroughly after scraping, then wiped dry. Finally, the surface should be sanded
by hand or mechanically, then repainted. Where peeling was the result of using incompatible paints, the
peeling top coat should be scraped and sanded (with an orbital sander only). Application of a highquality oil-type exterior primer will provide a surface over which either an oil or a latex topcoat can be
successfully used.
Solvent blistering: The result of a less common application error, caused not by moisture, but by the
action of ambient heat on paint solvent or thinners in the paint film. If solvent-rich paint is applied in
direct sunlight, the top surface can dry too quickly and, as a result, solvents become trapped beneath the
dried paint film. When the solvent vaporizes, it forces its way through the paint film, resulting in surface
blisters. This problem occurs more often with dark colored paints because darker colors absorb more
heat than lighter ones. To distinguish between solvent blistering and blistering caused by moisture, cut

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. C, Page 13

WPTC photo

Figure 14. View of Class II paint

condition: this example happens to
be on the same lighthouse as the
Class I condition shown in the
previous image; multiple paint
conditions can exist on the same
lighthouse. In this example, only
spot paint removal and repainting
will be required to remedy the
condition.

open a blister. If another layer of paint is visible, then solvent blistering is likely the problem whereas if
bare wood is revealed, moisture is probably to blame. Solvent blisters are generally small.
Recommended Treatment: Solvent-blistered areas can be scraped, sanded to the next sound layer, then
repainted. In order to prevent blistering of painted surfaces, paint should not be applied in direct
sunlight.
Wrinkling: An error in application that occurs when the top layer of paint dries before the layer
underneath. The top layer of paint actually moves as the paint underneath (a primer, for example) is
drying. Specific causes of wrinkling include: (1) applying paint too thick; (2) applying a second coat
before the first one dries; (3) inadequate brushing out; and (4) painting in temperatures higher than
recommended by the manufacturer.
Recommended Treatment: The wrinkled layer can be removed by scraping followed by sanding (with an
orbital sander only) to provide as even a surface as possible, then repainted following manufacturers
application instructions.

Class III: Exterior surface conditions generally requiring total paint removalpeeling, cracking/
alligatoring (see Figure 15).
If surface conditions are such that most of the paint will have to be removed before repainting,
leave a small sample of intact paint in an inconspicuous area either by covering the area with a
metal plate, or by marking the area and identifying it in some way. (When repainting does take
place, the sample should not be painted over). This will enable future investigators to have a
record of the buildings paint history.
Peeling: Exposing bare wood; most often caused by excess interior or exterior moisture that collects
behind the paint film, thus impairing adhesion. Generally beginning as blisters, cracking and peeling
occur as moisture causes the wood to swell, breaking the adhesion of the bottom layer.
Recommended Treatment: There is no sense in repainting before dealing with the moisture problems
because new paint will simply fail. Therefore, the first step in treating peeling is to locate and remove the
source or sources of moisture, not only because moisture will jeopardize the protective coating of paint
but because, if left unattended, it can ultimately cause permanent damage to the wood. Excess interior
moisture should be removed from the building through installation of exhaust fans and vents. Exterior
moisture should be eliminated by correcting the following conditions before repainting: faulty flashing;
leaking gutters; defective roof shingles; cracks and holes in siding and trim; deteriorated caulking in
joints and seams; and shrubbery growing too close to painted wood. After the moisture problems have

Part IV. C, Page 14

WOOD

WPTC photo

Figure 15. View of Class III

paint condition: in this case the
cracking, peeling, and
alligorating have been caused by
excessive paint layer build up.

been solved, the wood must be permitted to dry out thoroughly. The damaged paint can then be scraped
off with a putty knife, sanded, primed, and repainted.
Cracking/alligatoring: Advanced stages of crazing. Once the bond between layers has been broken
because of intercoat paint failure, exterior moisture is able to penetrate the surface cracks, causing the
wood to swell and deeper cracking to take place. This process continues until cracking, which forms
parallel to grain, extends to bare wood. Ultimately, the cracking becomes an overall pattern of horizontal
and vertical breaks in the paint layers that looks like reptile skin; hence, alligatoring. In advanced
stages of cracking and alligatoring, the surfaces will also flake badly.
Recommended Treatment: If cracking and alligatoring are present only in the top layers, they can
probably be scraped, sanded to the next sound layer, then repainted. If cracking and/or alligatoring have
progressed to bare wood, however, and the paint has begun to flake, it should be totally removed.
Methods include scraping or paint removal with the electric heat plate, electric heat gun, or chemical
strippers, depending on the particular area involved. Bare wood should be primed within 48 hours, then
repainted.

Paint Removal: Selecting the

Appropriate/Safest Method
Having presented the hierarchy of
exterior paint surface conditionsfrom a
mild condition such as mildewing which
simply requires cleaning before repainting
to serious conditions such as peeling and
alligatoring which require total paint
removalone important thought bears
repeating: if a paint problem has been
identified that warrants either limited or
total paint removal, the gentlest method
possible for the particular wooden element
of the historic lighthouse should be selected
from the many available methods.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

The treatments recommended take three

overriding issues into consideration (1) the
continued protection and preservation of
the historic exterior woodwork; (2) the
retention of the sequence of historic paint
layers; and (3) the health and safety of those
individuals performing the paint removal.
No paint removal method is without its
drawbacks, and all recommendations are
qualified in varying degrees.

Part IV. C, Page 15

Methods for Removing Paint

WARNING: Many of these techniques are
potentially dangerous and should be carried
out only by experienced and qualified
workers using proper eye protection and
protective clothing, and observing other
workplace safety conditions. Before selecting
a process, test panels should be prepared to
determine the relative effectiveness of various
techniques. The cleaning process will most
likely expose additional coating defects,
cracks, and deterioration that may not have
been obvious before.

After a particular exterior paint surface

condition has been identified, the next step
in planning for repaintingif paint removal
is requiredis selecting an appropriate
method for such removal. The method or
methods selected should be suitable for the
specific paint problem as well as the
particular wooden element of the

lighthouse. Methods for paint removal can

be divided into three categories (frequently,
however, a combination of the three
methods is used).
Each method of paint removal is defined
below, then discussed further and specific
recommendations made:
Abrasive: Abrading the painted surface
by manual and/or mechanical means such
as scraping and sanding. Generally used
for surface preparation and limited paint
removal.
Thermal: Softening and raising the paint
layers by applying heat followed by
scraping and sanding. Generally used for
total paint removal.
Chemical: Softening of the paint layers
with chemical strippers followed by
scraping and sanding. Generally used for
total paint removal.

Abrasive methods (manual)

If conditions such as crazing, intercoat peeling, solvent blistering, and wrinkling require limited
paint removal, scraping and hand sanding should be the first methods employed before using
mechanical means. Even in the case of more serious conditions such as peeling (here the
damaged paint is weak and already sufficiently loosened from the wood surface), scraping and
hand sanding may be all that is needed before repainting.
Recommended abrasive methods (manual):
Putty knife/paint scraper: Scraping is usually accomplished with either a putty knife or a paint scraper,
or both. Putty knives range in width from one to six inches and have a beveled edge. A putty knife is
used in a pushing motion going under the paint and working from an area of loose paint toward the edge
where the paint is still firmly adhered and, in effect, beveling the remaining layers so that as smooth a
transition as possible is made between damaged and undamaged areas. Paint scrapers are commonly
available in 1 1/2-, 2 1/2-, and 3 1/2-inch widths and have replaceable blades. In addition, profiled
scrapers can be made specifically for use on moldings. As opposed to the putty knife, the paint scraper is
used in a pulling motion and works by raking the damaged areas of paint away.
The obvious goal in using the putty knife or the paint scraper is to selectively remove the affected layer
or layers of paint; both of these tools, however, particularly the paint scraper with its hooked edge, must
be used with care to properly prepare the surface and to avoid gouging the wood.
Sandpaper/sanding block/sanding sponge: After manually removing the damaged layer or layers by
scraping, the uneven surface (caused by the almost inevitable removal of varying numbers of paint layers
in a given area) will need to be smoothed or feathered out prior to repainting. As stated before, hand
sanding, as opposed to harsher mechanical sanding is recommended if the area is relatively limited. A
coarse-grit, open-coat flint sandpaperthe least expensive kindis useful for this purpose because, as
the sandpaper clogs with paint, new sheets are used until all layers adhere uniformly. Blocks made of

Part IV. C, Page 16

WOOD

wood or hard rubber and covered with sandpaper are useful for hand sanding flat surfaces. Sanding
spongesrectangular sponges with an abrasive aggregate on their surfaces that conforms to curves and
irregular surfacesare also available for detail work that requires reaching into grooves. All sanding
should follow the grain of the wood.

Abrasive methods (mechanical)

If hand sanding for purposes of surface preparation has not been productive or if the affected area
is too large to consider hand sanding by itself, mechanical abrasive methods, i.e., power-operated
tools, may be needed; it should be noted, however, that the majority of tools available for paint
removal can cause damage to fragile wood and must be used with great care.
Recommended abrasive methods (mechanical):
Orbital sander/random orbit sander: Designed as finishing or smoothing tools, not for the removal of
multiple layers of paint, these sanders are recommended when limited paint removal is required before
repainting. The orbital sander sands in a small diameter circular motion (some models can also be
switched to a back-and-forth vibrating action); this tool is particularly effective for feathering areas
where paint has first been scraped. The abrasive surface varies from about 3 by 7 inches to 4 by 9 inches
and sandpaper is attached either by clamps or sliding clips. The random orbit sander does just what its
name implies, it sands in a circular motion with a random movement of its axis. This type of sander
tends to leave a smoother finish than the orbital sander. The abrasive surface is round and ranges in
diameter from 5 to 6 inches and is attached with either a pressure sensitive adhesive backing or a hook
and loop fastening system. A majority of commercially available random orbit sanders come equipped
with dust pickup connections which is a plus when sanding lead-based paint. For either sander a medium
grit, open-coat aluminum oxide sandpaper should be used; fine sandpaper clogs up so quickly that it is
ineffective for smoothing paint.

Abrasive methods not to use:

Rotary drill attachments: Rotary drill attachments such as the rotary sanding disc and the rotary wire
stripper should be avoided. The disc sanderusually a disc of sandpaper about 5 inches in diameter
secured to a rubber-based attachment which is in turn connected to an electric drill or other motorized
housingcan easily leave visible circular depressions in the wood which are difficult to hide, even with
repainting. The rotary wire stripperclusters of metals wires similarly attached to an electric drill type
unitcan actually shred a wooden surface and is used only for removing corrosion and paint from
metals.
Belt sander: The abrasive surface is a continuous belt of sandpaper that travels at high speeds and
consequently offers much less control than the orbital sander. Because of the potential for more damage
to the paint or the wood, use of the belt sander can create deep gouges in the wood if not used properly.
Waterblasting: Waterblasting above 600 psi to remove paint is not recommended because it can force
water into the woodwork rather than cleaning loose paint and grime from the surface; at worst, high
pressure waterblasting causes the water to penetrate exterior sheathing and damages interior finishes.
The gentlest method involving water uses a detergent solution, a medium soft bristle brush, and a garden
hose for purposes of rinsing, and is recommended when cleaning exterior surfaces before repainting.
Sandblasting: Finallyand most vehemently not recommendedsandblasting painted exterior
woodwork will indeed remove paint, but at the same time can scar wooden elements beyond recognition.
As with rotary wire strippers, sandblasting erodes the soft porous fibers (spring wood) faster than the
hard, dense fibers (summer wood), leaving a pitted surface with ridges and valleys. Sandblasting will
also erode projecting areas of carvings and moldings before it removes paint from concave areas. Hence,
this abrasive method is the most damaging of all possibilities, even though a contractor might promise
that blast pressure can be controlled so that the paint is removed without harming the historic exterior
woodwork. For additional information, see NPS Preservation Briefs 6: Dangers of Abrasive Cleaning to
Historic Buildings.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. C, Page 17

Thermal methods
Where exterior surface conditions such as peeling, cracking, or alligatoring have been identified
that warrant total paint removal, two thermal devicesthe electric heat plate and the electric heat
gunhave proven to be quite successful for use on different wooden elements of the historic
building. One thermal method, the blow torch, is not recommended because it can scorch the
wood or even burn the lighthouse down!
Recommended thermal methods:
Electric heat plate: The electric heat plate operates between 500 and 800 degrees Fahrenheit (not hot
enough to vaporize lead paint), using about 15 amps of power. The plate is held close to the painted
exterior surface until the layers of paint begin to soften and blister, then moved to an adjacent location on
the wood while the softened paint is scraped off with a putty knife. It should be noted that the heat plate
is most successful when the paint is very thick. With practice, the operator can successfully move the
heat plate evenly across a flat surface such as wooden siding or a window sill or door in a continuous
motion, thus lessening the risk of scorching the wood in an attempt to reheat the edge of the paint
sufficiently for effective removal. Since the electric heat plates coil is red hot, extreme caution should
be taken to avoid igniting clothing or burning the skin. If an extension cord is used, it should be a heavyduty cord (with 3-prong grounded plugs). A heat plate could overload a circuit or, even worse, cause an
electrical fire; therefore, the implement should be used with a single circuit and a fire extinguisher always
kept close at hand.
Electric heat gun: The electric heat gun (electric hot-air gun) looks like a hand-held hair dryer with a
heavy-duty metal case. It has an electrical resistance coil that typically heats to between 500 and 750
degrees Fahrenheit and, again, uses about 15 amps of power, which requires a heavy-duty extension cord.
(There are some heat guns that operate at higher temperatures, but they should not be purchased for
removing old paint because of the danger of lead paint vapors.) The temperature is controlled by a vent
on the side of the heat gun. When the vent is closed, the heat increases. A fan forces a stream of hot air
against the painted woodwork, causing a blister to form. At that point, the softened paint can be peeled
back with a putty knife.
Although the heat gun is heavier and more tiring to use than the heat plate, it is particularly effective for
removing paint from detail work because the nozzle can be directed at curved and intricate surfaces. It
thus is more limited than the heat plate, and is most successful in conjunction with the heat plate. For
example, it takes about two to three hours to strip a paneled door with a heat gun, but if used in
combination with a heat plate for the large, flat area, the time can usually be cut in half. Although a heat
gun seldom scorches wood, it can cause fires (like the blow torch) if aimed at the dusty cavity between
the exterior sheathing and siding and interior lath and plaster. A fire may smolder for hours before
flames break through to the surface. Therefore, this thermal device is best suited for use on solid
decorative elements, such as molding, balusters, and handrails.

Thermal methods not to use:

Blow torch: Blow torches, such as hand-held propane or butane torches, were widely used in the past for
paint removal because other thermal devices were not available. With this technique, the flame is
directed toward the paint until it begins to bubble and loosen from the surface. Then the paint is scraped
off with a putty knife. Although this is a relatively fast process, the open flame, at temperatures between
3200 and 3800 degrees Fahrenheit, can not only burn a careless operator and cause severe damage to
eyes or skin, it can easily scorch or ignite the wood. The other fire hazard is more insidious. Most frame
buildings have an air space between the exterior sheathing and siding and interior lath and plaster. This
cavity usually has an accumulation of dust which is also easily ignited by the open flame of a blow torch.
Finally, lead-base paints will vaporize at high temperatures, releasing toxic fumes that can be
unknowingly inhaled.

Part IV. C, Page 18

WOOD

Chemical methods
With the availability of effective thermal methods for total paint removal, the need for chemical
methods, in the context of preparing historic exterior woodwork for repainting, becomes quite
limited. Solvent-base or caustic strippers may, however, play a supplemental role in a number of
situations:
removing paint residue from intricate decorative features, or in cracks or hard-to-reach areas if a heat gun
has not been completely effective;
removing paint on window muntins because heat devices can easily break the glass;
removing varnish on exterior doors after all layers of paint have been removed by a heat plate/heat gun if
the original varnish finish is being restored; or
removing paint from detachable wooden elements such as exterior shutters, balusters, columns, and doors
by dip-stripping when other methods are too laborious.

Recommended chemical methods (use with extreme caution):

Because all chemical paint removers have potential health and safety hazards, only qualified
recommendations can be made. Commonly known as paint removers or strippers, both
solvent-base or caustic products are commercially available that, when poured, brushed, or
sprayed on painted exterior woodwork, soften several layers of paint at a time so that the resulting
sludgewhich is nothing less than the sequence of historic paint layerscan be removed with a
putty knife. Detachable wood elements such as exterior shutters can also be dip-stripped.
Solvent-base strippers: The formulas tend to vary, but generally consist of combinations of organic
solvents such as methylene chloride, isopropanol, toluol, xylol, and methanol; thickeners such as methyl
cellulose; and various additives such as paraffin wax used to prevent the volatile solvents from
evaporating before they have time to soak through multiple layers of paint. Thus, while some solventbase strippers are quite thin and therefore unsuitable for use on vertical surfaces, others, called semipaste strippers, are formulated for use on vertical surfaces or the underside of horizontal surfaces.
Whether liquid or semi-paste, however, there are two important points to stress when using any solventbase stripper: first, the vapors from the organic chemicals can be highly toxic if inhaled; skin contact is
equally dangerous because the solvents can be absorbed; second, many solvent-base strippers are
flammable. Even though application out-of-doors may somewhat mitigate health and safety hazards, a
respirator with special filters for organic solvents should be worn and, of course, solvent-base strippers
should never be used around open flames, lighted cigarettes, or with steel wool around electrical outlets.
Although appearing to be the simplest for exterior use, a particular type of solvent-base stripper should be
mentioned here because it can actually cause more problems. Known as water-rinsable, such products
have a high proportion of methylene chloride together with emulsifiers. Although the dissolved paint can
be rinsed off with water with a minimum of scraping, this ultimately creates more of a problem in
cleaning up and properly disposing of the sludge. In addition, these strippers can leave a gummy residue
on the wood that requires removal with solvents. Finally, water-rinsable strippers tend to raise the grain
of the wood more than regular strippers.
On balance, then, the regular strippers would seem to work just as well for exterior purposes and are
perhaps even better from the standpoint of proper lead sludge disposal because they must be hand
scraped as opposed to rinsed off. (A coffee can with a wire stretched across the top is one effective way
to collect the sludge; when the putty knife is run across the wire, the sludge simply falls into the can.
Then, when the can is filled, the wire is removed, the can capped, and the lead paint sludge disposed of
according to local health regulations.)
Caustic strippers: Until the advent of solvent-base strippers, caustic strippers were used exclusively
when a chemical method was deemed appropriate for total paint removal before repainting or refinishing.
Now, commercially prepared caustic solutions are more difficult to find in hardware and paint stores for

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. C, Page 19

home-owner use with the exception of lye (caustic soda) because solvent-base strippers packaged in
small quantities tend to dominate the market.
Most commercial dip stripping companies, however, continue to use variations of the caustic bath
process because it is still the cheapest method available for removing paint. Generally, dip stripping
should be left to professional companies because caustic solutions can dissolve skin and permanently
damage eyes as well as present serious disposal problems in large quantities.
If exterior shutters or other detachable elements are being sent out for stripping in a caustic solution, it is
wise to see samples of the companys finished work. While some companies do a first-rate job, others
can leave a residue of paint in carvings and grooves. Wooden elements may also be soaked too long so
that the wood grain is raised and roughened, requiring extensive hand sanding later. In addition, these
companies should give assurances that caustic paint removers will be neutralized with a mild acid
solution or at least thoroughly rinsed with water after dipping (a caustic residue makes the wood feel
slippery). If this is not done, the lye residue will cause new paint to fail.

Painting
Assuming that the exterior wood has been
painted with oil paint many times in the
past and the existing top coat is therefore
also an oil paint, a top coat of high quality
oil paint should be applied when repainting
Class I and Class II paint surface conditions.
There are two reasons for recommending
oil rather than latex paints: 1) a coat of latex
paint applied directly over old oil paint is
more apt to fail because of different rates of
shrinkage; 2) oil paints withstand the harsh
conditions of a marine environment better
than latex.
If Class III conditions have necessitated total
paint removal, an oil-based primer/top coat
system should be applied to ensure the
maximum protection of the wood. For the best
results the primer and top coat should be
manufactured by the same company. Note also
that primers were never intended to withstand
the effects of weathering; therefore, the top coat
should be applied as soon as possible after the
primer has dried.
To ensure that the maximum life expectancy of
the paint is achieved, follow the manufacturers
specifications and guidelines that are included
with the product (either directly on the label or
as included literature).
All paint on wood surfaces should be applied
with good quality natural bristle brushes. All
brushing should be done with the grain of the

Part IV. C, Page 20

wood. Brush painting ensures the best coverage

and in turn the most durable finish.

Repair of Damaged/Deteriorated
Wooden Components
Exterior wood trim on historic lighthouses
often performs the dual function of weather
protection and decoration. Moldings,
siding, and trim not only create visual
interest with highlights and shadows, but
also have practical value. In addition to
covering joints and protecting the wood
end grain, they direct rainwater from one
component to the next and eventually to
the ground.
General Guidelines for Wood Repair
Identify, retain, and preserve wood features
that are important in defining the overall
historic character of the building, such as
siding, cornices, brackets, window
architraves, and doorway pediments, and
their paints, finishes, and colors.
During the inspection of the historic wooden
lighthouse, identify character-defining features
of the wooden components such as the species
of wood, grain pattern, dimensions, millwork,
shaping, joining, and finishing techniques, and
means of fastening.
Historically, the wood species was chosen for
its inherent qualities. Oak, fir, and pine, all
common building lumber, exhibit varying
strength and resistance to decay. When

WOOD

choosing a wood species for repair or

replacement, these factors should be
considered.
The use of lumber treated to resist decay is only
appropriate for hidden structural components.
Determine if a wood element functions as a
structural, decorative, or finish material, This
information will dictate the priority of treatment,
e.g., a structural beam or column will take
precedence over applied trim that serves no
other function than decoration.
Do not remove or radically change wood
features that are important in defining the
overall historic character of the building, or
provide weather protection for the lighthouse.
Do not radically change the type of finish or its
color or accent scheme so that the historic
character of the exterior is diminished or the
daymark characteristics of the lighthouse are
altered.
Do not remove all paint layers without retaining
samples for analysis and documentation. In the
case of a lighthouse where total paint removal is
required, if possible leave a patch of
undisturbed paint in a protected area such as on
a wall under a covered entry or behind a
shutter. The location of the sample should be
identified in the project record and kept in the
lighthouse maintenance file.
For all exterior wood repairs galvanized or
stainless steel fasteners (nails, screws, and bolts)
must be used in order to prevent the premature
failure of the repair by fasteners that rusted and
failed. When used, finish nails should be
countersunk and the depression filled with
wood filler applied over the nailheads.
Do not replace an entire wood feature, such as
a cornice or wall, when repair of the wood and
limited replacement of deteriorated or missing
parts are appropriate.
Damaged or missing trim elements that
maintain the exterior weathertight envelope
must be repaired as soon as possible.
For the replacement part, do not use substitute
material that does not have the appearance of
the surviving parts of the wood feature or that is
physically or chemically incompatible.
Do not remove an entire wood feature that is
beyond repair and not replace it, or replace it

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

with a new feature that does not have the same

appearance.
Do not replace milled lumber with plywood.
Plywood is both historically inappropriate and
visually distinct from historic wood.

As part of an effective treatment program,

inspect wood surfaces and structural
elements regularly for signs of moisture
retention and insect or fungal attack.
Peeling paint, spongy wood, discoloration,
staining, and the presence of fungi are clear
indicators of wood deterioration caused by
elevated moisture content. (See the
Windows section for inspection techniques
for damaged and deteriorated wood.)
Insect damage generally occurs on the
interior of a wood member and may be
hidden until the structural integrity is
severely compromised. Sills and wood
joints or members bearing on masonry are
particularly susceptible to rot, because they
are frequently subjected to moisture.
Wood structures are most commonly
weakened when the original cross section
of a structural member is reduced by
portions cut out by alterations, fire, insect
damage, or fungal rot. Rot on the original
member must be removed before installing
new material.
Deteriorated portions of wood can be
effectively repaired using like-kind splices.
Splicing of a wood member is required
when a portion of the wood component,
i.e., handrail, has been damaged or has
deteriorated and only that portion needs to
be removed and a new section attached in
its place. The replacement member should
match the existing members in species and
grain orientation and in any existing shape
or profile. The new member can even be
made from matching salvaged stock. All
deteriorated material should removed and
the end where the replacement member
will be attached should be cut on a
diagonal to increase the gluing surface area.

Part IV. C, Page 21

WPTC photo

Figure 18. The wooden structural member that this bracket

is attached to is extensively deteriorated. This condition is
a prime example of deterioration that can be repaired by
cutting back the rotted wood to a sound substrate, then
fitting the void created with a wooden dutchman or infill
that matches as closely as possible the grain orientation and
wood species as the existing member. Once the dutchman
has been glued, and if needed, doweled in place, then the
affected area should be properly primed and painted. This
technique is affordable and incurs only minimal damage to
the existing historic materials.

Then drill aligned holes in both members

for reinforcing dowels.
A dutchman is a fitted patch in a wood
member that only has localized
deterioration. To fit a dutchman, first probe
the deteriorated area to determine size and
the approximate depth of the deterioration.
Second, cut a wood patch or dutchman
with its grain aligned with the existing
members. The dutchman can be
rectangular or diamond-shaped; a diamond
shape is a little more difficult to fit but will
provide more gluing surface and blend with
the grain better when the wood is finished
with varnish instead of paint. Be sure the
dutchman is large enough to cover the
affected area and thicker than the
deterioration is deep. Slightly bevel all of
the edges of the dutchman so that the
widest face is the top. This will ensure a
tight, cork-like fit. Next, trace the outline of
the dutchmans narrowest face on the
existing member over the deterioration.
Using the outline as a guide, carefully
remove all of the deteriorated wood with a
chisel. Test fit the dutchman and trim the

Part IV. C, Page 22

hole until the dutchman bottoms out and

fills the affected area entirely; the dutchman
should be slightly proud of the existing
material. Glue and clamp the dutchman in
place. Once the glue has cured, use a
chisel or hand plane to make the dutchman
flush with the surrounding material. Hand
sanding can be used for the final leveling of
the two surfaces.
Consolidation and Epoxy Repairs
Deteriorated features can be repaired using
consolidation and epoxy techniques. This
type of treatment is irreversible and should
be used if other treatments are ineffective.
(For more information on consolidants and
epoxy treatments refer to the Windows
section.)
Flashing and Joint Repairs
Maintain successful existing details of joints
and flashing that keep water out of wood
assemblies, and consider historic detail
reconstruction before caulking. Replace
missing wood features, especially those on
the exterior, in a timely manner. Exterior
wood components are usually designed,
joined, and flashed to prevent water from
penetrating joints. One missing element
can compromise the entire system. The
high-quality caulks that are available today
can be used for short-term temporary
repairs. Caulk, however, should not be
regarded as a long-term repair for a
condition where the original flashing or
trim detail is missing or damaged.
When vertical elements are repaired, cut
vertical replacement pieces on a diagonal to
direct water from the joint. Horizontal
joints tend to collect water. To minimize
cracking and splitting, use predrilling and
screws in old brittle wood rather than nails.
Replace wood features using the same
joining techniques as found in the original
feature, e.g., if two members are joined
with a mortise and tenon joint, the repair

WOOD

should be joined using a mortise and tenon

joint.

Structural Stabilization
Wood structural components that have
experienced extensive deterioration will
require stabilization to prevent failure and
possible collapse of the lighthouse.
Effective methods of stabilization include:
installation of intermediary bracing and
shoring that supports compromised
members, and sistering of wood or steel
members to compromised members to help
carry the load. All temporary treatments
should be reversible and not incur further
damage to the lighthouse. Before a
permanent structural stabilization is
performed, an engineer or historical
architect should be consulted.

Limited Replacement In Kind

If repair by stabilization, consolidation, and
conservation proves inadequate, the next
level of intervention involves the limited
replacement in kind of extensively
deteriorated or missing parts of features
when there are surviving prototypes (for
example, wooden cornices, door
pediments, window architraves, and wall
coverings i.e., shingles or siding). The
replacement material needs to match the
old both physically and visually, i.e., 8- by
18-inch cedar shingles with 8- by 18-inch
cedar shingles, etc. With the exception of
hidden structural reinforcement and new
mechanical system components, substitute
materials are not appropriate in the
preservation treatment. It is important that
all new material be identified and properly
documented for future research.
If prominent features are missing, then a
rehabilitation or restoration treatment may
be more appropriate.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. C, Page 23

WPTC photo

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

CONCRETE

Figure 1. Anacapa Island Lighthouse is a reinforced

concrete lighthouse located on a highly exposed island off
the California coast. Concrete was chosen because of its
ability to withstand the high winds, harsh climate, and
seismic activity of this exposed location.

Concrete1 is the fourth most common

lighthouse construction material. The 1908
Point Arena Lighthouse, the first reinforced
concrete lighthouse in the United States
was constructed in response to the search
for an earthquake-proof construction
material. (The Point Arena Lighthouse is
located within 10 miles of the San Andreas
Fault.) The Point Arena Lighthouse,
however, was not the first lighthouse to use
concrete in its construction. Caisson-style

1
Concrete is a name applied to any of a number of
compositions consisting of sand, gravel, crushed stone,
or other coarse material, bound together with various
kinds of cementitious materials, such as lime or cements.
When water is added, the mix undergoes a chemical
reaction and hardens. Traditionally, concrete is not
referred to as masonry.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

lighthouses typically used concrete as fill

and ballast to help sink the caisson,
however, this type of concrete was not
reinforced.
Concrete features (such as cast moldings
and brackets, poured in-place foundations)
as well as concrete surfaces (modeling and
tooling, texture and color) are usually
important in defining the historic character
of a lighthouse and should be retained
during any treatment. While concrete is
among the most durable of historic building
materials, it is still susceptible to damage by
improper maintenance or repair techniques
and by harsh or abrasive cleaning methods.
When performing any treatments on a
concrete lighthouse, use the gentlest means
possible.

Part IV. D, Page 1

WPTC photo

Historical Overview

WPTC photo

Figure 2. View of the Alcatraz Island Lighthouse.

Reinforced concrete was chosen for this lighthouse location
for its ability to withstand earthquakes.

Figure 3. For the construction of this caisson-style

lighthouse, unreinforced concrete was used as ballast to
sink the cast-iron caisson foundation deep into the mud on
the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland.

Part IV. D, Page 2

The Romans found that the mixture of lime

putty with pozzolana, a fine volcanic ash,
would harden under water. The result was
possibly the first hydraulic cement. It
became a major feature of Roman building
practice, and was used in many buildings
and engineering projects such as bridges
and aqueducts. Concrete technology was
kept alive during the Middle Ages in Spain
and Africa, with the Spanish introducing a
form of concrete to the New World in the
first decades of the 16th century. It was
used by both the Spanish and English in
coastal areas stretching from Florida to
South Carolina. Called tapia, or tabby,
the substance was a creamy-white,
monolithic masonry material composed of
lime, sand, and an aggregate of shells,
gravel, or stone mixed with water.
Reinforced concrete in the United States
dates from 1860, when S. T. Fowler
obtained a patent for a reinforced concrete
wall. In the early 1870s William E. Ward
built his own house in Port Chester, New
York, using concrete reinforced with iron
rods for all structural elements. Despite
these developments, such construction
remained a novelty until after 1880, when
innovations introduced by Ernest L.
Ransome made reinforced concrete more
practical. The invention of the horizontal
rotary kiln allowed production of a cheaper,
more uniform and reliable cement, and led
to the greatly increased acceptance of
concrete after 1900. These developments
in concrete technology and manufacture
ultimately led to the use of reinforced
concrete in the construction of lighthouses.
As mentioned in the introduction, the first
reinforced concrete lighthouse was
constructed at Point Arena, California in
1908 (see Figure 5). The construction of
this lighthouse established a trend of using
reinforced concrete for lighthouses on the

CONCRETE

West Coast and Alaska. This trend

continued into the 1920s and 1930s. The
construction of reinforced concrete
lighthouses was not limited to the West
Coast and Alaska; concrete lighthouses
were constructed on the Eastern Seaboard
as well. The last one, St. John's River
Lighthouse, was constructed in 1954 in
Mayport, Florida (Figure 5). The reason for
concretes popularity in lighthouse
construction was that it was durable, was
cheap compared to traditional masonry
construction, and required minimal initial
maintenance.

Unreinforced concrete is a composite material

containing aggregates (sand, gravel, crushed
shell, or rock) held together by a cement
combined with water to form a paste. It gets its
name from the fact that it does not have any
iron or steel reinforcing bars. It was the earliest
form of concrete. The ingredients become a
plastic mass that hardens as the concrete
hydrates, or cures. This form of concrete is
typically used in caisson-style lighthouse
construction as ballast to weight the caisson
foundation (see Figure 3). Unreinforced
concrete, however, is relatively weak, and since
the turn of the century has largely been replaced
by reinforced concrete.

USCG photo

Types of Concrete

Figure 4. The first reinforced concrete lighthouse, Point

Arena Light Station in California.

Reinforced concrete is concrete strengthened

by the inclusion of metal bars, which increase
the tensile strength of concrete. Both
unreinforced and reinforced concrete can be
either cast in place or precast.
Cast-in-place concrete is poured onsite into a
previously erected form that is removed after the
concrete has set. Lighthouses are typically
constructed using cast-in-place construction
methods. The advantage to this method of
construction is that once the concrete has cured,
the lighthouse is a monolithic structure.
WPTC photo

Precast concrete is molded offsite into building

components. This method of construction is
seldom used for lighthouses.
Figure 5. St. Johns River Lighthouse, Mayport,
Florida, was constructed of reinforced concrete for its
economy and low maintenance.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. D, Page 3

Figure 6. Image showing the placement of reinforcing bars in concrete lighthouse construction. (Image courtesy of CEU
Oakland)

Causes of Concrete Deterioration

Deterioration of concrete lighthouses can
be caused by environmental factors, inferior
materials, poor workmanship, inherent
structural design defects, and inadequate
maintenance.
Environmental factors are a principal cause of
concrete deterioration. Concrete absorbs
moisture readily if not coated; this is particularly
troublesome in regions of recurrent freeze-thaw
cycles. Freezing water produces expansive
pressure in the cement paste or in nondurable
aggregates. Carbon dioxide, another
atmospheric component, can cause the concrete

Part IV. D, Page 4

to deteriorate by reacting with the cement paste

at the surface.
Materials and workmanship in the construction
of early concrete buildings are potential sources
of problems. For example, aggregates used in
early concrete, such as cinders from burned
coal and certain crushed brick, absorb water
and produce a weak and porous concrete.
Alkali-aggregate reactions within the concrete
can result in cracking and white surface
staining. Aggregates were not always properly
graded by size to ensure an even distribution of
elements from small to large. The use of
aggregates with similarly sized particles
normally produced a poorly consolidated and
therefore weaker concrete.

CONCRETE

Early lighthouse builders sometimes

inadvertently compromised concrete by
using seawater or beach sand in the mix. A
common practice, until recently, was to add
salt to strengthen concrete or to lower the
freezing point during cold-weather
construction. These practices cause
problems over the long term.
In addition, early concrete was not vibrated
when poured into forms as it is today.
More often it was tamped or rodded for
consolidation; on floor slabs, it was often
rolled with increasingly heavier rollers
filled with water. These practices tended to
leave voids (areas of no concrete) at
congested areas, such as at reinforcing bars
at column heads and other critical structural
locations. Areas of connecting voids seen
when concrete forms are removed are
known as honeycombs and can reduce the
protective cover over the reinforcing bars.
Other problems caused by poor
workmanship are not unknown in later
concrete work. If the first layer of concrete
is allowed to harden before the next one is
poured next to or on top of it, joints can
form at the interface of the layers. In some
cases, these cold joints visibly detract from
the architecture, but are otherwise
harmless. In other cases, cold joints can
permit water to infiltrate, and subsequent
freeze-thaw action can cause the joints to
move. Dirt packed in the joints allows
weeds to grow, further opening paths for
water to enter. Inadequate curing can also
lead to problems. If moisture leaves newly
poured concrete too rapidly because of low
humidity, excessive exposure to sun or
wind, or use of too porous a substrate, the
concrete will develop shrinkage cracks and
will not reach its full potential strength.
Structural design defects in historic concrete
structures can be an important cause of
deterioration. For example, the amount of
protective concrete cover around reinforcing
bars was often insufficient. Another design

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

problem in early concrete buildings is related to

the absence of standards for expansioncontraction joints to prevent stresses caused by
thermal movements, which may result in
cracking.
Improper maintenance of historic lighthouses
can cause long-term deterioration of concrete.
Water is a principal source of damage to historic
concrete (as to almost every other material), and
prolonged exposure to it can cause serious
problems. Unrepaired roof and plumbing leaks,
leaks through exterior cladding, and unchecked
absorption of water from damp earth are
potential problems. Deferred repair of cracks
allowing water penetration and freeze-thaw
attacks can even cause a structure to collapse.
In some cases the application of waterproof
surface coatings can aggravate moisture-related
problems by trapping water vapor within the
underlying material.

Major Signs of Concrete

Deterioration
Cracking occurs over time in virtually all
concrete. Cracks vary in depth, width,
direction, pattern, location, and cause. Cracks
can be either active or dormant (inactive).
Active cracks widen, deepen, or migrate
through the concrete. Dormant cracks remain
unchanged. Some dormant cracks, such as
those caused by shrinkage during the curing
process, pose no danger, but if left unrepaired,
they can provide convenient channels for
moisture penetration, which normally causes
further damage.
Structural cracks can result from temporary or
continued overloads, uneven foundation
settling, or original design inadequacies.
Structural cracks are active if the overload is
continued or if settlement is ongoing; they are
dormant if the temporary overloads have been
removed, or if differential settlement has
stabilized. Thermally-induced cracks result
from stresses produced by temperature changes.
They frequently occur at the ends or corners of
older concrete structures built without
expansion joints capable of relieving such
stresses. Random surface cracks (also called
map cracks because of their resemblance to
the lines on a road map) that deepen over time
and exude a white gel that hardens on the
surface are caused by an adverse reaction

Part IV. D, Page 5

between the alkalis in a cement and some

aggregates.
Since superficial repairs that do not eliminate
underlying causes will only tend to aggravate
problems, professional consultation is
recommended in almost every instance where
noticeable cracking occurs.
Spalling is the loss of surface material in patches
of varying size. It occurs when reinforcing bars
corrode, thus creating high stresses within the
concrete. As a result, chunks of concrete pop
off from the surface. Similar damage can occur
when water absorbed by porous aggregates
freezes. Vapor-proof paints or sealants, which
trap moisture beneath the surface of the
impermeable barrier, can also cause spalling.
Spalling may also result from the improper
consolidation of concrete during construction.
In this case, water-rich cement paste rises to the
surface (a condition known as laitance). The
surface weakness encourages scaling, which is
spalling in thin layers.
Deflection is the bending or sagging of concrete
beams, columns, joists, or slabs, and can
seriously affect both the strength and structural
soundness of concrete. It can be produced by
overloading, by corrosion, by inadequate
construction techniques (use of low strength
concrete or undersized reinforcing bars, for
example), or by concrete creep (long-term
shrinkage). Corrosion may cause deflection by
weakening and ultimately destroying the bond
between the rebar and the concrete, and finally
by destroying the reinforcing bars themselves.
Deflection of this type is preceded by significant
cracking at the bottom of the beams or at
column supports. Deflection in a structure
without widespread cracking, sparing, or
corrosion is frequently caused by concrete
creep.

Erosion is the weathering of the concrete

surface by wind, rain, snow, and salt air or
spray. Erosion can also be caused by the
mechanical action of water channeled over
concrete, by the lack of drip grooves in belt
courses and sills, and by inadequate drainage.
Corrosion, the rusting of reinforcing bars in
concrete, can be a most serious problem.
Normally, embedded reinforcing bars are
protected against corrosion by being buried
within the mass of the concrete and by the high
alkalinity of the concrete itself. This protection,
however, can be destroyed in two ways. First,
by carbonation, which occurs when carbon
dioxide in the air reacts chemically with cement
paste at the surface and reduces the alkalinity of
the concrete. Second, chloride ions from salts
combine with moisture to produce an
electrolyte that effectively corrodes the
reinforcing bars. Chlorides may come from
seawater additives in the original mix, or from
prolonged contact with salt spray, or de-icing
salts. Regardless of the cause, corrosion of
reinforcing bars produces rust, which occupies
significantly more space than the original metal,
and causes expansive forces within the
concrete. Cracking and spalling are frequent
results. In addition, the load-carrying capacity
of the structure can be diminished by the loss of
concrete, by the loss of bond between
reinforcing bars and concrete, and by the
decrease in thickness of the reinforcing bars
themselves. Rust stains on the surface of the
concrete are an indication that internal
corrosion is taking place.

Stains can be produced by alkali-aggregate

reaction, which forms a white gel exuding
through cracks and hardening as a white stain
on the surface. Efflorescence is a white,
powdery stain produced by the leaching of lime
from Portland cement, or by the pre-World War
II practice of adding lime to whiten the
concrete. Discoloration can also result from
metals inserted into the concrete, or from
corrosion products dripping onto the surface.

Part IV. D, Page 6

CONCRETE

Inspecting for Concrete Problems

In order to develop an effective treatment plan for concrete problems, an in-depth
inspection must be made of the lighthouse and its immediate surroundings. The following
chart is a listing of locations that should be inspected regularly. Associated with these
locations are the possible problems to look for during the inspection.

Inspection Chart for Concrete Lighthouses

THE SITE
Look For:

Possible Problems:
Environment

Typical climatic conditions, including average

temperatures, wind speeds and directions,
humidity levels, average snow accumulation, ice,
wave action, salt spray, and blown sand

Severe conditions can lead to concrete

deterioration, including cracking, spalling, surface
erosion, and efflorescence. Concrete lighthouse
features can be broken or damaged by the weight
of excessive ice buildup or by the impact of
violent wave action or wave-carried debris.

Number of freeze-thaw cycles

Severe cycles can produce damage from frost

action if moisture is trapped in concrete walls or
there is a lack of total structure ventilation. Daily
freeze-thaw cycles may also cause excessive
condensation buildup within the tower, promoting
fungal growth and rot as well as causing iron
components such as stairs, landings, and hatches
to rust and deteriorate.

Location near sea

Salt in the air can lead to efflorescence forming on

the concrete.

Acid rain in the region or from nearby industry or

from automobile exhaust

Acid rain can cause damage to concrete.

Location in the flood plain of a river, lake, or sea

Prolonged immersion in floodwater can bring

damaging moisture to foundations and walls.

Exposed or sheltered locations/elements of a

lighthouse

Exposure to the sun and elements affects moisture

evaporation and rain penetration. Portions of the
lighthouse that do not receive sunlight are
susceptible to mildew and other forms of
biological attack.

Terrain
Soil typeclay, sand, rock

The type of soil influences water drainage around

the structure. Excessive water in the soil can cause
rising damp, leading to structural problems.

Slope away from lighthouse on all sides

If no slope exists, puddles will form at the base of

the lighthouse during heavy rains. This may lead
to localized ground saturation and to water
penetration. Localized ground saturation may
cause soil around the lighthouse to shift, possibly
resulting in uneven settlement.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. D, Page 7

Look for:

Possible Problems:

Earth covering part of a concrete wall or

foundation

Moisture accumulation or penetration is possible.

Asphalt or other impervious paving touching the

lighthouse foundation (if exposed) or walls

Detrimental water accumulation and rain splashback onto the walls can result. Splash-back can
saturate the concrete, which may cause premature
failure of exterior coatings (if present).

Trees and Vegetation

Species of trees within 50 feet of lighthouse

Elms and some poplars dry up clay soil, possibly

leading to foundation failure.

Branches rubbing against a wall or roof

Branches may abrade surfaces.

Ivy or creepers on walls

Leaves prevent proper drying of the concrete

surface.

THE LIGHTHOUSE
Exterior Walls
General state of maintenance and repair

A well maintained lighthouse should require fewer

major repairs.

Evidence of previous fire or flooding

Such damage may have weakened structure

members or caused excessive moisture infiltration.

Construction methodsolid or cavity wall

Knowing how a tower wall is constructed will

help in analyzing problems and selecting
appropriate treatments.

Embedded iron (steel) anchors, structural

members, reinforcement bars, etc.

As iron (steel) rusts, it expands; this expansion can

damage the surrounding concrete.

Evidence that parts of the lighthouse were

constructed at different times or of different
materials

Similar problems with various parts may need

different treatments because of different materials.

Attached antennas, range finders, auxiliary or

replacement lights, etc.

Heavy devices which are cantilevered off the side

of the tower wall may cause eccentric loading. If
this load is improperly distributed, severe cracking
and possible localized failure may result.

Cracks

Cracks indicate that movement has occurred

within the wall. Small cracks may be patched;
large cracks may require reconstruction of the
affected area.

Enlarging cracks

Active cracks indicate a continuing problem. The

cause must be dealt with before the crack itself is
repaired.

Spalling of concrete surface

Spalling indicates that the internal reinforcing bars

have corroded, causing high stresses within the
concrete. As a result, the concrete pops off in
chunks, exposing the corroded reinforcing bar.

Part IV. D, Page 8

CONCRETE

Look for:

Possible Problems:
Windows and Doors

Sills sloped to shed water; drips under sills to

prevent water from running back underneath;
caulking

If any of these is inadequate, water can penetrate

into the lighthouse wall.

Sealed window and door frames

If caulking is missing or deteriorated around

window and door frames, moisture can penetrate
into the wall cavity and cause deterioration of the
window or door frame, as well as of the concrete.

Foundation
Uneven settlement

This may cause the leaning tower effect and

possibly result in collapse of the lighthouse.

Composition of foundation walls

Stone or brick are more likely than concrete to

allow water to infiltrate.

Undermining of the foundation caused by erosion

Undermining may cause a catastrophic failure of

the foundation and may result in total lighthouse
collapse. The remedy is to address the cause of
the erosion. Minor undermining should be backfilled with a stable, graded fill material containing
a range of aggregate sizes for good compaction.
For major undermining a structural engineer
should be consulted.

Interior
Cracked plaster, signs of patching, stairs and
landings askew

These may be signs of lighthouse settlement.

Damp walls, mold or mildew stains on walls,

efflorescence, bubbling or blistering plaster or
painted finish, rotting wood

These indicate water infiltration or severe

condensation or moisture buildup within the
tower.

Concrete Components
Materials
Composition, including secondary materials;
characteristicscolor and color variation;
texturesmooth or patterned surfaces

Types of materials indicate the susceptibility or

resistance to damage and should be matched if the
concrete component is repaired or replaced.

Areas of delicate moldings or fine castings

These sections may need special attention or

protection during rehabilitation.

Missing or spalled patches of concrete

Missing material may allow water penetration, as

well as indicate corrosion of the concrete
reinforcement.

Evidence of previous patches

Patches are signs of past damage or deterioration.

If the repair was not made properly, the patch may
cover a potential source of future deterioration.
Any patched areas should be monitored and
inspected regularly for signs of deterioration.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. D, Page 9

Look for:

Possible Problems:
Surface stains usually cause few problems other
than being unpleasant to look at. Streaking on the
surface of the lighthouse tower, however, may be
an indicator of deteriorating materials that are not
readily visible, such as rust streaks from embedded
iron anchors or reinforcement rods, etc.

Dirt or stains

Moisture
Water penetration through joints between
concrete and other lighthouse components,
through expansion joints or, rarely, through the
concrete itself

Moisture can lead to deterioration of the concrete

and other parts of the structure.

Staining or white deposits (efflorescence), mold

and mildew stains on walls

White deposits are evidence of excessive

dampness.

Location and type of salt deposits on surface;

standing water

Deposits can indicate a source of dampness, such

as rainwater or ground water, inside the lighthouse
materials.

Coatings
Applied coating type: stucco, lime mortar wash, or
paint

Applied stucco is common lighthouse coating; the

surface should be inspected for cracks that could
allow water infiltration. Lime mortar wash or
whitewash is another common concrete
lighthouse coating. This coating is considered a
sacrificial coating. The lime mortar wash protects
the lighthouse by wearing away over time. This
coating is meant to be reapplied periodically like
paint.

Paint; type of paint

A paint that does not breathe can trap moisture

within the concrete and cause the surface to spall.

Blistering, flaking and peeling paint, failure of

plaster or stucco and interior painted finishes

These conditions indicate the paint does not

breathe.

Waterproof or water-repellent coating

Such coatings often trap moisture within the

concrete.

Part IV. D, Page 10

CONCRETE

PRESERVATION TREATMENTS
WARNING: Many of the maintenance and repair techniques described in this text, particularly
those relating to cleaning and painting, are potentially dangerous and should be carried out only
by experienced and qualified workmen using protective equipment suitable to the task. It may be
necessary to involve a USCG engineer or architect, preservation architect, or building
conservator familiar with lighthouse preservation to assess the condition of the concrete and
prepare contract documents for its treatment.

Many of the maintenance and repair techniques described in this text, if not properly
performed, can cause potentially irreversible damage to the character-defining features and
historic fabric of the concrete lighthouse. Therefore, if the tasks to be performed are
beyond the skills of onsite personnel, they should be carried out by experienced and
qualified workmen. In the Beyond Basic Preservation section of this Handbook, examples
of treatments that are considered rehabilitation and restoration are illustrated and
discussed.

Protection and Stabilization (Mothballing)

Despite their inherent durability, concrete lighthouses are still susceptible to accelerated
decay. A historic concrete lighthouse that receives only minimal routine maintenance is
highly vulnerable to decay if it is not protected and stabilized properly. A thorough
inspection and diagnosis should be performed using the inspection chart in the preceding
section as a guide; the results of which can then be used to develop a protection and
stabilization plan. The following recommended protection and stabilization guidelines for
vacant historic concrete lighthouses are minimum treatment requirements to prevent any
further damage from occurring.

Weatherization
To protect a historic concrete lighthouse,
the exterior envelope should be completely
weathertight. When moisture penetrates
into concrete walls and foundations, it can
be exceedingly detrimental to the integrity
of the concrete. Moisture in a wall or
foundation may cause various types of
damage: reinforcement bars may rust,
expansion caused by freezing may crack
surrounding concrete, efflorescence (the
leaching of salts out of the concrete) may
appear, adjacent wood elements may rot,
adjacent metal elements may rust or
corrode, or fungal growth may occur.
To prevent moisture penetration, be sure
the following moisture infiltration points are
weathertight or functioning properly:

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Lantern glass: Lantern glass, frames, and roofs

must be weathertight before mothballing. Refer
to the Lantern section for more information
concerning the weatherproofing of the lantern
components. (See Figures 7 and 8 in the
Masonry section which illustrate a broken glass
panel and a temporary repair using a metal plate
and caulking.)
A temporary patch repair will prevent water
from entering the lantern and therefore help
avoid incurring further damage. This fix should
be considered only as an interim treatment until
the glass can be replaced. For more on lantern
glass replacement refer to Lantern section.
Built-in gutter systems: All rainwater gutter
systems (lantern roofs, or other tower roof
forms) should be cleaned and checked for
holes. All holes and non-functioning gutter
system components should be repaired. For
more information refer to the discussion on
roofing in the Lantern section.

Part IV. D, Page 11

 Gallery decks: In most concrete lighthouses

gallery decks are cast iron, stone, or concrete.
These decks are generally laid directly on top of
the concrete wall structure. The decking should
be sloped away from the lighthouse to shed the
water away from the structure. If the decking
material is not weathertight, moisture can enter
the interior of the lighthouse or saturate the
concrete wall. See Figure 7 for signs that a
gallery deck is failing. Refer to the Lantern
section for more information concerning the
weatherproofing of gallery decks.
Door and window frames: The joints along the
perimeter of doors and windows where a wood
or metal frame is fitted into a concrete opening
should be caulked to prevent moisture from
entering the walls. See the Windows section for
the proper caulk for this application.

WPTC photo

Protective coatings: Lighthouses were often

painted as a protective measure and for
identification as a daymark. As part of a
protective treatment, the exterior coating should
be checked for loose and flaking paint. Any
deteriorating areas should be scraped and
repainted to match the existing color.
Figure 8. Close-up view of a glass-block window in a
concrete lighthouse. The joint where the glass block meets
the concrete wall should be caulked to prevent moisture
infiltration.

WPTC photo

Ultimately, the entire lighthouse should have all

loose and flaking paint removed and a new
coating applied according to the manufacturers
specifications. If the overall condition of the
coating system is sound and there are only a
few bare spots, however, the lighthouse can be
spot-painted to provide a weatherproof coating.
Either of these actions will result in a coating
system that will require minimal interim
maintenance. For more information refer to the
discussion on repainting in the following repair
section.

Figure 7. The concrete gallery deck on this concrete

lighthouse has been covered with a rubber membrane. This
covering should be checked regularly for leaks.

Part IV. D, Page 12

If the lighthouse was historically protected by a

stucco coating, the surface should be checked
for loose or delaminating patches. Any sections
that are loose could trap moisture and cause
premature deterioration of the concrete
structure. The repair of damaged stucco
coatings is covered in the following section on
concrete repair.
Open cracks in walls: Cracks in exterior
concrete walls indicate that movement has

CONCRETE

occurred, either movement caused by shrinkage

(in the case of stucco) or by settlement or
mechanical impact. Cracks should be
monitored to determine if movement is still
occurring and structural stabilization is
necessary before the crack is filled. Refer to the
following repair section for more information
concerning wall repair.

Stabilization
If funds are insufficient to make repairs,
structural stabilization should be performed
as a less expensive temporary alternative.
Temporary blocking in of window and door
openings and installation of interior or
exterior shoring or bracing are all
stabilization methods. The stabilization
treatment utilized should not permanently
damage historic character-defining features
and should be easily reversible so that
when the budget allows, the structure can
be properly repaired. Refer to the following

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Figure 9. Patches of spalled concrete: familiar with

lighthouse preservation the one pictured here should be
repaired to protect the underlying concrete structure.

Figure 10. Cracks like the one here, extending down from
the belt course of this concrete lighthouse, should be
monitored for movement before any patching is performed.

repair section for more information on

structural concrete repairs.

Ventilation
Much like masonry lighthouses, concrete
lighthouses are difficult to ventilate without
resorting to extensive louvering and/or
mechanical exhaust fan systems. During
the summer months concrete lighthouses
will need to have maximum air exchange to
eliminate damaging condensation on the
interior walls and woodwork and iron
components. In order to achieve this,
almost every window opening will need to
be fitted with some type of passive louvered
ventilation. Installation of windowmounted passive louver systems is covered
in the Windows section of this handbook.
For more information on lighthouse
ventilation refer to the Interiors section.

Part IV. D, Page 13

document original construction or changes over

time.
Field survey: A thorough visual examination
can assist in locating and recording the type,
extent, and severity of stress, deterioration, and
damage.

Figure 11. These replacement lighthouse doors have

screened louvers that cover approximately 25% of the door
opening to maximize air exchange.

Fire Protection
Despite the fact that concrete lighthouses
are constructed of noncombustible
materials, fire can still be a threat to their
preservation. The impacts of a fire are
devastating and will often cause serious
irreversible damage and loss to historic
interior fabric. For guidance on these
issues, refer to "Fire Protection and
Protection Objectives under Related
Activities in Part VI.

Planning for Concrete Repair

Whatever the causes of deterioration,
careful analysis, supplemented by testing, is
vital to the success of any historic concrete
repair project. Undertaken by experienced
engineers or architects, the basic steps in a
program of testing and analysis are
document review, field survey, testing, and
analysis.
Document review: While plans and
specifications for historic concrete lighthouses
are rarely extant, they can be an invaluable aid,
and every attempt should be made to find them.
They may provide information on the intended
composition of the concrete mix, or on the type
and location of reinforcing bars. Old
photographs, records of previous repairs,
documents for lighthouses of the same basic
construction or age, and news reports may also

Part IV. D, Page 14

Testing: Two types of testing, onsite and

laboratory, can supplement the field condition
survey as necessary. Onsite, nondestructive
testing may include use of a calibrated metal
detector or sonic tests to locate the position,
depth, and direction of reinforcing bars. Voids
can frequently be detected by sounding with a
metal hammer. Chains about 30 inches long
attached to a 2-foot-long crossbar, dragged over
the slabs while listening for hollow
reverberations, can locate areas of slabs that
have delaminated. In order to find areas of
walls that allow moisture to penetrate to the
lighthouse interior, areas may be tested from the
outside by spraying water at the walls and then
inspecting the interior for water. If leaks are not
readily apparent, sophisticated equipment is
available to measure the water permeability of
concrete walls.
If more detailed examinations are required,
nondestructive instruments are available that
can assist in determining the presence of voids
or internal cracks, the location and size of
rebars, and the strength of the concrete.
Laboratory testing can be invaluable in
determining the composition and characteristics
of historic concrete and in formulating a
compatible design mix for repair materials.
These tests, however, are expensive. A wellequipped concrete laboratory can analyze
concrete samples for strength, alkalinity,
carbonation, porosity, alkali-aggregate reaction,
presence of chlorides, and past composition.
Analysis: Analysis is probably the most
important step in the process of evaluation. As
survey and test results are revised in
conjunction with available documentation, the
analysis should focus on determining the nature
and causes of the concrete problems, on
assessing both the short-term and long-term
effects of the deterioration, and on formulating
proper remedial measures.

CONCRETE

Repair
Repairs should be undertaken only after the planning measures outlined above have been
followed. Principal concrete repair treatments are discussed below. While they are
presented separately here, in practice, preservation projects typically incorporate multiple
treatments. When performing any of the following treatments, the gentlest means possible
should be used.
The following general guidelines should be
followed when performing any treatment
on a concrete lighthouse.

following guidelines to prevent soiling and

to determine the most effective cleaning
methods.

Identify, retain, and preserve concrete features

that are important in defining the overall historic
character of the lighthouse.

Cover areas where pigeons roost with specially

manufactured and sensitively installed bird
netting.

Identify finished surface texture, color, and

coatings. Some walls bear the impression of
wooden form boards used during construction.
Any repairs made to surfaces with such
impressions should reproduce the same finish to
disguise the repaired area.

Conduct concrete cleaning tests if cleaning is

appropriate. Tests should be observed over a
sufficient period of time to assess both the
immediate and the long-range effects of
cleaning. Clean concrete surfaces with the
gentlest method possible, such as a low-pressure
water rinse using a mild detergent applied with
natural bristle brushes. Chemicals applied as a
poultice may be necessary to remove tenacious
stains without abrading surface texture or detail.
After treatment, thoroughly rinse the surface of
all residual chemicals.

When determining the best treatment for

coating removal, coating application, or applied
patches, test panels should be prepared using
the proposed treatments in inconspicuous
locations.
Identify the age and potential inherent
preservation problems in original materials or
construction methods, which may require
laboratory analysis. Any rehabilitation plan
must be based on a thorough knowledge of the
properties of the original materials.
Identify type and location of reinforcing bars.
Be sure to evaluate and treat the various causes
of deterioration, such as leaking roofs or gutters,
differential settlement of the lighthouse,
capillary action (such as rising damp), or
chloride contamination.
Do not remove or radically change concrete
features that are important in defining the
overall historic character of the lighthouse.

Cleaning
Clean concrete only when necessary to halt
deterioration. Heavy soiling, bird debris,
ferrous stains, graffiti, and biological growth
can trap moisture and damaging chemicals
against the surface of the concrete, initiating
and sustaining deterioration. Consider the

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Do not use a cleaning method that involves

water or liquid chemical solutions when there is
any possibility of freezing temperatures.
Do not clean with chemical products that will
damage concrete. When using chemical
cleaning products, be sure to rinse the surface
clean of chemicals.
Do not apply high-pressure water cleaning
methods that will damage historic surface
treatment or coating and drive water into the
wall, causing corrosion of the steel reinforcing
bars.

Coatings
As a protective measure and for
identification as a daymark, most concrete
lighthouses had an external coating. The
external coating was the first line of defense
against the elements. Typically this was
either a paint, stucco, or in some cases
whitewash or lime-mortar-wash coating. As
part of preserving the lighthouse, all
coatings must be maintained.
Part IV. D, Page 15

Each type of coating protected the

lighthouse in a slightly different manner.
Paint provides a film over the concrete that
prevents water from penetrating. Stucco is
a three-layer mortar-and-sand shell that
bonds to the concrete to prevent water from
penetrating. Whitewash and lime mortar
wash are lime-and-water-based sacrificial
coatings that protect the lighthouse by
slowly deteriorating as they weather.
The key to the preservation of an external
coating system, especially a lighthouse
coating that is subjected to severe marine
environment conditions, is a complete
understanding of the mechanics of the
system. Whether simply touching up the
coating or following through with a
complete restoration of the external
coatings, it is wise to seek the advice of
paint manufacturers' technical
representatives.
All external coatings, especially paints
which may date from the early 20th
century, should be tested for lead and
asbestos content. If lead or asbestos is
present, local codes on health, life safety,
and environmental requirements must be
met. Lead or asbestos found in otherwise
sound paint layers, does not dictate the
removal of that paint. In most cases it is far
safer and more cost-effective to leave intact
paint areas in place. For further information
refer to NPS Preservation Briefs 37:
Appropriate Methods of Reducing LeadPaint Hazards in Historic Housing.
Refer to the Masonry section for more
information on the repair of stucco and
lime-mortar-wash coatings.
When performing coating removal and
reapplication on a historic concrete
lighthouse, consider the following general
guidelines:
Inspect painted and stuccoed concrete surfaces
to determine whether recoating is necessary.

Part IV. D, Page 16

Failed coatings are characterized by flaking or

loss of adhesion.
Locate areas of delaminated stucco and
incipient concrete spalls by sounding. Spalled
concrete or delaminated stucco will reverberate
with a distinctly hollow sound.
Remove damaged or deteriorated coating only
to the next sound layer using the gentlest
method possible (e.g., hand scraping) before
recoating.
Evaluate the overall condition of the concrete to
determine if protection and maintenance are
sufficient, or if material analysis and repairs are
necessary.

Coating Removal
When there is extensive failure of the
protective coating, most or all of the paint
must be removed to prepare the surfaces for
new protective coatings. The selection of
an appropriate technique depends upon
how much paint failure and concrete
deterioration has occurred. Local
environmental regulations may restrict the
options for cleaning and paint removal
methods, as well as the disposal of
materials.
Many of these techniques are potentially
dangerous and should be carried out only
by experienced and qualified workers using
proper personal protective equipment such
as full-face respirators, eye protection,
protective clothing, and optimum
workplace safety conditions. Before
selecting a process, test panels should be
prepared on the concrete to be cleaned to
determine the relative effectiveness of
various techniques. The cleaning process
will very likely expose additional coating
defects, cracks, and deterioration that may
not have been obvious before.
The following are guidelines to consider
when removing coatings from historic
concrete lighthouses:
Proven paint removal methods include: water
based paint strippers designed for concrete use,
low pressure needle guns, and hand scraping.

CONCRETE

(For more information on the use of needle guns

refer to the case study on the rehabilitation work
performed at Anacapa Island Lighthouse in Part
V., Beyond Basic Preservation.)
Do not sandblast concrete surfaces using dry or
wet abrasives. This treatment will permanently
erode the surface of the material and accelerate
deterioration.
Do not remove paint or stucco from a
historically coated concrete lighthouse and not
recoat, thus changing the appearance.
Do not remove sound stucco, then recoat the
entire lighthouse only to achieve a uniform
appearance.
Do not remove paint or stucco by methods that
destroy concrete, such as sandblasting,
application of caustic solutions, or high-pressure
water blasting.

Recoating
A thorough study of materials is
recommended before starting any coating
program. An understanding of the
substrate, or base material, must also be
had. This can best be achieved by a
thorough inspection of both the substrate
and the existing coating system. Any areas
of deteriorated substrate should be
examined and repaired before recoating.
Coatings applied to masonry surfaces
should breathe. This means the coating
should allow the transpiration of moisture
at the microscopic level. Modern paint
coatings are able to do this. A successful
coating system for exterior concrete
surfaces is to use an acrylic primer with an
elastomeric acrylic top coat with mold and
fungus inhibitors, mineral oxide pigments,
and freeze-thaw stabilizers. A successful
coating system for interior concrete is to use
an acrylic primer and a 100% acrylic
emulsion top coat with a minimum 55%
permeability rating. This coating system
will allow the concrete to breathe, thus
allowing moisture in the concrete to
escape.

mandatory to ensure that replacement material

is compatible with the aesthetic and physical
properties of the existing fabric and to
determine short- and long-term adverse effects.
Recoat with materials, textures, and colors that
are historically appropriate to the lighthouse.
Follow the manufacturers specifications for
surface preparation and application of paint.
This will ensure that the coating will perform as
designed. For more information on types of
masonry paints currently being used in the field,
refer to the case study on Anacapa Island
Lighthouse in Part V., Beyond Basic
Preservation.
Use brushes to apply coatings. Brush
application will provide the best coverage as
well as be historically accurate. The use of
brushes will also eliminate the need to contain
overspray that is associated with spray
applications.
Do not apply paint or other coatings such as
stucco to concrete in a manner that creates a
new appearance.

Damaged Concrete Repair

Repair of historic concrete may consist of
either patching the historic material or
filling in with new material worked to
match the historic material. If replacement
is necessary, duplication of historic
materials and detailing should be as exact
as possible to assure a repair that is
functionally and aesthetically acceptable.
The correction and elimination of concrete
problems can be difficult, time-consuming,
and costly. Yet the temptation to resort to
temporary solutions should be avoided,
since their failure can expose a lighthouse
to further and more serious deterioration,
and in some cases can mask underlying
structural problems that could lead to
serious safety hazards.
The following are guidelines to consider
when repairing damaged or deteriorated
historic concrete.

Apply compatible coating systems following

proper surface preparation. Testing is

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. D, Page 17

 Repair of Cracking
Hairline, nonstructural cracks that show no sign
of worsening normally need not be repaired.
Cracks larger than hairline cracks, but less than
approximately one-sixteenth of an inch, can be
repaired with a mix of cement and water. If the
crack is wider than one-sixteenth of an inch,
fine sand should be added to the mix to allow
for greater compatibility, and to reduce
shrinkage during drying. Field trials will
determine whether the crack should be routed
(widened and deepened) minimally before
patching to allow sufficient penetration of the
patching material. To ensure a long-term repair,
the patching materials should be carefully
selected to be compatible with the existing
concrete as well as with subsequent surface
treatments such as paint or stucco.
When it is desirable to reestablish the structural
integrity of a concrete lighthouse involving
dormant cracks, epoxy injection repair should
be considered. An epoxy injection repair is
made by sealing the crack on both sides of a
wall or a structural member with an epoxy
mortar, leaving small holes, or 'ports' to receive
the epoxy resin. After the surface mortar has
hardened, epoxy is pumped into the ports.
Once the epoxy in the crack has hardened, the
surface mortar can be ground off, but the repair
may be visually noticeable. (It is possible to
inject epoxy without leaving noticeable patches,
but the procedure is much more complex and is
beyond the scope of this text.)
Other cracks are active, changing their width
and length. Active structural cracks will move
as loads are added or removed. Thermal cracks
will move as temperatures fluctuate. Thus,
expansion-contraction joints may have to be
introduced before repair is undertaken. Active
cracks should be filled with sealants that will
adhere to the sides of the cracks and will
compress or expand during crack movement.
The design, detailing, and execution of sealantfilled cracks require considerable attention, or
else they will detract from the appearance of the
historic lighthouse.
Random (map) cracks throughout a structure are
difficult to correct, and may be unrepairable.
Repair, if undertaken, requires removing the
cracked concrete. A compatible concrete patch
to replace the removed concrete is then
installed. For some lighthouses without
significant historic finishes, an effective and

Part IV. D, Page 18

economical repair material is probably a

sprayed concrete coating, troweled or brushed
smooth. Because the original concrete will
ultimately contaminate new concrete,
lighthouses with map cracks will present
continuing maintenance problems.
Repair of Spalling
Repair of spalling entails removing the loose,
deteriorated concrete and installing a
compatible patch that dovetails into the existing
sound concrete. In order to prevent future crack
development after the spall has been patched
and to ensure that the patch matches the historic
concrete, great attention must be paid to the
treatment of rebars, the preparation of the
existing concrete substrate, the selection of
compatible patch material, the development of
good contact between patch and substrate, and
the curing of the patch.
Once the deteriorated concrete in a spalled area
has been removed, rust on the exposed rebars
must be removed by wire brush or sandblasting.
An epoxy coating applied immediately over the
cleaned rebars will diminish the possibility of
further corrosion. As a general rule, if the rebars
are so corroded that a structural engineer
determines they should be replaced, new
supplemental reinforcing bars will normally be
required, assuming that the rebar is important to
the strength of the concrete. If not, it is possible
to cut away the rebar.
Proper preparation of the substrate will ensure a
good bond between the patch and the existing
concrete. If a large, clean break or other
smooth surface is to be patched, the contact
area should be roughened with a hammer and
chisel. In all cases, the substrate should be kept
moist with wet rags, sponges, or running water
for at least an hour before placement of the
patch. Bonding between the patch and
substrate can be encouraged by scrubbing the
substrate with cement paste, or by applying a
liquid bonding agent to the surface of the
substrate. Admixtures such as epoxy resins,
latexes, and acrylics in the patch may also be
used to increase bonding, but this may cause
problems with color matching if the surfaces are
to be left unpainted.
Compatible matching of patch material to the
existing concrete is critical for both appearance
and durability. In general, repair material
should match the composition of the original
material (as revealed by laboratory analysis) as

CONCRETE

closely as possible so that the properties of the

two materials, such as coefficient of thermal
expansion and strength, are compatible.
Matching the color and texture of the existing
concrete requires special care. Several test
batches of patching material should be mixed
by adding carefully selected mineral pigments
that vary slightly in color. After the samples
have cured, they can be compared to the
historic concrete and the closest match selected.

Repair of Erosion

Contact between the patch and the existing

concrete can be enhanced through the use of
anchors, preferably stainless-steel hooked pins,
placed in holes drilled into the structure and
secured in place with epoxy. Good compaction
of the patch material will encourage the contact.
Compaction is difficult when the patch is laidup with a trowel without the use of forms; by
building up thin layers of concrete, however,
each layer can be worked with a trowel to
achieve compaction. Board forms will be
necessary for large patches. In cases where the
existing concrete has a significant finish, care
must be taken to pin the form to the existing
concrete without marring the surface. The
patch in the form can be consolidated by
rodding or vibration.

Limited Replacement In Kind

Because formed concrete surfaces normally

develop a sheen that does not match the surface
texture of most historic concrete, the forms must
be removed before the patch has fully set. The
surface of the patch must then be finished to
match the historic concrete. A brush or wet
sponge is particularly useful in achieving
matching textures. It may be difficult to match
historic concrete surfaces that were textured, as
a result of exposed aggregate for example, but it
is important that these visual qualities be
matched. Once the forms are removed, holes
from the bolts must also be patched and
finished to match adjacent surfaces.
Regardless of size, a patch containing cement
binder (especially Portland cement) will tend to
shrink during drying. Adequate curing of the
patch may be achieved by keeping it wet for
several days with damp burlap bags. Note that
although greater amounts of sand will reduce
overall shrinkage, patches with a high sand
content normally will not bond well to the
substrate.

or replacement of structural members. Because

deflection can lead to structural failure and
serious safety hazards, its repair should be left to
engineering professionals.
Repair of eroded concrete will normally require
replacing lost surface material with a
compatible patching material (as outlined
above) and then applying an appropriate finish
to match the historic appearance. The
elimination of water coursing over concrete
surfaces should be accomplished to prevent
further erosion. If necessary, drip grooves at the
underside of overhanging edges of sills, belt
courses, cornices, and projecting slabs should
be installed.

If repair by stabilization, consolidation, and

conservation proves inadequate, the next
level of intervention involves the limited
replacement in kind of extensively
deteriorated or missing parts of features
when there are surviving prototypes (for
example, concrete cornices and door
pediments, window architraves, gallery
brackets, etc). The replacement material
needs to match the old both physically and
visually, i.e., gray, portland-cement-based
concrete needs to be replaced with gray,
portland-cement-based concrete. Thus,
with the exception of hidden structural
reinforcement and new mechanical system
components, substitute materials are not
appropriate in the treatment preservation.
Again, it is important that all new material
be identified and properly documented for
future research.
If prominent features are missing, then a
rehabilitation or restoration treatment may
be more appropriate.

Repair of Deflection
Deflection can indicate significant structural
problems and often requires the strengthening

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. D, Page 19

WPTC photo

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

WINDOWS
Figure 1. Close-up of a window found
in a Chesapeake Bay "spark plug"
lighthouse . The integral cast-iron trim
is a typical character-defining feature of
this lighthouse type from the late 19th
century

With their functional and decorative

features such as keystone lintels, multi-light
sashes, arched pediments, and architrave
(trim or molding which surrounds the
window opening), windows can be
extremely important in defining the overall
character of a lighthouse. Usually
windows were integral components of a
historic lighthouses stylistic design and
featured hallmark elements that defined the
architectural style upon which the
ornament of the structure was based.
The predominant window type found in
historic lighthouse towers is a wood,
double-hung sash variety. This window
type has been used since the late 18th
century. Other window types associated
with lighthouses are wood and metal
casement windows.
The primary cause of lighthouse window
deterioration is moisture penetrating the
various components through rain driven
against and into windows, standing water
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

on sills, and interior condensation. In a

marine environment, deterioration caused
by moisture penetration is exacerbated by
extended periods of damp weather, which
prevent windows from drying out, thereby
encouraging expansion and rot. Other
factors that contribute to window
deterioration are poor design, vandalism,
insect/fungal attack, settlement over time,
paint buildup, broken glazing, deteriorated
putty, and deferred maintenance.
Windows admit light and air into a
lighthouse. Both of these functions should
be maximized, but in a controlled manner.
Because most lighthouses are unoccupied,
mechanical methods are not always viable
as a means of interior climate control. Wellmaintained, operable windows will
therefore be an important and preferred
component in creating an efficient passive
ventilating system. Replacement windows
and components, when needed, should be
constructed of materials of the highest

Part IV. E, Page 1

Figures 2 and 3. Wood and metal window details (source: The Window Handbook).

Part IV. E, Page 2

WINDOWS

quality that can withstand a harsh marine

environment. Where vandalism and
security require the temporary blocking of a
window to better secure the structure,
sensitive measures can effectively block the
opening with minimal damage to the
historic window. The following is a
discussion of preferred preservation
methods to consider when preserving
historic lighthouse windows.

Window Types
The two primary types of windows found in
historic lighthouses are identified by how
their moving parts operate. The wood
double-hung sash is the most common.

The moving parts of the window consist of

two wood frames, called sashes, that
capture the glass lights or panes of the
window. These frames are housed in a
wood frame, called a jamb, that allows the
sashes to slide up and down. The top of the
wood frame is called the head and the
bottom portion is called the sill on the
exterior and the stool on the interior. The
sill is responsible for shedding water away
from the window opening. The second
most common window type found in
historic lighthouses is the metal casement.
The moving parts of a metal casement
window operate like a door. The
terminology remains the same for the parts
of the casement window.

Inspection and Evaluation

The first step to repairing historic windows is a thorough inspection of each window unit.

Inspection Chart for Lighthouse Windows

Look For:

Possible Problems:
Wood Windows

Areas of paint failure

This may indicate the wood is in poor condition

and in need of repair. Wood is frequently in
sound condition, however, beneath unsightly
paint. After noting areas of paint failure, inspect
the condition of the wood. Use an ice pick or an
awl to test wood for soundness. Pry up a small
section of the wood. Sound wood will separate in
long fibrous splinters. Decayed wood will lift up
in short irregular pieces caused by breakdown of
fiber strength.

Deteriorated wood

If deterioration has begun from within the wood

member and the core is badly decayed, the visible
surface may appear to be sound. Pressure on a
probe can force through an apparently sound
outer layer to penetrate deeply into decayed
wood. This technique is especially useful for
checking sills where visual access to the underside
is restricted.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. E, Page 3

Look For:

Possible Problems:
Metal Windows

Areas of paint failure

This may indicate the paint is at the end of its

effective life span or the window has been bent or
deformed. Bending makes the less flexible paint
fracture and pop off the window frame.

Areas of corrosion on all surfaces of the sash,

frame, sub-frame (if visible), and hardware

This may indicate a moisture infiltration problem.

Corrosion in the form of rust will occur typically
inside the frame channel and along the bottom
edge of the sash.

Bowing or misalignment of window parts

Deformation could be the result of misuse/abuse

or corroding components that have deformed
because of rust-jacking or deterioration.

Both Window Types

Water entering around the edges of the frame

The joints or seams should be caulked to eliminate

this danger. Check the glazing for cracked, loose,
or missing sections. Examine the sill for a
downward slope which allows water to drain.

Condition of glass and glazing to determine the

extent of required repairs

Careful probing of the glazing with an awl will aid

in determining its soundness.

Gaps or cracks in the joint between the window

frame and the lighthouse wall

Cracks or gaps are possible water infiltration

points.

Moving parts of the windows

Bound or tight operating windows may simply be

painted shut or may be stuck because of
deteriorating frame members or sash frames, or
bound because of corroded hardware.

Part IV. E, Page 4

WINDOWS

PRESERVATION TREATMENTS
The following are protection/stabilization (mothballing) and repair treatments designed
specifically for windows found in historic lighthouse towers. For a discussion of window
treatments in ancillary structures, see NPS Preservation Briefs 9: The Repair of Historic
Wooden Windows and Preservation Briefs 13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrading of
Historic Steel Windows.

Protection and Stabilization (Mothballing)

Lighthouses which have been mothballed usually have had the openings on the lower
level covered to protect fragile glass windows from breaking and to prohibit entry points.
Infill materials for closing window openings include plywood, corrugated sheet-metal
panels, metal grates or grills, brick, and cinder or cement blocks (in masonry lighthouses).
The method of installation should not damage the opening or window jamb. During this
procedure all associated sash, shutters, and frames should be protected. If removed, all
window parts should be labeled to indicate which window they came from and stored for
future reuse. Special care must be taken to ensure no further damage is incurred during
the removal of the window parts.
For windows, the most common security feature
is the closure of the openings; this may be
achieved with wooden or preformed panels or,
as needed, with metal sheets or in the case of
masonry towers concrete blocks or bricks may
be used. Plywood panels, properly installed to
protect window frames and which are properly
ventilated, are the preferred treatment from a
preservation standpoint. (To provide adequate
ventilation the louvered opening should have an
area that is approximately half of the original
sash opening.)

The type of ventilation should not undermine

the security of the building. The most secure
installations use custom-made grills well
anchored to the window frame, often set in
plywood security panels. In upper-level
windows vents formed using heavy millwork
louvers set into existing window openings are
another possibility (see Figure 6).

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

WPTC photo

There are a number of ways to insert vented

plywood panels into window openings to avoid
damage to frame and sash. One common
method is to bring the upper and lower sash of
a double-hung unit to the midpoint of the
opening and then to install pre-cut plywood
panels on the inside face of the window using
long carriage bolts anchored into horizontal
wooden bracing, or strong backs (see Figures 4
and 5).

Figure 4. A good example of a blocked window using a

metal panel fitted with a hooded vent. For more adequate
ventilation, the vent should be larger.

Part IV. E, Page 5

WPTC photo

Figure 5. Interior view of the blocked window. If

possible, a better solution would have been to raise the
lower sash and lower the upper sash and pass the bolts
through the openings.

Figure 6. Detail of wood louver system designed to be

inserted into lower sash opening after sash has been
carefully removed. (Drawing by Thomas Vitanza, WPTC)

Plywood panels are usually 1/2- to 3/4-inch

(1.25-1.875 cm.) thick and made of exterior
grade stock, such as CDX, or marine-grade
plywood. They should be painted to protect
them from delamination and to provide a neater
appearance. These panels may be painted to
resemble operable windows or treated
decoratively.

(To provide adequate ventilation, the louvered

opening should have an area that is
approximately half of the original sash opening.)
When using this treatment, the sheeting must be
ventilated to ensure that condensation, which
could accelerate the deterioration of the
window, does not build up between the panel
and the window.

As a temporary treatment, acrylic or other high

impact clear sheeting could be used to cover an
entire window. The sheeting could either be
attached to the actual window frame with
screws, being careful not to damage any historic
molding profiles or split the wood frame. A
better attachment method (especially for
masonry lighthouses) would be to construct a
sub-frame within the window opening using 2by 4-inch framing members and then attach the
sheeting to the sub frame. If this method is
used, the interior sash should be opened and
the sheeting fitted with large screened louvers.

Another effective method of ventilating a

lighthouse during mothballing is to lower the
upper sash and install a large screened, hooded
vent. These vents, together with the louvers
fitted in the tower entry door, keep the interior
of the tower free from condensation year round.

Part IV. E, Page 6

WINDOWS

Repair
The following is a discussion of maintenance and repair philosophy and treatments for
historic lighthouse windows. These instructions conform with the principle that the least
modification to an existing window often yields the greatest returnaccepted preservation
practice and simple economics; the ratio of investment to return is often greater when
repairing and upgrading an existing window than when replacing it.
Identify, retain, and preserve windows (their
functional and decorative features) that are
important in defining the overall historic
character of the building. Such features can
include frames, sash, muntins, glazing, sills,
heads, hood molds, paneled or decorated
jambs, moldings, hardware, and interior and
exterior shutters and blinds.
When determining its historic significance,
consider a windows place as a principle
character-defining component of the exterior
facade and its contribution to an interior space.
Avoid changing the historic appearance of
windows through the use of inappropriate
designs, materials, finishes, or colors which
noticeably change the sash, depth of reveal, or
muntin configuration; the reflectiveness and
color of the glazing; or the appearance of the
frame.
Conduct an in-depth survey of the conditions of
windows early in preservation planning so that
repair and upgrade methods and possible
replacement options can be fully explored.
When possible preserve all remaining original
glazing. Historic glass often has distortions and
imperfections that are not found in modern
glassan irreplaceable character-defining
element.
Evaluate the overall condition of materials to
determine whether more than protection and
maintenance are required, i.e., whether repairs
to windows and window features are needed.
Keep glazing clear to maximize the natural light
source. Glass is preferred to plastics such as
acrylic and polycarbonate which may scratch
easily, tend to look oily, and will yellow and
haze with time.
Preserve operating systems for historic
windows, (e.g., weights on double-hung
windows), repairing or replacing components as
needed. This should done even though the
windows may not be currently used.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Repair all broken, cracked, or missing glass

immediately. If immediate replacement is not
feasible, a temporary patch should be used to
prohibit the entry of water, pests, and vandals.
When funds are available the missing glass
should be replaced.
Where building or life-safety code requires,
install safety glass into existing window sashes,
carefully retaining frame and hardware
components. If possible, salvage original glass
for later reinstallation or use elsewhere in the
structure. These codes are enforced at a local or
state level and typically apply to lighthouses that
are privately owned where visitors have
unsupervised access to the tower.
Remove rust and paint from metal windows by
hand scraping. Low pressure (80-100 psi)
sandblasting may be used to remove heavy
corrosion, with careful protection of glass and
surrounds. Do not use heat to remove rust or
paint from metal windows; this can distort the
metal members, release toxic fumes, and may
cause the glazing compound to fail. If the sash
is removed from the frame, the paint can be
removed through a chemical dip process, but
the metal surface should be neutralized before
repainting.
Do not obscure historic window trim with
metal, vinyl, or other material.
Do not strip windows of historic material such
as wood, cast iron, or bronze.

Figures 7 through 9 illustrate forms of

deterioration typical to lighthouse windows.
All of these conditions are repairable and
do not require total replacement. The
following guidelines are intended to aid in
the repair of such deterioration.
Once the damage and deterioration have been
identified, the affected areas must be treated.
Repair window frames and sash by patching,
splicing, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing.
Such repair may also include replacement of

Part IV. E, Page 7

WPTC photo

Figure 7. Deteriorated glazing putty and peeling paint on a

multilite wood sash.

those parts that are extensively deteriorated or

missing, using surviving prototypes such as
architraves, trim, hood molds, sash, sills, and
interior or exterior shutters and blinds.
Repair defective sills to permit positive drainage
away from the window sash. Poor design of the
exterior window sill is a frequent problem;
window deterioration usually begins on
horizontal surfaces and at joints where water
collects, saturating wood and corroding metal.
Repair of historic windows is always preferred
to replacement. Usually the sill must be
replaced first, then lower sash parts. Splicing
and dutchmen can be effective repair methods
for both wood and metal window elements.
If replacement is required, limit it to severely
deteriorated components.
Clean and oil hardware that has been painted
over; in most cases, repair, rather than
replacement, should be possible.
Remove built-up paint on sashes and frames that
causes sashes to be inoperable. Where
possible, remove paint only to the next sound
layer. In order to provide a paint chronology, a

Part IV. E, Page 8

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Figure 8. Deterioration of the bottom rail and sill on a

wooden double-hung window.

Figure 9. Rust occurring on the inside of the steel channel

that forms the sill of this metal casement window.

patch of sound paint should be left undisturbed

for future reference.
When possible, remove earlier repairs that have
been insensitive to the historic features and
materials, and repair according to accepted
standards.
Document all work through written and
photographic means as a record for future
reference.

Removing Paint from Wood

Windows
NOTE ABOUT LEAD PAINT: In the
following treatment explanations references
are made to the removal of loose, flaking, and
blistering paint finishes; in carrying out this
treatment, all precautions should be taken to
protect the workers from exposure to leadbased paint.

WINDOWS

Historic wood windows tend to accumulate

many layers of paint. This paint is likely to
interfere with the proper operation of the
window and is usually visually unattractive.
Over time, partial peeling leaves a pitted
surface that encourages moisture to collect.
Excessive paint layers also obscure the
shape of original molding profiles, which
add definition to the windows appearance.
The extent of paint removal required
depends on the condition of the paint.
Treatments for common paint conditions
found on historic lighthouse windows:
Chalked paint: Clean with a mild detergent
solvent, hose down, and allow to dry before
repainting.

Crazed paint: Sand by hand to the next sound

layer before repainting; exposure of bare wood
is not necessary.
Peeling and blistering: Analyze between coats
as to the source. If salts or impurities have
caused peeling, scrape off the defective surface,
hose off the underlying surface, and wipe
surface dry before repainting. If the peeling or
blistering was caused by incompatibility of the
paints or improper application, scrape off the
defective surface, and sand the underlying
surface to provide a better bond with the new
paint. Peeling, cracking, and alligatoring to
bare wood require total removal of the defective
paint followed by drying out of the wood
substrate and treatment for any rotted areas
before repainting. Sand or scrape only to the
next sound layer of paint, exposure of bare
wood is not necessary.

Paint Removal Methods

Paint is typically removed from wood surfaces by scraping after it has been softened with heat
guns or plates or brushed with commercially available chemical stripping solvents. Regardless
which method is chosen for paint removal, after the stripping process is complete, all affected
areas will need at least light sanding.
Chemical Strippers
WARNING: When chemical paint removers are used, take care to protect your skin and eyes, provide
adequate ventilation, and prevent spillage onto adjacent materials. These solvents can etch or otherwise
damage the surrounding masonry, painted surfaces, and glazing. It is best not to use these chemicals on or
directly adjacent to glass.

Paint on historic lighthouse window sash can be removed by softening with commercial chemical
strippers such as methylene chloride, toluol, or xylol. To maximize the chemicals effect, the
stripping agents have been combined with a thickener which holds them in place while the
chemicals soften the paint. The softened paint is scraped with special scraping tools designed not
to damage existing molding profiles. The scrapers can be formed on site by grinding the trim
profile on the end of a large (2-inch-wide) scraper. Commercially available scrapers are designed
with different sized curves and shapes that can be used in combination to fit the various curves
and shapes of the molding profile.
Another commercially available method sandwiches the paint, softened by a solvent paste,
between the wood substrate and a disposable membrane. Although materials for this method are
more costly, it is less labor intensive than using traditional strippers and scraping. Even with this
system some scraping is required. With either stripping method all stripped surfaces must be
neutralized for the new paint to properly adhere. The neutralization method depends on the
particular stripper.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. E, Page 9

Applied Heat
WARNING: Under no circumstances should a torch or other open flame be used to remove paint. When
using heat to strip paint, be sure to provide adequate ventilation, properly protect skin and eyes, and wear a
respirator designed for vapors. Take all precautions to protect workers from lead-paint exposure.

There are two commercially available applied-heat paint-removal systems for use on historic
windows: heat guns and heat plates. Heat guns will soften paint in only a small concentrated area,
making heat guns good for removing paint in trim profiles and other tight spaces. A heat gun can
be used to soften and remove glazing compound only if certain precautions are taken to protect
the glass. When a heat gun is used near glass, carefully cover the glass with a piece of hardboard
wrapped with aluminum foil. This measure will help reflect heat away from the glass and reduce
the chances of localized overheating, which can crack the glass.
To facilitate complete paint removal, remove the existing sash from the frame. To do this, pry
loose the stops and parting beads as carefully as possible so that the wood does not split. All parts
should be labeled and positions documented to ease reinstallation. If parts are damaged during
removal they should repaired or reproduced to maintain the historic appearance of the window.
Because window stop profiles have changed very little over the last 100 years, the variety of sizes
available at many lumber yards will likely match the historic profile to be replaced.
Once the paint has been removed, revitalize the bare wood by rubbing it with fine-grade steel
wool soaked in turpentine or mineral spirits and boiled linseed oil.
After the excess paint from the window frame and sash has been removed, it may be advisable to
treat the surfaces with a wood preservative coating. Choose a commercially available
preservative, taking care that it is compatible with the finish or paint system to be applied
afterward. Solutions containing copper arsenate, for example, give treated wood a greenish tone
and are not approved for use by most government agencies.

Removing Paint from Metal

Windows
NOTE ABOUT LEAD PAINT: In the
following treatment explanations, references
are made to the removal of loose, flaking, and
blistering paint finishes; during this process
all precautions should be taken to protect
workers from exposure to lead-based paint.

Historic metal windows often have

accumulated many layers of paint, which is
likely to interfere with the proper operation
of the window and is usually visually
unattractive. Over time, partial peeling
leaves a pitted surface that collects
moisture. Excessive paint layers also
obscure the shape of original molding
profiles, which add definition to the
windows appearance.

Part IV. E, Page 10

The extent of paint removal required

depends on the condition of the paint.
Treatments for common paint conditions
found on historic lighthouses:
Chalked paint should be cleaned with a mild
detergent solvent, hosed down, and allowed to
dry before repainting.
Crazed paint should be sanded by hand or with
a power sander before repainting.
Peeling and blistering between coats should first
be analyzed as to the source. If salts or
impurities have caused peeling, the defective
surface should be scraped off and the
underlying surface hosed off and wiped dry
before repainting. If peeling or blistering was
caused by incompatibility of the paints or
improper application, scrape off the defective
surface and sand the underlying surface to
provide a better bond with the new paint.
Peeling, cracking, and alligatoring to bare wood
require total removal of the defective paint,

WINDOWS

followed by drying out of the wood substrate

and treatment for any rotted areas before
repainting.

Removing paint from metal frames and sash

usually includes removing some built-up
corrosion and scaling. Use a wire brush,
being careful not to damage the remaining
glass or other surfaces. Particular attention
is required to remove rust buildup at
construction joints and along the crack
perimeter of the sash and frame. Because
older metal windows were typically primed
with lead-based paint, wear a respirator
rated for lead protection when using a wire
brush. An alternative to abrading the
surface, particularly when only light
corrosion is present, is to use a liquid gel
containing phosphoric, ammonium citrate,
or oxalic acid. After the gel has been
brushed on and has set, wipe clean and dry
the steel substrate. Again, protect
surrounding materials, particularly masonry
and glass, during all these procedures.
After removing the paint, wipe the bare
metal with a solvent such as benzene or
denatured alcohol to remove all chemical
residue.
WARNING: Heat should not be used to
remove paint from metal windows because
possible distortion may result.

If corrosion is extensive, sandblasting may

be necessary. Remove the sash from the
frame and the glass panes from the sash. A
low-pressure blast (80 to 100 psi) with small
grit in the range of #10 to #45) applied with
an easily controllable pencil blaster is
recommended.
Because corrosion begins as soon as the
bare metal is exposed to the air, apply a
rust-inhibiting paint immediately after
removing old paint. Two coats of zinc-rich
chromate paint as a primer are
recommended and the finish coat of paint
should be from the same manufacturer as
the primer to ensure compatibility.
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Repainting
NOTE ABOUT PAINTING: The following
treatments provide only general information.
In preparing surfaces and applying paint,
follow manufacturers specifications and
guidelines included with the product (either
directly on the label or as included literature)
for more specific instructions.

The most time-consuming maintenance

procedure is repainting windows. Careful
surface preparation is the key to a
successful job. In repainting wood
windows once the wood has been
preserved and its moisture content reduced,
select a paint that resists moisture but
allows the wood to breathe. Steel windows
should be primed with an anticorrosive
primer and finished with a compatible
paint.
A complex array of paint options have been
developed by the modern coating industry.
Paints containing lead, used in the past on
both wood and metal windows, are no
longer readily available. Solvent- and
water-based paints used today are generally
thicker in composition than the solventbased paints used historically. When
selecting a paint, seek assistance from
manufacturers or suppliers about
compatibility and methods of application.
When selecting a paint consider these
factors:
drying and recoating time
coverage
environmental factors, such as toxicity and
flammability
color and gloss durability
moisture permeability (in wood windows)
expected service life
compatibility with window putty
tolerance to adverse weather conditions
adhesion between contacting surfaces

Part IV. E, Page 11

Wood Windows
The earliest water-based paints, now often
referred to as latex, were developed for use
on interior surfaces and performed poorly
on exterior surfaces. For wood windows
exterior water-based vinyl acrylic paints are
generally more compatible with existing
paint layers containing lead and provide
better moisture permeability than water- or
solvent-based alkyd paints. If the paint
layer is impermeable, it may trap water that
penetrates past the paint film. Alkyd paints
available in flat, semigloss, and gloss
finishes are fast drying, flexible, resistant to
chalking, and retain color and gloss well,
but are incompatible with existing paint
layers containing lead.
Metal Windows
Before painting, pits that were created by
corrosion should be filled by melting steel
welding rod into the pits; then grind flush
or use a steel-based epoxy than can be
ground or sanded flush with the
surrounding material. After the voids have
been filled, all bare metal surfaces should
be wiped with a solvent-metal-preparation
solution. This will remove any chlorides
(salt deposits) that may have settled on the
surface from the sea air as well as
microscopic rust or corrosion that may have
started to form. All bare metal surfaces
should be coated with a corrosioninhibiting primer. A solvent-based alkyd
paint rich in zinc or zinc chromate is
generally recommended as a primer for
steel windows along with two impermeable
alkyd finish coats.

Caulking and Glazing Compounds

Caulking and glazing compounds are used
to seal a windows nonoperable joints.
Because their expected service life varies
from 5 to 30 years when the window unit is
properly maintained, they are considered a
disposable part of the window system and
Part IV. E, Page 12

therefore receive periodic maintenance.

Replacing cracked or missing compounds is
somewhat complicated because new
materials have been developed in recent
decades.
Most traditional caulks and glazing
compounds had a base of linseed oil, which
tended to became hard and brittle over
time. Today, more than a dozen generic
compounds are commercially available to
fill seams and joints. Most are based on
more complex plastic and silicone
compounds and tend to remain pliant for a
longer time, but not all are useful in
window rehabilitation. Because of
windows exposure to temperature
extremes and the stresses that develop at
the joints where dissimilar materials meet,
compounds should be durable, flexible, and
resilient.
Caulking
Caulking is used to bridge the joints
between the frame and the window
opening. These should not be considered
stationary joints, for they are constantly
moving as the wall and window materials
expand and contract because of changes in
temperature and moisture content.
Selecting an appropriate caulking also
depends on the window material itself. The
dimensions of a metal window within a
window opening, for example, change less
than a wood window does. Both, in turn,
are more stable than an aluminum window,
which has the highest coefficient of thermal
expansion and thus requires the most
sophisticated caulking.
When selecting caulking be sure to
consider the following:
the material of the window opening (some
compounds do not adhere well to porous
materials)
the width of the joint to be sealed (some
compounds have a limited gap range)

WINDOWS

 the season when caulking is to be applied and

the curing time (some of the better compounds
require extended periods of warm temperatures
above 60o Fahrenheit)
the caulkings integral color range, often
available by custom order
its adherence to paint

Commonly used window caulks:

Oil-based caulks: can seal joints of up to 1/2
inch and are the least expensive, but can require
up to a year to cure and temperatures above
40 Fahrenheit for application. They dry hard
and can deform permanently. Not paintable.
Butyl rubber caulks: can seal joints of up to 1/2
inch, adhere well to metal and masonry, and
can be painted upon cure, but require extended
temperatures above 40 Fahrenheit for
application. They are subject to shrinkage, and
some degrade under exposure to ultraviolet
light.
Polysulfide caulks: can seal joints of up to 1
inch, are flexible and resilient, but are more
expensive. They require temperatures above
60 Fahrenheit for application, as well as
careful surface preparation and application of a
primer over porous surfaces.
Silicone caulks: can seal joints of up to 1 inch,
are flexible and resilient even at low
temperatures, and can be applied at
temperatures as low as O Fahrenheit. They are
the most expensive, have limited integral color
range, cannot be painted in most cases, and
require careful surface preparation and
application of a primer over porous surfaces.
Only special silicone formulations are paintable.
Polyurethane caulks: used in some metal
windows, can seal joints of up to 3/4 inch, are
flexible and resilient, and adhere well to
masonry. They require application at
temperatures above 40 Fahrenheit, careful
surface preparation, and application of a primer
over most surfaces. Not paintable.

When caulking a window, carefully scrape

out the existing compound and residue
before applying new caulking. If the joint is
large and deep, use a filler, known as
backer rod, to fill a majority of the void,
leaving a gap for the caulk that is
approximately as deep as the gap is wide.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Then fill this gap with the caulking

compound. Protect adjacent masonry
surfaces before caulking, since some
compounds will stain these materials.
Review and strictly follow manufacturers
recommendations and instructions.
Glazing Compounds
Glazing compounds are used to seal the
joints where the panes of glass meet the
muntins and sash members in older, singleglazed windows. An oil-based putty is
typically used on wood sash, while
specially formulated glazing compounds
are used in steel sash. Most compounds
should be protected by paint, but harden
with age and rapidly deteriorate when
exposed to the elements. Sections of
deteriorated glazing compound can often
be replaced without removing the sash from
the frame. Complete replacement of the
compound, however, is best accomplished
with the sash on a horizontal surface and
the glass removed.
Preparing the Sash
When completely replacing the glazing
compound, remove all deteriorated material
manually by scraping, taking care not to
damage the rabbet, where the glass is
positioned. During all operations take
every precaution to protect the historic
glass.
Wood Windows
If the putty or other compound has
hardened in the rabbets, it can be softened
by applying heat. A heat gun may be used
if the glass is protected by a heat shield
(hardboard wrapped with aluminum foil).
A better heat source is a heat plate with
only a perimeter element and a built-in heat
shield that is designed for the purpose of
softening putty in wood windows. Before
the glass panes are replaced, the surfaces of
sash members should be prepared. Clean
and finish bare surfaces of wood sash by

Part IV. E, Page 13

Metal Windows
First, carefully remove all damaged glazing
compound and the mounting clips that
retain the glass pane. This must be done
mechanically. Do not use applied heat,
which may cause the window frame to
distort. Use a wire brush or, for more
severe conditions, a pencil sand blaster at
low pressure (80-100 psi) to remove any
corrosion. Paint all surfaces with a solventbased alkyd paint rich in zinc or zinc
chromate as an anticorrosive primer. Then
apply two coats of a compatible,
impermeable alkyd-finish top coat.
Setting the Glass
With wood sash and most steel sash, apply
a thin bed of putty along the inside face of
the rabbet. This process, known as backputtying, provides a tight seal and
protective cushion for the glass. Insert the
glass, replace glazing points (in wood
windows) or retaining clips (in metal
windows), and putty the exterior face in a
neat triangular bead. For metal windows,
use only a glazing compound designed for
metal windows. For wood windows, use
either a linseed-oil putty that is thickened
with commercial whiting or a pre-mixed
glazing compound. Paint the glazing
compound only after it has completely
cured. When painting, allow the brush to
overlap and drag slightly over the glass to
form a durable seal.

Repairing Damaged or
Deteriorated Windows
Window repairs, such as splicing new
wood, fitting dutchmen, consolidating
wood sections, welding steel sections,

Part IV. E, Page 14

bending steel sections, replacing glass (see

previous section on glazing compounds),
and adjusting hardware are generally
performed as needed during the course of
maintaining a building. Such repairs greatly
improve the performance of older windows
by returning them to an operable condition.
Splicing and Dutchmen
Deteriorated portions of wood windows can
be effectively repaired using like-kind
splices or dutchmen. Splicing of a wood
member is required when a portion of the
window, i.e., a frame rail, has been
damaged or has deteriorated and only that
portion needs removal and a new section
attached in its place. All deteriorated
material should be removed, and the end
where the replacement member will be
attached should be cut on a diagonal to
increase the gluing surface area. The
replacement member should match the
existing members in grain orientation and
in any existing shape or profile. The new
member can even be made from matching
salvaged stock. To attach the new member,

WPTC photo

rubbing the surface with a fine-grade steel

wool or a fine grade of high-quality
sandpaper, and then apply a solution of
equal parts of boiled linseed oil and
turpentine. Finally, prime and repaint.

Figure 10. Close-up of a recently restored replacement

metal window at Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. Now that the
repair work is done, all that this window needs is the
hardware lubricated and periodic maintenance to remain in
operable condition for the next 50 years. At the time of this
lighthouse restoration, it was discovered that the original
windows were not repairable and funds were not available
to replicate the original cast-iron frame design. The
original windows were more like a shutter, constructed in
two parts, hinged at both sides and meeting in the middle.
The new landing windows were installed as a temporary
measure until additional funds are available.

WINDOWS

WPTC photo
WPTC photo

Figure 11. Example of a metal casement window in a

lighthouse dating from the 1870s

probe the deteriorated area to determine

the approximate depth of the deterioration.
Second, cut a wood patch or dutchman
with its grain aligned with the existing
members. The dutchman can be
rectangular or diamond shaped. Both
shapes will work; however, a diamond
shape is a little more difficult to fit but will
provide more gluing surface and blend with
the grain better if the window is finished
with varnish instead of paint. Be sure the
dutchman is large enough to cover the
affected area and thicker than the
deterioration is deep. Slightly bevel all of
the edges of the dutchman so that the
widest face is the top. This will ensure a
tight cork-like fit. Next, trace the outline of
the dutchmans narrowest face on the
existing member over the deterioration.
Using the outline as a guide, carefully
remove all of the deteriorated wood with a
chisel. Test-fit the dutchman, and trim the
hole until the dutchman bottoms out and
fills the affected area entirely; the dutchman
should be slightly higher than the existing
material. Glue and clamp the dutchman in
place. Once the glue has cured, use a
chisel or hand plane to make the dutchman
flush with the surrounding material. Hand
sanding can be used for the final leveling of
the two surfaces.

Figure 12. Close-up of severely deteriorated bottom rail of

the same window in Figure 11. This condition can be
repaired by splicing a new piece of sash

A dutchman is a fitted patch in a wood

member that has only localized
deterioration. To fit a dutchman, first

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

WPTC photo

cut the end diagonally to match the existing

member; then drill aligned holes in both
members for reinforcing dowels.

Figure 13. Close-up of a dutchman repair (light-colored

wood used to mend a window muntin).

Part IV. E, Page 15

Figure 14. A wood window

splice repair. (Illustration by
Eric Ford, WPTC)

Epoxy, Fillers, and Consolidants

NOTE ABOUT EPOXY, FILLERS, AND
CONSOLIDANTS: Epoxy treatments are
irreversible, may not be approved for
National Historic Landmark structures, and
should be used only after a careful study has
been made of more traditional repair
technologies such as splicing and dutchmen.
Some epoxy, filler, and consolidant
treatments require training in the application
of the system. Individuals not familiar with
the use, effectiveness, and results of this
technology should be trained in its use before
field application.

Wood Windows
Repair of deteriorated wood sash and frame
members is possible where there has been
loss of material. It should be considered a
primary option when joints have not

Part IV. E, Page 16

twisted or warped, as when the surfaces of

sills, lower portions of the frame, and
bottom rails of sash have become eroded
but have not cracked or split. Filling and
consolidation of most frame members is
performed in place, while sash
consolidation is usually done in a shop.
When only wood surfaces are eroded, voids
can be eliminated by applying a paste or
putty filler. Apply fillers after the wood has
dried and has been treated with a fungicide
and a solution of boiled linseed oil.
In cases where a limited amount of rot has
progressed well into the substrate, interior
voids are filled in by saturating the wood
with a penetrating epoxy consolidant
formulated for wood. Surface voids, as well
as decayed or missing ends near joints, are
then filled or built up with an epoxy
compound. When sash are in such poor

WINDOWS

WPTC photo

location. This process may take a few days

to complete. Depending on the extent of
deformation, this repair can be done in situ
or the sash may be removed and repaired in
a shop. Because special skills are required
for this type of repair, a certified window
repair contractor should be consulted.

Figure 15. This window sash frame was repaired with

traditional (replacement wood hammerhead key) and
modern epoxy filler (material to left and right of the
hammer head key) techniques.

condition that they require consolidation,

puttying and painting are typically also
needed. Moreover, the joints connecting
stiles and rails are likely to have become
loose. After the glass and paint in affected
areas have been removed, the sash is
placed in a jig on a horizontal surface.
Separated corners should first be repaired
by pulling the joints together with a pipe
clamp, drilling holes through adjacent stiles
and rails, and securing each joint with a
blind dowel. Rotted, missing, or eroded
sections are then treated with the saturating
epoxy, allowed to cure, and resurfaced with
the epoxy paste. Surfaces are then sanded
and painted as required.
Splicing and Bending Metal Window Parts
Damaged or severely corroded metal
window sections can be removed and
matching sections welded into place. Some
rolled steel window stock is still
manufactured or can be located in
architectural salvage yards. Depending on
the extent of deterioration, this repair can
be done in situ or the sash may be removed
and repaired in a shop. Because special
skills are required for this type of repair, a
certified window repair contractor should
be consulted.
Deformed windows can be reshaped by
gently applying pressure in the right
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Adjusting Hardware
Properly cleaned and adjusted hardware
will greatly extend the operable life of
wood or metal windows. For routine
cleaning use fine steel wool or a fine brasswire brush and a cleaning solvent. All
moving parts should be lubricated with a
noncorrosive lubricant.

Limited Replacement In Kind

Windows are character-defining features of
the historic lighthouse. Replacement of
existing historic sash, no matter its
condition, is a last-resort treatment.
Replacement is usually the most expensive
alternative and results in total loss of
historic fabric. Replacement may be
considered only if the historic sash are
missing or too deteriorated for repair
techniques. This decision should be made
by a preservation professional such as a
historical architect, engineer, or facility
manager trained in preservation.
If replacement windows are put in a historic
lighthouse, they should match the
characteristics of the historic sash: number
and size of lights, muntin width and profile,
stile and rail dimensions and profiles,
setback in window opening, and windowframe size and profile. For more
information refer to NPS Preservation
Briefs: 9, 13, 16, 17, and 18.
Use the following as a guide when
considering window replacement:
Always keep replacement to a minimum.
Where sash replacement is called for, attempt to
retain the window frame, hardware, and trim.

Part IV. E, Page 17

 Replacement may be the only feasible option

when substantial structural damage to a window
has occurred. Choose a replacement window
with particular care. Ideally the new window
should be an exact match of the old one. If this
is not possible, carefully consider all of the
windows characteristics, both interior and
exterior, and its importance in the facade, when
selecting a replacement.
When a window is deteriorated to the point
where it is no longer weathertight, the opening
may be temporarily blocked in a manner which
does not damage the historic window features.
Reference the previous mothballing section for
sensitive window blocking methods designed
for historic windows.

For more information on the replacement of

lighthouse windows refer to Part V.,
Beyond Basic Preservation.

Part IV. E, Page 18

WINDOWS

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

WPTC photo

DOORS
Figure 1. Close-up of large, double-leaf,
wood-frame and panel doors at the Cape
Henry Lighthouse (second tower), Fort
Story, Virginia.

The primary cause of lighthouse door

deterioration is moisture penetration of the
various components by rain driven against
and into doors, standing water on sills, and
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

interior condensation. In a marine

environment, deterioration caused by
moisture penetration is exacerbated by
extended periods of damp weather, which
prevent the door and its components from
drying out, thereby encouraging expansion

WPTC photo

Tower exterior doors were quite often the

focus of historic lighthouses. Together
with their functional and decorative
features such as steps, balustrades,
pilasters, and architrave (trim or molding
which surrounds the door opening), they
can be extremely important in defining the
overall character of a lighthouse. Usually
entrances were integral components of a
historic lighthouses stylistic design and
featured hallmark elements that defined the
architectural style upon which the
ornament of the structure was based. For
example, entrances may be detailed with
large raised panel doors trimmed with
masonry or cast-iron pediments and
pilasters which were associated with
neoclassical architecture of the late 19th
and early 20th centuries. The detailing may
not be so grandiose but rather simple and
utilitarian, such as the plain non-trimmed
masonry openings fitted with vertical plank
doors associated with the lighthouses built
before the Civil War.

Figure 2. View of the neoclassical doorway at the

Ponce De Leon Inlet Lighthouse, Florida.

Part IV. F, Page 1

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Figure 3. View of the simple pre-Civil-War-style

replacement plank door at the Ocracoke Lighthouse, North
Carolina.

Figure 4. View of gothic revival style entrance at Piedras

Blancas Lighthouse, California.

and rot. Other factors that contribute to

door deterioration are poor design,
vandalism, insect/fungal attack, settlement
over time, paint buildup, and deferred
maintenance. This chapter will concentrate
on the operational door components. (For
information concerning the door surrounds
and associated features refer to the
Masonry, Iron, and Wood sections of this
handbook.) This text is concerned with the
preservation of historic lighthouse doors
and their role in preserving the integrity of
historic lighthouse. For more information
on designs for recreating missing lighthouse
doors, refer to Part V., Beyond Basic
Preservation.

following is a brief discussion of common

historic lighthouse door types.

Door Types

Wood-framed panel door: A door of one or

two leaves, constructed of a frame that is
comprised of vertical stiles and horizontal rails
connected by mortise and tenon joints; the
openings in the frame are filled with flat or

A variety of door types were used in

historic lighthouse construction. The

Part IV. F, Page 2

Wood plank door: A door of one or two leaves

that is constructed of two layers of tongue and
groove wood planks that run vertically on the
exterior side of the door, and typically run
horizontally or diagonally on the interior. The
planks are typically fastened by clinch nailing
(nails that are driven through the outside of the
door and bent over on the inside). The door is
usually reinforced with horizontal battens at
the hinge locations: a diagonal batten may run
from the top batten to the bottom batten. Such
a door is typically hung on strap hinges;
however, butt hinges may have been used. This
construction method is used to limit the
exposure of the end grain in the boards to the
top and bottom of the door.

DOORS

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

WPTC photo

Figure 7. Another variation on the double-leaf, sheet-iron

door configuration at the Cape Canaveral Lighthouse,
Florida.

WPTC photo

Figure 6. Close-up of the neoclassical, double-leaf,

sheet-iron door at the Cape Charles Lighthouse, Smith
Island, Virginia.

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Figure 5. View of the large, single-leaf, wood-plank

door at the Cape Henry Lighthouse (first tower), Fort
Story, Virginia.

Figure 8. An example of a typical watertight ship style

door at Los Angeles Harbor Lighthouse, California.

Part IV. F, Page 3

raised panels. This construction method allows

the exposure of the wood end grain only at the
top and bottom of the stiles.
Sheet iron or steel door: A door of one or two
leaves, typically constructed of a single sheet of
steel or iron that is reinforced along its
perimeter with angle steel or iron, either riveted
or welded to the sheet. The door is typically

hung on strap or butt hinges that are either

riveted or welded to the sheet.
Watertight steel ship style door: This door
type was predominantly used in lighthouses that
were located in wave-swept locations in open
water and on the ends of breakwaters. The door
is secured by multiple quick-action dogs that are
actuated by an interior hand wheel.

Inspection and Evaluation

The first step to repairing historic doors is a thorough inspection of each door unit. Poor
design, moisture, vandalism, insect attack, and lack of maintenance contribute to both
metal and wood door deterioration. Of these factors, moisture is the primary factor in
wood decay and metal corrosion. The following are some common problems to look for
when inspecting doors for deterioration. (For more information on the deterioration of
wood and metal refer to the Wood and Iron sections of this handbook.)

Inspection Chart for Lighthouse Doors

Look For:

Possible Problems:
Wood Doors

Look for areas of paint failure and wood

deterioration

Part IV. F, Page 4

Failing paint may indicate the wood is in poor

condition and in need of repair. Wood is
frequently in sound condition, however, beneath
unsightly paint. After noting areas of paint failure,
inspect the condition of the wood. Use an ice
pick or an awl to test wood for soundness in an
inconspicuous location. Pry up a small section of
the wood. Sound wood will separate in long
fibrous splinters. Decayed wood will lift up in
short irregular pieces because of the breakdown of
fiber strength. Plank doors are especially
susceptible to wicking moisture along their bottom
edge where the end grain is exposed. The lower
ends of the stiles of a frame-and-panel door are
especially susceptible to wicking moisture through
the end grain. If deterioration has begun from
within the wood member and the core is badly
decayed, the visible surface may appear to be
sound wood. Pressure on a probe can force
through an apparently sound outer layer to
penetrate deeply into decayed wood. This
technique is especially useful for checking sills
where visual access to the underside is restricted.

DOORS

Look For:

Possible Problems:
Metal Doors

Look for areas of paint failure

This may indicate the paint is at the end of its

effective life span. Damage caused by bending
will make the less flexible paint fracture and pop
off the door frame.

Look for areas of corrosion on all surfaces of the

door leaf, frame, sub-frame (if visible), and
hardware

This may indicate a moisture infiltration problem.

Corrosion, typically in the form of rust, will occur
along the bottom edge of the door leaf.

Look for bowing or misalignment of door leaves

Deformation could be the result of misuse/abuse

or corroding components that have been
deformed by rust-jacking or have simply
deteriorated. Bowing or misalignment will more
than likely prevent the door from being
weathertight.

Both Door Types

Check for gaps or cracks in the joint between the
door frame and the lighthouse wall

Cracks or gaps are possible water infiltration

points.

Examine the sill for a downward slope which

allows water to drain

Without a downward slope, water will collect

under the door causing deterioration or may run
into the lighthouse causing deterioration of interior
features.

Examine all flashing to ensure that water is

directed away from the lighthouse and door
opening

Improperly installed flashing may collect water or

direct water into the lighthouse, causing premature
deterioration of the lighthouse door, door frame,
or interior features.

Check the moving parts of the doors

Bound or tight operating doors may simply be

painted shut or may be stuck because of
deteriorating frame members or bowed leaves, or
may be bound by corroded hardware.

Inspect door units for water entering around the

edges of the frame

The joints or seams should be caulked to eliminate

water infiltration. Check the weather seal for
cracked, loose, or missing sections.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. F, Page 5

PRESERVATION TREATMENTS
Doors reflect a period and style as well as provide security for a lighthouse. During any
preservation treatment both of these functions should be maximized. Because of characterdefining nature of the door and its surrounding trim, all treatments should use the gentlest
means possible. All replacement materials should be of the highest quality and able to
withstand a harsh marine environment.
Many of the maintenance and repair techniques described in this text, particularly those
relating to cleaning and painting, are potentially dangerous and should be carried out only
by experienced and qualified workmen using protective equipment suitable to the task. In
many cases, it is best to involve a historical architect or building conservator to assess the
condition of the door and its components and prepare contract documents for the required
treatment.

Protection and Stabilization (Mothballing)

Figure 9. View of the Ocracoke Lighthouse five years after

replacement; note rust streaks from nails. This condition
indicates the paint coating has degraded to the point where
moisture has permeated the surface.

Part IV. F, Page 6

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Before any preservation treatment is performed, the lighthouse door and its surroundings
should be thoroughly inspected using the information in the preceding section as a guide.
From these findings, a preservation treatment plan can be developed.

Figure 10. Interior view of the modern metal door at the

Ocracoke Lighthouse before its replacement; corrosion like
this should be removed and the affected areas treated with a
rust-inhibiting coating system.

DOORS

When mothballing wood or steel doors, protection of historic fabric and security should be
the primary goals. Treatments for the protection of wood and iron lighthouse components
during the mothballing period are covered in the sections on Wood and Iron; therefore
they will not be reiterated in this section. This section will concentrate on lighthouse
security during the mothballing period.

Security
Lighthouses which have been mothballed
usually have the openings on the lower
level covered to reinforce entry points. The
following are general guidelines to consider
when securing doors during the
mothballing period.

character-defining features. The method of

installation should not result in damage to the
door, the opening, door jamb, or frame. If parts
of the door must be removed to secure the
opening, all parts should be labeled and stored
in the lighthouse if possible.

Make all repairs to the door and frame to

prevent further damage during the mothballing
period. (Refer to the following repair treatment
for more information.)

WPTC photo

When securing a door during the mothballing

period, the most important factors to consider
are ease of authorized entry and retention of

Figure 11. These louvered doors have been installed at

Point Sur Light Station for security and ventilation. Note
the baffles on the exterior and the screened louvers on the
interior.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Figure 12. Typical detailing of a storm proof louver for

temporary lighthouse doors. (WPTC image adapted from
drawing from USCG-CEU Oakland Archives)

Part IV. F, Page 7

WPTC photo

Figure 13. Site-built steel door at the Turkey Point

Lighthouse; this solution was chosen because of the remote
location and repeated break-ins. Note exterior stiffeners
and shroud over the hasp and lock.

Figure 14. A shop drawing depicting the parts of the

watertight ship style door. (Drawing courtesy of Cen-Tex
Marine Fabricators)

Site-built, fabricated steel door: This door

consists of a steel C channel frame set into the
existing opening that is lag-bolted to the existing
door frame. On the outside of this frame, the
door leaf is connected by welding the hinges to
both the frame and door leaf. The door leaf
should overlap the opposite door frame to
facilitate the installation of an eye that will pass
through a slot in the door leaf to facilitate a
lock. A steel shroud big enough to facilitate
lock operation with a key, but prevent bolt
cutters from reaching the lock, should be
welded over top of the eye slot. If the
lighthouse is not in an area that is to being wave
swept (i.e., if the lighthouse is located on a
breakwater or pier), the door should be fitted
with screened louvers that are approximately 25
percent of the total door area. The louvers

Part IV. F, Page 8

USCG Group Grand Haven

For situations where the door has been severely

damaged beyond repair or removed by vandals
or has deteriorated extensively because of
neglect, a temporary, reversible security door
should be installed. The following are two types
of temporary steel security doors:

Figure 15. View of watertight ship style door

installation on the Grand Haven South Pierhead Front
Range Light, Grand Haven, Michigan.

DOORS

should be constructed from the same gage steel

as the rest of the door.
Watertight steel ship style door: This type of
door consists of a prefabricated ship style door.
This door system can be fitted much the same
way as the site-built door. A steel C channel
frame should be bolted to the door opening; the
prefabricated watertight door can then be
welded to the frame. The prefabricated door
should have six quick-action dogs, an interior
hand wheel, and a flush exterior-socket-locking

mechanism that can be actuated with a mating

T wrench. The hinge pin caps should be
welded to prevent disassembly. This door will
provide a weathertight, vandal-proof access that
can be removed after the mothballing period.

WARNING: When installing either of these

door types, the treatment should be
completely reversible and not damage or
cause future damage to existing historic
fabric.

Repair
When repairing wood or steel doors, protection and retention of historic fabric should be
the primary goal. Here are a few general guidelines for historic lighthouse door repair;
refer to the aforementioned sections for more information.

Door Hardware
Historic lighthouse door hardware is not
only functional but also significant in
defining the character of the historic door.
Lighthouse door hardware such as door
knobs, hinges, keyhole escutcheons, and
even strike plates were often decoratively
detailed with motifs of the architectural
style of the lighthouse. When preserving
historic lighthouse doors, the existing
hardware should be retained. When repairs
are made to the door, the hardware should
be removed for protection or protected in
place to avoid any damage that may be
incurred during the repair process. If the
hardware is removed, label each piece to

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

WPTC photo

Do not remove or radically change a door that

is important in defining the overall historic
character of the lighthouse. Do not strip
entrances of historic material such as wood, cast
iron, and brick.

WPTC photo

Repair doorways by reinforcing the historic

materials. Repair will also generally include the
limited replacement in kindor with
compatible substitute materialof those
extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
repeated features such as pilasters, architrave,
sidelights, door leaves, and stairs where there
are surviving prototypes.

Figures 16 and 17. Examples of decorative door hardware

found in late 19th-century lighthouses.

Part IV. F, Page 9

ensure that it is reinstalled in its proper

location.

Limited Replacement In Kind

Replace in-kind door components that are too
deteriorated to repairif the form and detailing
are still evidentusing the physical evidence as
a model to reproduce the component. If using
the same kind of material is not technically or
economically feasible, then a compatible
substitute material may be considered.

Part IV. F, Page 10

DOORS

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

NMI photo

LANTERN
Figure 1. Lantern housing hyper-radiant lens at
Makapuu Lighthouse near Waimanalo on the
Island of Oahu in Hawaii.

Despite the inherent durability of the

lantern design and construction,
deterioration caused by environment is still
a constant threat. Improper maintenance
or repair techniques can also accelerate
deterioration; therefore, all treatment
should be executed using the gentlest
means possible. Character-defining
features such as material type, size, profile;
decorative brackets; lantern glass (almost
always clear or red glass); decorative
railing standards; etc., should all be
examined. Whether the planned
preservation treatment is mothballing or
repair, a proper inspection and diagnosis

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

National Archives

The primary purpose of the lantern is to

provide a weathertight shelter for the
lighting apparatus. The lantern also
functions as the roof for the tower.
Lighthouse lanterns come in a wide variety
of shapes and sizes; most lanterns have
similar components and therefore, share
similar problems. A typical lantern consists
of a frame that supports the lantern glass
and roof, in some cases a masonry or wood
parapet wall, a lens apparatus, and interior
and exterior hatches.

Figure 2. Original construction drawing of the first-order

Cape Fear Lighthouse showing the lantern above the
service/watch room.

Part IV. G, Page 1

Figure 3. Illustration of the four standard lantern sizes used by the U.S. Lighthouse Establishment in the first half of the
20th century. Drawing assembled by WPTC from images dated 1898 and 1903 courtesy of USCG CEU Oakland.

Part IV. G, Page 2

LANTERN

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Figure 4. Close-up of the fourth-order lantern at

Coquille River Lighthouse in Oregon.

should be performed in order to determine

the most effective treatment solution.

Figure 5. Close-up of the first-order lantern at Cape

Canaveral in Florida.

For more information on replacing missing

or severely deteriorated lantern components
refer to Part V., Beyond Basic Preservation.

were caulked with litharge to keep areas of

contact between dissimilar metals dry.
Litharge was used to protect iron lantern
frames from bronze astragals. In other
locations such as where the cast-iron
lantern roof rafters came in contact with
the copper roof covering, an insulating
barrier was used. When preservation
treatments are performed on historic
lanterns, these details should be
maintained.

Lantern Construction
In order to withstand harsh weather
conditions, the components of a typical
lantern are made from a variety of materials
and metals. The main support structure
(including the floor), certain types of
parapet walls, and the lens pedestal are
typically made of cast iron for strength. The
roof, ventilation ball, and lightening rod are
typically made of copper, which can
withstand severe weathering (and in the
case of the lightning rod, can conduct
electricity). The astragals and clamps that
hold the lantern glass in place as well as
grab handles are typically made of bronze
which resists corrosion and is durable.
Brass screws compatible with the bronze
are typically used to attach the astragals to
the lantern frame. If these parts corrode,
damage to the lantern glass can result.
The variety of metals used in lantern
construction creates the potential for
galvanic corrosion. Various techniques
were employed to prevent corrosion. An
electrolyte such as water must be present
for galvanic corrosion to occur, so joints
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Interior features such as vent dampers and

lens frame parts are typically made of brass
for its durability, stability, and decorative
qualities. Other interior finishes include
beaded tongue-and-groove wood paneling
or sheet iron on the parapet walls, and
wood tongue-and-groove flooring. These
finishes are typical in the smaller fourththrough sixth-order lanterns.

Special Conditions Associated with

Historic Lantern Systems
A variety of special maintenance conditions
can occur in a historic lantern system but
may not occur in any other part of the
lighthouse. (The treatment and prevention
of these conditions are addressed under the
repair treatment in this chapter.)
Part IV. G, Page 3

Figure 6. Diagram of a typical first-order lantern; the parts are similar to second- and third-order lights. (Diagram based on
USLHS drawing in the National Archives)

Part IV. G, Page 4

LANTERN

Galvanic Corrosion
Galvanic corrosion is an electrochemical
action that results when two dissimilar
metals react together in the presence of an
electrolyte, such as water containing salts or
hydrogen ions. This type of corrosion is
normally significant only between groups
separated by lines in the Galvanic Series in
Water table below; the effect is small
between members of the same group.
Galvanic corrosion is the result of a
spontaneous flow of positive electric
current from the more noble metal to the
more base metal. The more base metal
then dissolves. The severity of the galvanic
corrosion depends on the difference
between the two metals, their relative
surface areas, and time. If the more noble

MORE NOBLE

metal (higher position in electrochemical

series) is much larger in area than the baser
(or less noble) metal, the deterioration of
the baser metal will be more rapid and
severe. If the more noble metal is much
smaller in area than the baser metal, the
deterioration of the baser metal will be
much less significant.
An example of an undesirable situation that
permits galvanic attack is the use of steel or
aluminum fasteners to hold together a
copper-covered lantern roof. Since the
more noble metal is in contact with a small
area of a more base metal, galvanic attack
would corrode away the fastener with
nothing to hold the copper cover to the
lantern should the coating system fail and
allow water (the electrolyte) to facilitate the
galvanic corrosion.

GALVANIC SERIES IN WATER, 20oC

Titanium Alloys
GROUP I
Nickel Alloys
Stainless Steels
Silver
GROUP II

Copper Alloys (Bronze/

Brass)
Lead Alloys
Tin Alloys

GROUP III

Cast Iron
Structural Steels

MORE BASE

GROUP IV

Zinc Alloys

GROUP V

Aluminum Alloys

GROUP VI

Magnesium Alloys

Source: USCG Fixed Aids to Navigation Maintenance, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District, Cleveland Ohio,
CCGDNINEINST MI6500.2. For more information on galvanic corrosion of metals, refer to Metals in America's
Buildings: Uses and Treatments (U.S. Dept. of the Interior) or Corrosion Handbook by Herbert H. Uhlig (ed.), 11th ed.
1969.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. G, Page 5

Rust-Jacking

Sea water is especially corrosive. Marine

atmospheres and sea water contain several
corrosive agents including chlorides and
other salt particles which can be deposited
on the surface of the metal. These
corrosive agents can affect metals as far as
60 to 70 miles from the sea (depending on
weather patterns). Metals immersed in
water are also subject to corrosion by
dissolved solids and gases, especially
oxygen.

WPTC photo

If this condition occurs all screws, bolts,

nuts, welds, and fastenings of any kind
should always be made from a more noble
material than the remainder of the structure.
(For more information concerning
prevention of galvanic corrosion refer to the
repair treatment in this section of the
handbook.)

Figure 7. The white chalky residue around the steel bolt

heads on this aluminum deck is the by-product of the
corrosion occurring at these connections.

Part IV. G, Page 6

Rust-jacking threatens any iron or steel

component. In lantern glass, the condition
can cause severe damage. When moisture
enters the channel that retains the glass, the
iron frame may begin to rust. As the iron
rusts, it expands and in turn cracks the
glass. This phenomenon can occur
anywhere a ferrous metal (iron or steel, etc.)
is in direct contact with another material.
The pressure created by the exfoliating rust
(iron oxide) may damage the adjacent
material. (For more information concerning
prevention of rust-jacking refer to the repair
treatment in this section of the handbook.)

Ventilation
Nearly all, if not all, lanterns have a
ventilation-ball vent located at the apex of
their roofs which served as the primary vent
for the fumes and smoke created by the oilfired illuminant. Secondary vent locations
varied by the size of the lantern: first- and
second-order lanterns typically had vents
located in the watch room area below the
lantern and in the sill and head areas of the
lantern glass; smaller third- through sixthorder lanterns had vents typically located in
every other panel of the parapet wall.
All vents were baffled to prevent strong
winds from blowing directly into the
lantern and extinguishing the light. Air
flow through the vents was also controlled
by a variety of sliding registers and/or
rotating dampers. While the illuminant was
lit, vents located in the lantern opened to
allow fresh air into the lantern; it would be
heated by the flame and then rise out
through the ventilation ball. This action
created a draft that helped keep the lantern
glass clear of condensation and maintain an
ambient humidity level within the lantern.
This ventilation was essential for the
operation of the lantern as well as its
preservation. (For more information on

LANTERN

WPTC photo

Point Reyes National Seashore

Figure 9. An example of a parapet-wall-mounted vent on a

fourth-order lantern.

Figure 8. Despite the fact that this first-order lantern

ventilation ball has been repaired several times, it still
provides adequate lantern ventilation.

WPTC photo

lantern and lighthouse ventilation refer to

the repair treatment in this section as well
as the Windows section.)

Lantern Glass
Lantern glass is typically 3/8 inch thick.
The glass plays two important roles in the
lantern system. First, the glass should be
clean and clear to allow the greatest
amount of light transmission. Second, the
glass has to withstand high winds, driving
rain, and airborne material (i.e., sand,
wave-tossed rocks, and birds). Proper
installation care and replacement ensures
that these demands are met. Refer to the
repair treatment in this section for more
information on lantern glass care and
replacement.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Figure 10. Close-up of missing clamp bolts; these bolts

should be replaced to keep this area weather tight.

Part IV. G, Page 7

Why Do Lanterns Deteriorate?

Lanterns are made from a variety of metals and materials. These materials are subject to a host of
severe weather conditions. How successfully a lantern resists these pressures depends on how
well it is designed and maintained. A well-built, well-maintained structure may withstand these
forces indefinitely.
The leading causes of decay are:
excessive moisture from leaking roofs and lantern glass, and condensation because of poor ventilation
within the lantern itself all corrode iron components and provide the electrolyte that facilitates galvanic
corrosion between dissimilar metals;
corrosion of iron lantern glass frames which results in rust-jacking that causes the glass to crack, thus
providing a moisture infiltration point; or
failed coating systems that no longer protect lantern components.

Secondary factors causing decay:

Figure 11. The water that has collected in this lantern

sill is causing the iron lantern glass frame (the vertical
members in the center of the photo) to rust and corrode.

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

abrasion by the wind and wind-born solids that accelerates deterioration by rapidly removing corroding
or exfoliating material;
mechanical damage due to ice, impact, or wind;
damage caused by vandalism;
chemical disintegration caused by pollutants in the atmosphere; or

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Figure 12. The glass in this lantern has been cracked

by the rust-jacking that is occurring along the iron
frame.

Figure 13. The paint coating that once protected this

lantern parapet wall has failed.

Part IV. G, Page 8

Figure 14. Wind and airborne sand have accelerated the

deterioration of this lantern gallery deck handrail

LANTERN

WPTC photo

USCG Group Grand Haven, Michigan

Figure 15. Close-up of ice on St. Joseph

North Pier Lighthouse causing damage to
gallery deck and handrail.

Figure 16. This lantern glass has been damaged by rock-throwing

vandals. The resulting hole is allowing rain and insects to enter the
lantern.

damage caused by deterioration of the tower structure that supports the lantern.

Inspecting for Lantern Problems

In order to develop an effective treatment plan for lantern problems, an in-depth inspection
should be made of the lantern and its immediate surroundings. The following chart is a
listing of locations that should be inspected regularly. Associated with these locations are
the possible problems to look for during the inspection.

Inspection Chart for Lighthouse Lanterns

THE SITE
Environment
Look For:

Possible Problems:

General climatic conditions, including average

temperatures, wind speeds and directions,
humidity levels, and average snow and ice
accumulation

Severe conditions can lead to lantern deterioration

caused by excessive heat build-up, moisture
condensation, or snow or ice load that could
literally tear exterior decks off of the lantern.

Number of freeze-thaw cycles

Severe cycles can produce damage from frost

action within masonry parapet walls.

Location near sea

Salt in the air can lead to accelerated corrosion of

metal components.

Acid rain in the region or from nearby industry

Acid rain can act as an electrolyte, which may

facilitate galvanic corrosion between dissimilar
metals.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. G, Page 9

Look For:

Possible Problems:

Proximity to a major road highway or railroad

Vibrations are harmful to mortar joints in masonry

parapet walls; cyclic vibrations may cause failure
caused by fatigue in metal components.

Location in the flood plain of a river, lake, or sea

Floodwaters can bring damaging moisture to

foundations and walls. If differential settlement
results, the lantern may be damaged by the
mechanical action.

Exposed or sheltered sections of a lighthouse

Exposure to the sun and elements affects moisture

evaporation and rain penetration.

THE LIGHTHOUSE
Overall Condition
General state of maintenance and repair

A well-maintained lighthouse should require fewer

major lantern repairs.

Evidence of previous fire or flooding

Such damage may have weakened structure

members or caused excessive moisture within the
lighthouse tower and lantern, thus causing or
accelerating corrosion.

Signs of settlement

Uneven settlement can crack foundations or walls

or result in sloped or wavy mortar joints. If
differential settlement results, the lantern may be
damaged by the mechanical action.

Lantern
General condition

A well-maintained lantern should require fewer

major repairs. A leaking lantern may leave stains
under the gallery deck on the exterior of the
lighthouse as well as streaks on the interior walls
of the tower spaces below. This moisture can
accelerate corrosion of lantern components.

Roof drains (usually associated with larger firstorder lights) and roof covering

Clogged roof drains can hold water in the built-in

guttering system and accelerate deterioration of
the roof covering. Small holes in the roof covering
can be moisture-infiltration points. This moisture
can accelerate corrosion of lantern components.

Gallery decks, copings, and structural seams

Gaps in gallery decking (cast-iron plate, flat-seam

metal, stone, concrete, etc.) and tower wall
copings (stone, metal, concrete) can allow water to
penetrate into the interior cavities of the tower
wall, thus accelerating the deterioration of the
tower.

Part IV. G, Page 10

LANTERN

Look For:

Possible Problems:

Lantern vents and humidity level within the

lantern

Non-functioning lantern vents can prohibit the

release of humid air from within the tower. The
water vapor will ultimately condense on the
surfaces inside the tower and lantern. The
excessive moisture will promote mold and mildew
growth and accelerate corrosion.

Condition of storm panels

Cracks and holes in the storm panels can provide

an infiltration point for moisture into the lantern.

Condition of storm panel glazing compound

If the glazing compound is cracked or missing,

water can enter the frame channel and cause
possible rust-jacking to occur along the perimeter
of the storm panel. The bottom edge of the storm
panels is especially susceptible to this condition.

Lantern Coatings
Paint; type of paint

Various paint types require different treatment

methods and safety precautions.

Blistering, flaking, and peeling paint

These conditions indicate the paint is at or near

the end of its effective life span.

Lantern Parapet Walls

Construction methodiron, masonry, wood
solid or cavity

Knowing how a parapet wall is constructed will

help in analyzing problems and selecting
appropriate treatments.

Condition of seams between wall construction

materials

In wood parapet walls the seams between

sheathing boards must be watertight and all endgrain must be protected from moisture contact. In
iron parapet walls the seams between panels must
be completely watertight to prohibit water from
entering the interior wall cavity and causing the
iron to corrode from the inside out.

Evidence that parts of the parapet wall were

repaired or modified

Inappropriate repairs may be the source of

deterioration.

Tower Interior
Cracked plaster, signs of patching, floors or
landings askew

These are signs of lighthouse settlement.

Differential settlement can cause mechanical
damage to the lantern.

Interior moisture levels

High interior moisture levels may cause

accelerated deterioration of lantern components.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. G, Page 11

PRESERVATION TREATMENTS
WARNING: Many of the maintenance and repair techniques described in this text, particularly
those relating to cleaning and painting, are potentially dangerous and should be carried out only
by experienced and qualified workmen using protective equipment suitable to the task.

Lantern features such as gallery deck brackets, handrails, lantern frame structures,
decorative panels cast into parapet walls, as well as textured finished surfaces such as
raised-diamond-pattern non-skid surfaces, lantern glass, roof shape/material, etc., are
important in defining the historic character of the lighthouse. Character-defining features
should be retained during any treatment.

Protection and Stabilization (Mothballing)

Before mothballing, a thorough inspection and diagnosis should be performed, using the
inspection chart in the preceding section as a guide. Keep in mind that a lighthouse
lantern is designed to be an active part of the lighthouse. The light keeper gave the lantern
daily maintenance attention. When mothballing a lighthouse lantern, this regimen of care
and attention cannot be continued. As a substitute for daily attention and care, a
comprehensive mothballing plan may be prepared using the following guidelines.

Weatherization

Lantern roof: The lantern roof must be made

weather tight during the mothballing period.
Any metal roofing patches should be made with
like-kind materials soldered in place. In the
case of excessive deterioration, a new roof
which matches the original in material and
configuration should be considered as a
protective measure during the mothballed
period. (For more information refer to the
discussion on roofing later in this section.)
Lantern glass: Lantern glass and frames must be
weathertight. Damaged glass can be temporarily
repaired using sheet metal and caulking. Caulk
patches should be used only as a temporary fix
and not relied on during the mothballing
period. To minimize water infiltration,
damaged glass should be replaced as soon as
possible, using glass because of its superior
weathering qualities. (For more information on
lantern glass replacement refer to the repair
treatment later in this section.)

Part IV. G, Page 12

WPTC photo

When a lighthouse lantern is mothballed, it

is essential that the exterior envelope be
completely weathertight. To prevent
moisture penetration, be sure the following
infiltration points are weathertight or
functioning properly:

Figure 17. Roof vents such as these should be inspected

for leaks and maintained during the mothballing period.
This shroud-style vent allows air to pass while preventing
rain from entering.

Built-in guttering systems: All rain water

guttering systems (lantern roofs, or other tower
roof forms) should be cleaned and checked for
holes. All holes and non-functioning gutter
system components should be repaired. Holes
in sheet-metal, built-in gutters, should be
properly soldered to ensure the soundness of
the repair (see Figure 18). Caulking should be
used only for temporary repairs until a proper
soldered repair can be made. (For more
information refer to the lantern roof discussion
later in this section.)

LANTERN

WPTC photo

weathertight, moisture can enter the interior of

the lighthouse or lantern. (Refer to the
following repair treatment in this section for
more information concerning the
weatherproofing of gallery decks.)

Figure 18. View of built-in gutter on a caisson lighthouse;

arrow indicates fist-size hole. This condition must be
treated before mothballing.

Gallery decks: In most lighthouses gallery decks

are cast-iron, sheet-metal-covered wood, stone,
or concrete. These decks are generally laid
directly on top of the wall structure and act
literally as the roof for portions of the lighthouse
below. The decking should be sloped away
from the lighthouse to shed the water away
from the structure. If the decking material is not

Service room windows: For more information

on window treatment, refer to the Windows
section.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

WPTC photo

Protective coatings: As a protective measure

and for daymark purposes, lanterns were

WPTC photo

Figure 19. The repair made to this stone gallery deck has
begun to deteriorate; moisture penetration is occurring.
This condition should be addressed before mothballing.

Parapet hatch, service room door: Regardless

of the size of the lantern, it will have a hatch or
door of some form in the lantern itself or in the
service room that provides access to the exterior
of the lantern. This opening must be made
weathertight. To achieve this, the latch and
hinges must be lubricated and in working order.
The opening should be fitted with a gasket
material such as neoprene that is both readily
available and long lasting. The flashing that
protects the door opening must also be in
working order so that it diverts water away from
the door or hatch opening.

Figure 20. Close-up of a vented parapet hatch in a fourthorder lantern. The hatch should have a good seal and still
remain operable. The built-in vent should also be kept open
to maximize ventilation of the lantern and tower.

Part IV. G, Page 13

WPTC photo

historically painted. As part of a mothballing

treatment, the exterior coating should be
checked for loose and flaking paint. Any
deteriorating areas should be scraped and
repainted to match the existing color.
Ultimately, as part of a mothballing treatment,
the entire lantern should have all loose and
flaking paint removed and a new coating
applied (if the lantern was historically painted)
according to the manufacturers specifications.
This action will result in a coating system that
will require minimal service during the
mothballed period. (For more information refer
to the discussion on paint and coating systems
in the Iron section. For more information on
lantern coatings refer to the Anacapa Island
Lighthouse case study in Part V., Beyond Basic
Preservation.)

Figure 21. The diagonal tension rods in this empty lantern

were installed to brace the lantern against lateral loading
caused by high winds.

Figure 22. Close-up of sill vents in a first-order lantern.

The vents should be kept open during the mothballing
period to maximize lantern and tower ventilation.

WPTC photo

Because the lighthouse lantern plays a role

for protecting both the lighthouse and the
illuminant, the structure should be sound
during the mothballing period. Stabilization
treatments should be reversible and failsafe; effective methods include: installation
of intermediary bracing and shoring that
supports compromised members; sistering
of wood or steel members to compromised
members to help carry the load.
Treatments should not interfere with the
daily operation of the light. With this in
mind, it would be advantageous to repair
any structural deficiency before mothballing
the lighthouse. A structural engineer or
historical architect should be consulted for
a proper stabilization or repair treatment
plan.

WPTC photo

Stabilization

Ventilation
During any preservation treatment the vents
should remain operable to allow the
maximum amount of air flow through the
lantern. To prevent pest infiltration, the
exterior openings of the vents should be
screened with fine brass or stainless steel
screen. When vents are kept open, natural
convection caused by sunlight heating the

Part IV. G, Page 14

Figure 23. As part of the lantern mothballing treatment the

lantern glass sill vents should be kept open (except in
extremely damp climates) to allow for the free flow of air
through the lantern.

air within the lantern will create a chimney

effect as the warm air rises that will help
maintain an ambient temperature and
humidity within the lantern. The chimney
effect will also aid in the ventilation of the
LANTERN

entire lighthouse. (For more information on

lighthouse ventilation refer to the Windows
and Interiors ventilation sections.)

Fire Protection
Despite the fact that lanterns are
constructed of predominantly

noncombustible materials, fire is still a

threat to irreplaceable combustible
components of the lantern. For guidance
on these issues, refer to Fire Prevention
and Protection Objectives under Related
Activities in Part V.

Repair
WARNING: Many of the maintenance and repair techniques described in this text, particularly
those relating to cleaning and painting, are potentially dangerous and should be carried out only
by experienced and qualified workmen using protective equipment suitable to the task.

A thorough inspection and diagnoses should be performed using the earlier inspection
chart as a guide, and a preservation treatment plan developed. If the lighthouse is still an
active aid to navigation, the preservation plan should include repair treatments to ensure
the effective operation of the lighthouse and lantern in the future. The following are
general guidelines for repairing a lighthouse lantern.

Galvanic Corrosion
As mentioned previously, galvanic
corrosion is an electrochemical action that
results when two dissimilar metals react
together in the presence of an electrolyte,
such as water containing salts or hydrogen
ions. This type of corrosion is normally
only significant between groups separated
by lines shown in the Galvanic Series in
Water Table in the Special Conditions
Associated with Historic Lantern Systems
found earlier in this section. Galvanic
corrosion is the result of a spontaneous flow
of positive electric current from the more
noble metal to the more base metal. The
severity of the galvanic corrosion depends
on the difference between the two metals,
their relative surface areas, and time.
Methods of Galvanic Corrosion Prevention:
When repairing damage that has been caused
by galvanic corrosion, first clean all surfaces of
corrosion; second, identify the condition that
caused the corrosion to form; third, address the
problem with one of the prevention methods
below.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Ensure that the electrolyte, water, is not allowed

to penetrate joints between dissimilar metals.
The joints can be sealed using the existing
detailing (i.e., flashing, profiles of members)
combined with modern caulks and sealants.
Use non-reacting stainless steel or brass
fasteners when joining two dissimilar metals
that have a potential for galvanic reaction. Brass
screws are preferable to stainless steel. The
hardness of the stainless steel screws may
damage the receiving threads if not properly
aligned. If the threads have been damaged, they
will need to be tapped for a slightly larger
screw.
Always apply an anti-seize coating to fasteners
before inserting them. This will prevent
corrosion from forming in the hole which could
cause the fastener to break off.
Provide a barrier between the dissimilar metals.
This barrier can be simply a coating of a
corrosion-inhibiting paint that is rated as an
electric insulator. If the original detailing
provided for a gasket-type barrier, a chromateimpregnated wool, felt tape, or a commercially
available neoprene gasket material may used.
All welds should be made from a more noble
material than the remainder of the structure.

Part IV. G, Page 15

Rust-Jacking
Rust-jacking is a deterioration condition
associated with any iron or steel
component. The jacking is the result of
the chemical change that takes place when
iron corrodes or rusts. As the iron rusts, it
changes from iron to iron oxide; this
change is the result of the oxygen carried in
water combining with the iron. The
resulting iron oxide takes up more volume
than the iron. The force of this expansion is
strong enough to crack glass and force steel
components apart. Lantern glass in this
condition can cause severe damage. When
moisture enters the channel that retains the
glass, the iron frame may begin to rust. As
the iron rusts, it expands and in turn cracks
the glass. (For information concerning the
repair of damaged or deteriorated iron, refer
to the Iron section.)
Methods for Preventing Rust-Jacking
Prohibit the infiltration of water into gaps
between iron lantern frames and bronze
window sub-frames, as well as other seams in
iron or steel components.
Maintain coatings and detailing that divert and
shield water away from members that are prone
to rust-jacking.

damaged with a corrosion prohibiting primer

and top coat.
Minimize condensation buildup in the lantern
by providing adequate ventilation within the
lantern at all times.

Ventilation
Nearly all, if not all, lanterns have a
ventilation-ball-type vent and baffled
secondary vents in various locations in the
lantern and service room. These vents
provided the fresh air for the illuminant and
created a light draft that minimized
condensation buildup inside the lantern.
Air flow through the vents was also
controlled by a variety of sliding registers
and/or rotating dampers. To maintain an
ambient humidity level in the lantern, the
built-in ventilation system should be in
working order, with all possible vents open
to allow the maximum amount of air
exchange to occur in the lantern. The
exterior vent openings should be screened
with brass or stainless steel screen to
prevent bird and insect infiltration.
Opening the lantern vents will aid in the
overall ventilation of the lantern.

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

When iron or steel components are repaired, be

sure to coat any areas that have had their finish

Figure 24. The stainless steel through bolts used to join

this bronze sash bar to the vertical lantern post is isolated
from the bronze using a nylon washer as a barrier.

Part IV. G, Page 16

Figure 25. This is a view of a typical dissimilar metal

isolation solution; the steel ladder post (vertical member in
the center of the image) is isolated from the aluminum
lantern gallery deck with nylon washers. The bolt chosen
for this application is made from Type 316 stainless steel.

LANTERN

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Figure 26. Detail of handrail that is being deformed by

rust-jacking.

Lantern Glass
The lantern glass plays two important roles
in the lantern system. First, the glass must
be clean and clear to allow the greatest
amount of light transmission. Second, the
glass must be able to withstand high winds,
driving rain, and airborne material (i.e.,
sand and other debris). It is absolutely
essential that the glass meet these demands
at all times. Proper installation care and
replacement will ensure these demands are
met.
Lantern Glass Installation
Use only tempered or laminated glass for
replacement of clear panels. Do not use acrylic
or polycarbonate for replacement glass; these
materials are easily scratched by airborne sand
and will fog with time. The glass panes must be
sized for code-required wind loads and code
requirements for glazing next to or above
walking surfaces. In most cases only laminated
glass will be acceptable. (Lexan may be more
suitable for replacement of colored panels in
that they allow more light to pass through than
colored glass.)
When removing the astragals and clamps that
retain the glass, take care not to damage the
screws that hold the members in place. These
screws are typically made of brass which is
relatively soft.
The most effective way to remove the glass is to
cut any paint or sealant away from the glass
with a sharp knife. Next, using handled suction

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Figure 27. This lantern vent opening has been covered

with a fine stainless steel screen that prevents insect
infiltration while maximizing air movement through the
vent and into the lantern.

cups designed for handling glass, carefully

remove the glass from the frame.
Before the new glass is installed, the channel in
the frame must be completely clear of all old
putty or sealant and corrosion. Any hard spot
left in the channel could cause a point stress on
the glass, which in turn could cause the glass to
crack or break.
While the glass is out of the iron lantern frame,
the iron should be inspected for corrosion. All
corrosion that is present must be removed. Any
bare iron surfaces should be painted with a
corrosion-resistant coating system.
When cutting glass to fit, it is imperative that the
glass does not touch the frame in any location.
This will prevent the glass from breaking when
the lantern frame racks under windy conditions.
The glass must rest on either soft wood (pine or
cedar) spacers, commercially available Teflon
gasket material (that is approximately 3/16 inch
thick), or neoprene setting blocks. The rest of
the glass should be bedded in pressure-sensitive
neoprene or butyl-rubber-gasket material
designed for architectural glass installation.
Install the new glass using handled suction
cups.
Apply the neoprene or butyl-rubber gasket to
the outside of the glass and install the astragals
and clamps; only snug tighten the screws at first,
then tighten again a few days later to allow the
gasket to set.
This system should prevent water from entering
the window channel and in turn prevent future
damage to the glass from rust-jacking. As an

Part IV. G, Page 17

WPTC photo

SIDEBAR: Use of Lexan in

Lantern Glass Replacement

Figure 28.

In 1986 the wire-glass in the lantern of

the Sombrero Key Lighthouse was
replaced with Lexan (plastic) panels. A
1996 site visit found the Lexan panels
hazed by sunlight and salt air exposure.
This condition greatly reduces the
transmission of light and therefore
reduces the effective range of the aid to
navigation. The inability of the Lexan
panels to withstand the conditions of
the marine environment gives the
panels a short life expectancy when
compared to glass. With these inherent
limitations, Lexan or other plastic
panels should only be used as a
temporary repair and not be relied
upon as a long-term lantern glass
material.
Sombrero Key Lighthouse is located in
open water in the Gulf of Mexico. In
similar locations that experience
hurricane force winds, laminated glass
has proven successful for the lantern
glass replacement. Laminated glass is
made by sandwiching a piece of plastic
film between two sheets of tempered
glass. This technology produces a very
durable panel with long lasting clarity
that does not compromise the
effectiveness of the aid to navigation or
impact the historic character of the
lighthouse.

WPTC photo

Figure 28 (top left). Close-up view of severely

hazed Lexan replacement panel. Note the limited
visibility caused by only ten years of sunlight and
salt air exposure.
Figure 29 (bottom left). Looking out through
severely hazed Lexan panels, note the limited
amount of light transmission; this greatly hinders
the effectiveness of the aid to navigation. If the
panels are not replaced, the degradation may
continue and diminish the light transmission,
ultimately rendering the aid to navigation
ineffective.

Figure 29.

Part IV. G, Page 18

LANTERN

WPTC photo

made. Guttering systems must discharge

rainwater safely to parts of the site which
are designed and maintained to receive
concentrations of water flow.

added measure, a bead of clear silicone caulk

may be applied to the exterior side of the
window/frame joint to shed water away from
the joint.
When curved glass is to replaced, professional
assistance is recommended.

Lantern Roof
The lantern roof typically serves as the roof
for the entire lighthouse; therefore it is
essential that it and any guttering systems
be weathertight. Traditionally, the lantern
and lighthouse roof (as in the case of the
caisson lighthouse) were either terne-coated
metal or copper. The roofing was
commonly laid in a standing-seam or flatseam style. Any metal roofing patches
should be made with like-kind materials
soldered in place. If deterioration is
excessive, a new roof which matches the
original in material and configuration
should be considered.
All rainwater guttering systems (lantern
roofs or other tower roof forms) should be
cleaned and checked for holes. All holes
and non-functioning gutter system
components should be repaired. Holes in
sheet-metal built-in gutters must be repaired
with a properly soldered repair to ensure
the durability of the repair. Caulking
should be considered only for temporary
repairs until a proper soldered repair can be

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

WPTC photo

Figure 30. Close-up of a first-order lantern that retains its

lantern glass; note the clarity.

Figure 31. View of built-in gutter spout on a copper roof.

Gallery Decks
In most lighthouses gallery decks are castiron, sheet-metal-covered wood, stone, or
concrete. These decks are generally laid
directly on top of the wall structure and act
literally as the roof for some portions of the
lighthouse below. If the decking material
is not weathertight, moisture can enter the
interior of the lighthouse or lantern.
When repairing gallery decking, use only likekind materials.
The decking should be sloped away from the
lighthouse to shed the water away from the
structure.
Inspect all seams for water infiltration: in castiron decking there will be raised corrosion
along the length of the seam; with flat-seam
sheet metal there may be a leak present on the
interior of the lighthouse; in stone decking there
may be open gaps between the pointing and the
stones.
Flat-seam sheet-metal decking should be
repaired with soldered patches or with selective
removal and replacement with like-kind
material; all new seams should be double
locked and soldered.
Cast-iron decking should first have all corrosion
removed and the affected surfaces painted with

Part IV. G, Page 19

Removal and Application of

Protective Coatings

WPTC photo

WARNING: When performing any of the

following treatments it is essential that the
classical lens and clockworks (if extant) be
protected.

Figure 32. This sheet-copper-covered lantern gallery deck

has been repaired several times by soldering sheet copper
patches over the holes. This method of repair, if performed
properly, greatly increases the life span of the roof
covering.

a corrosion-inhibiting coating. The seams

should then be caulked with either butyl-rubber
or polysulfide caulking.
Some coating systems are very slick when
cured; therefore it is essential that non-skid
materials are used on gallery decks that do not
already have a non-skid surface texture.
Deteriorated portions of iron or steel can be
repaired using metal polymers that can be
molded and shaped to match existing textures
and contours.
Gaps in the joints between stone decking
should be raked out and repointed with a
mortar that matches the original in color and
strength. Damaged stones should be carefully
removed and replaced with like-kind stones.

As a protective measure and for daymark

purposes, lanterns were historically painted.
As part of a repair treatment, the exterior
coating should be checked for loose and
flaking paint. Any deteriorating areas
should be scraped and repainted to match
the existing color. Ultimately, as part of
any preservation treatment, the entire
lantern should have all loose and flaking
paint removed and a new coating applied
according to the manufacturers
specifications.
Several factors should be considered when
removing paint from lantern components.
The combination of ferrous (iron and steel)
and nonferrous (bronze, brass, copper)
metals present different challenges when
performing paint removal. As mentioned in
the Iron section, paint can be removed
from iron using low-pressure-aggregate blast
methods and chemical strippers. These
methods can be used on bronze and brass
as well; however the choice of blast media
and chemicals is different.
Because of the relative softness of bronze,
brass, and copper when compared to iron, a
less aggressive blast media is desirable.
Walnut shells and bicarbonate of soda are
acceptable blast media for bronze, brass,
and copper. Before use, the media should
be tested in an inconspicuous location at
various pressures to determine if the
treatment will damage the substrate.
Chemical strippers used on bronze, brass,
or copper should be designed for use on
these metals. Tests should be performed
with the chemical stripper before use on the

Part IV. G, Page 20

LANTERN

entire lantern. The stripper used should not

cause etching or corrosion of the bronze or
brass substrate.
Bronze, brass, and copper lantern
components historically may or may not
have been painted. These metals will form
a protective oxidized surface coating or
patina if not painted. This is the greenish
brown tint that is commonly seen on
outdoor bronze sculpture. Brass typically
found on the interior of the lantern,
however, is traditionally kept bright and
shined through regular cleaning and buffing
by the lighthouse keeper. To maintain a
bright shiny finish, the brass may be coated
with a finish such as clear lacquer that can
be applied to maintain this bright
appearance (see following sidebar on
maintenance of classical lenses). When
painting bronze or brass components on the
exterior of the lantern, all surfaces should
be wiped clean with a metal preparation
solvent to remove any chloride residue or
other contaminants. If chemical strippers
were used, any remaining stripper residue
must be neutralized prior to painting.

high corrosion resistance and can be left

unpainted to naturally oxidize or patina.
When iron or steel components are to be
replaced because of severe deterioration,
stainless steel should be considered as a
substitute. Given the complexity of the
issues and the potential application,
however, the selection of the proper grade
for use in a marine environment requires
careful evaluation by an engineer.

Installation of Modern Utilities and

Equipment
Many historic lighthouses have been
upgraded to either alternating current (AC)
or solar power during the conversion to
automatic operation. During this
conversion various pieces of equipment

For more information on paint application

methods refer to the discussion on paint
and coating systems in the Iron section.

Limited Replacement In Kind

When replacing deteriorated bolts or other

hardware, use matching materials of the
highest quality and resistance to the marine
environment. When replacing bronze bolts
or other elements use Silicon Bronze alloy
655 or Naval Bronze; both alloys have a

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

WPTC photo

When replacing all extensively missing or

deteriorating lantern components, such as a
ventilation ball or decorative gutter spout,
the replacement materials need to match
the old materials both physically and
visually, i.e., the metals should not have a
galvanic response.

Figure 33. To minimize damage to historic wood

beadboard panelling, these new panels should have been
installed on a sheet of plywood attached to the historic
wood beadboard panelling in four locations. These
batteries stored on the floor should be in containment boxes
in case the batteries leak.

Part IV. G, Page 21

such as electrical panel boxes, conduit,

battery racks, and batteries have been
installed. As this equipment ages or
becomes obsolete, new fixtures may need
to be installed. When installing new
utilities and equipment the following factors
should be considered:
Use existing openings to run conduit through.
Avoid boring or cutting holes in interior floors
and exterior gallery decks and walls.
Install electrical panel boxes on plywood panels
that are mounted to the historic walls. This will
minimize the impact on interior masonry, iron,
or wood walls. Do not mount panels on built-in
cabinets.
Attach conduit with clamp or strap-type
fasteners that do not impact the historic fabric
by use of screws or nails.
WPTC photo

Store batteries in spill-proof boxes that will

contain the liquid battery contents in case of an
accident.
Avoid mounting heavy solar panels and
auxiliary lights on the outside of historic gallery
deck rails; this will create eccentric loading that
will ultimately damage the railing.

Figure 35. This is an acceptable auxiliary light installation.

The light is mounted on an aluminum pedestal that has been
bolted to the replacement aluminum deck.

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

When a classical lens has been converted to AC

or solar power, retain the extant accessories
such as lens jacks, clockwork cranks, wrenches
designed for use with the lens, etc., that were
used for the care and maintenance of the lens.

Figure 36. This c. 1926 lens was designed to be AC

powered; the original lens jacks are still in place. The three
jacks (the third is obscured by the brass bearing cover) were
used to lift the lens assembly so that bearings could be
serviced.

Figure 34. When this first-order classical lens was

converted to AC power, the original drive gear (pictured
here) was the crank used to wind the clockworks.

Part IV. G, Page 22

LANTERN

SIDEBAR: Maintenance of Classical Lenses

As noted in Part III., historic lighthouse lenses are considered character-defining features of a
lighthouse. Briefly, a classical Fresnel lens (also called the beacon or optic) is a large
composite illumination device which can include hundreds of separate pieces of glass all
organized to capture radiant light and create a directed beam. Glass segments are either
secured to each other or to the brass superstructure. Segments are secured to each other by
means of a beveled cut (along the edge) of a prism and a little litharge (white lead) glazing
putty to hold them in place. Prisms are also secured directly into the brass framework with
glazing putty and wood shims placed in between the glass and brass to position the prism. In
addition, some lenses also have a series of brass or bronze retaining bars to help secure the
sections.
The glass used in Fresnel lenses was manufactured in France and is quite hard and scratch
resistant. It is also quite brittle, which lends itself to chipping and fracture. By comparison,
more modern flint (which contains lead) glass is softer, quite clear, and comparatively easy to
scratch. Litharge glazing putty was the standard glazing material of its time. It is composed
of linseed oil, whiting (calcium carbonate), and either a lead oxide (yellow to reddish) or a
lead carbonate (white) filler and dryer. The use of litharge is the source of many of our
current preservation problems.
During the historic period of operation, maintenance practices were prevention oriented.
Every effort was made to prevent inadvertent damage or scratches to the glass, corrosion of
the brass, or loss of a prism through disintegration of the glazing putty. In addition, the
turning mechanism, clockwork, and lantern room were kept meticulously clean. Condition
assessments of numerous classical lenses reveal that most damage and deterioration
encountered today occurred recently.
Recommendations for Maintenance
Historically Fresnel lenses were 1) dusted daily, 2) cleaned with spirits of wine or vinegar,
and 3) polished with rouge once a year.
The goal of preventive care is to substantially reduce loss of original historic material to
deterioration and inappropriate maintenance procedures. Preventive care aptly describes
those activities which minimally trained personnel can utilize to keep a lens in a stable state.
The introduction of new materials, preservatives, and/or coatings, as well as the removal of
established corrosion layers, all constitute a degree of intervention which, in the absence of
appropriate training and experience, are beyond the scope of preventive care.
Inspection
Examine and document the condition of the classical lens before preventive care procedures

are carried out. (If deteriorated glazing has resulted in prisms not being firmly seated, then the
optic cannot be safely cleaned.)

Handling
Pad the work area with sheets of expanded polyethylene foam.

Remove jewelry such as rings, bracelets, and long necklaces, and belts that might scratch or
chip the objects. Preferably, wear an apron to ensure the prisms will not be scratched.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. G, Page 23

 Moisture, oils, and acids left from fingerprints will disrupt and eventually etch these delicate
surfaces. Use snug fitting latex gloves when handling these objects. (Handle classical lenses
as little as possible.)
Do not apply pressure to annular rings which are not supported in the brass, or bronze
superstructure. Be especially careful not to apply pressure from the interior of the lens. This
is a major cause of damage because unsupported annular rings and bullseye lenses can easily
fall out.

Cleaning the brass

Historically, a form of calcium carbonate called whiting was used as a mild cleaning agent on
the brass, and jeweller's rouge was used as a polishing compound. These materials
maintained a clean and polished appearance on the copper; however, the practice needed to
be repeated regularly to keep corrosion in check. Preventive care should shy away from a
regime of repolishing because the brass is continually being sacrificed and lost to achieve a
shiny appearance. If a polished appearance is desired, a more conservative approach would
have the polished lens coated to isolate the copper alloy from the environmental agents
which cause corrosion. Clear coatings are often used today, but their use can bring about a
new set of associated problems. Their success is dependent upon surface preparation, the
means of application, and the degree of exposure to ultraviolet light. A poorly applied
protective coating may cause differential corrosion, and a mottled appearance will develop.
If surface preparation has not been adequate, the coating is likely to peel, and the useful
lifetime of clear coatings exposed to elevated levels of ultraviolet (especially when within a
tower) is controversial. These problems are difficult to deal with because they require the
complete removal of the coating in order to effect a remedy. What emerges here is the
realization that although all classical lenses were historically treated in about the same way,
todays decision to polish brass should be based on what technical expertise is available and
at least some consideration of the following factors: 1) What kind and how much corrosion
is present upon the brass? 2) Will the lens be in an urban environment? 3) Will the lens
remain in the tower, or has it been relocated? 4) Is staffing sufficient to carry out scheduled
maintenance?
Brass which has a well-established reddish brown cuprite corrosion layer is not considered to
be actively corroding. The decision to polish brass in this condition is an aesthetic one.
Once polished, the metal then needs to either be repolished periodically or it needs to be
coated to preserve a polished appearance.

Cleaning the glass

The historic record indicates that the prisms were routinely washed with mild soap or
spirits of wine. Periodically, the prisms were also rubbed down with whiting, or a
combination of whiting followed by rouge to polish the glass. Keepers were instructed to
first brush the glass with a feather brush to remove surface dust. Before removing airborne
particulates which have settled in, try to determine if in fact the deposit contains abrasive
particulate. If the dust is particularly abrasive, or if a large quantity of deposits is to be
removed, then a vacuum aided by a soft mop-type artist's brush will be effective. Be sure
that sufficient hose is available to avoid the vacuum endangering the lens, and that the hose
attachments are nonmetallic to avoid scratching. If the deposits are light and nonabrasive,
then it is suggested that the glass be wiped down with lint free cotton toweling moistened
with distilled water. Small amounts of denatured alcohol can safely be added to form an
alcohol and water solution, especially if the deposits are a combination of dust and oils. It is
usually recommended that alcohol be added until the solution is an effective cleaning
solution. The exact proportions will vary for each site because of such environmental factors

Part IV. G, Page 24

LANTERN

as proximity to industrial sites, freeways, or visitor contact. Be alert to the presence of a clouded
glass surface. If noted, a conservator should be contacted. A clouded surface indicates that the
glass is deteriorating.

Care for deteriorated putty

NMI photo

NMI photo

If human error in cleaning, handling, and/or moving is overall the most serious threat to classical
lenses, then deteriorated glazing putty is the second most serious threat. The consolidation of

Figures 37 and 38. Joe Cocking (above) and Nick Johnston (below) restore a classical lens at the
U.S. Coast Guard Exhibit Center.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. G, Page 25

porous putty conforms to The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation by preserving as
much original historic material as possible; the National Park Service, Division of
Conservation, is currently evaluating a variety of synthetic resins to establish which is best
suited as a consolidant for the preservation of historic glazing putty. Our approach had been
to try and reconstitute the original putty. In addition, substantial cost savings are realized by
consolidating the original putty both because it is a less expensive treatment option than
reglazing, and because replacing a hazardous material requires proper abatement, control, and
disposal procedures. Unfortunately, consolidation is only feasible if the original putty is
porous and adsorbent enough to accept the introduction of a solvented resin. Preventive care as
it applies to litharge glazing putty begins with establishing a monitoring program to determine
if the putty has deteriorated. This is accomplished by the use of lead indicator test patches or
strips. Indicators do not establish levels of lead containing compounds, only their presence.
The relative rate of deterioration is established by a combination of condition assessment and
monitoring. To monitor, wet clean the area and monitor periodically for additional lead
particulate deposition. Working in the presence of lead oxide or lead carbonate particles
requires that the worker wear appropriate protective clothing and a respirator rated for the
removal of lead bearing particulate. Additional state or local regulations may also apply. If a
lens is in your custodial care by means of a loan agreement, then only the owner is authorized
to make decisions about the care and treatment of a lens. Because of the inherent health
hazards, it is strongly advised here that only trained personnel attempt to address litharge
glazing putty preservation issues. At present, and until a more satisfactory solution is found,
both the National Park Service and the U.S. Coast Guard often stabilize loose lenses or prisms
by the localized addition of a vinyl glazing compound.

A classical Fresnel lens with significant deterioration requires stabilization and perhaps
restorative treatment and may require a professional conservator.
For more information on the maintenance of classical lenses, refer to the forthcoming NPS
TECH NOTE: Preventive Care for Classical Lighthouse Lenses.

Part IV. G, Page 26

LANTERN

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

Figure 1. Cape Henry Lighthouse interior at Fort Story,

Virginia.

WPTC photo

unique, these interior characteristics are

considered character-defining and should be
preserved. Regardless of the level of
detailing and ornament found in a
lighthouse, the building techniques
employed were typically unique to
lighthouse construction.

Historic lighthouse tower interiors are

typically simple and utilitarian. Unless
used as a residence, most lighthouse
towers had little more than a wood, iron,
or masonry stairway leading to the lantern
and compartments on the ground level for
the bulk storage of oil for the light. In
lighthouse towers that also served as the
keepers residence, the interiors were
typically finished with beadboard paneling
or plaster, and trim features were typically
those that were popular at the time of
lighthouse's construction. In more
prominent locations, interior finish
detailing may be a little more grandiose,
reflecting the skills of the craftsmen who
constructed lighthouses. Because they are

WPTC photo

NMI photo

INTERIORS

Figure 2. Utilitarian light tower interior at Cove Point

Light Station, Maryland.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Figure 3. Highly decorated interior of the Cape Henry

Light Station (second tower), Fort Story Virginia

Part IV. H, Page 1

Deterioration of Historic
Lighthouse Interiors during the
Mothballing Period
Damage caused by the ever-present harsh
marine environment is readily apparent
when discussing the deterioration of
exterior lighthouse features. The forces that
act on the exterior of the lighthouse may

also have a detrimental effect on interior

lighthouse features as well. Many factors
contribute to this deterioration. During the
time a lighthouse is mothballed, the
likelihood of such deterioration is
increased. If these damaging conditions are
not addressed, the lighthouse may
deteriorate from the inside out.

Why do historic lighthouse interiors

deteriorate?

WPTC photo

Moisture infiltration: water entering the

lighthouse through holes in the roof, gallery
deck(s), lantern glass, exterior sheathing, and
gaps around doors or windows.
Condensation buildup: condensation
forming within the tower caused by exterior
temperatures and ambient humidity. Masonry
lighthouses are especially susceptible to this
condition.
Neglect: lack of maintenance, i.e., cleaning,
painting, or repair of interior features before or
during the mothballing period.
Inappropriate treatments: removal of
original fabric or the obscuring of historically
significant interior elements.

WPTC photo

Figure 4 (left). Extensive interior finish deterioration in a

lighthouse that had holes in the roof which were not
repaired.

Part IV. H, Page 2

Figure 5 (above). Excessive condensation buildup in this

lighthouse caused the interior plaster finish and some
mortar joints to fail.

INTERIORS

PRESERVATION TREATMENTS: Minimizing Condensation

Buildup
The preservation of historic lighthouse interiors is a multistep process. The first step in any
lighthouse preservation project is to weatherize the exterior. This step will eliminate the
threat of damaging moisture infiltration. The second step is to mitigate any condensation
that may build up in the interior of the lighthouse. The third step is to monitor the interior
environmental conditions to identify any problems that may arise before they cause more
damage. The fourth step is to do no further damage to the interior during equipment
installation or removal or during any rehabilitation efforts. This section will focus on
minimizing condensation buildup in lighthouse interiors during the mothballing period.
(Repair and mothballing treatments to Masonry, Iron, and Wood components can be found
in their respective sections elsewhere in this handbook.)
As humidity levels increase in a lighthouse,
the plaster, wood, iron components, and
masonry are affected. Increased moisture
content in the porous materialswood,
plaster, and mortar jointscauses
significant damage. Increased moisture
level in the wood makes way for the growth
of fungi and attracts wood-eating insects
such as termites. Increased moisture levels
in plaster will cause mildew which holds
more moisture in the plaster and in time
will cause the plaster to delaminate and
break away from the lath substrate.
Increased moisture content in the mortar
joints will cause the leaching of the lime
from the mortar, which results in the failure
of the joint. Increased moisture will cause
any exposed iron to corrode or rust. These
conditions are easily avoided if the
lighthouse is adequately ventilated.
Once the exterior has been made
weathertight, adequate air exchange is
essential throughout the lighthouse. The
needs of each historic lighthouse must be
individually evaluated because there are so
many variables that affect the performance
of each interior space once the lighthouse
has been made weathertight. A mechanical
engineer or a specialist in interior climates
should be consulted, particularly for
lighthouses with significant interiors.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

When looking at the type and amount of

interior ventilation needed for a closed-up
lighthouse, there are four critical climate
zones: cold and damp (Pacific northwest
and northeastern states); temperate and
humid (mid-Atlantic states, coastal areas);
hot and humid (southern states), and the
extremely cold (freezing) and seasonably
damp (Great Lakes). Each climate zone has
special ventilation considerations.
The absolute minimum air exchange for
most mothballed lighthouses consists of one
to four air exchanges every hour; one or
two air exchanges per hour in winter and
often twice that amount in summer. Even
this minimal exchange may permit mold
and mildew in damp climates. Monitoring
the lighthouse for approximately six months
during the initial ventilation period will
provide useful information on the
effectiveness of the ventilation solution.
There is no exact science for how much
ventilation should be provided for each
lighthouse. There are, however, some
general rules of thumb:
During months of high humidity, it is important
to keep the air within the tower moving at all
times.
The most difficult lighthouses to adequately
ventilate without resorting to extensive

Part IV. H, Page 3

louvering and/or mechanical exhaust fan

systems are masonry lighthouses in humid
climates. For this lighthouse type nearly every
window will need to be fitted with a louver that
occupies at least 50 percent of the window
opening.
Take advantage of prevailing winds during the
installation of louvers. This will provide the
maximum amount of natural passive (nonmechanical) ventilation.
The natural chimney effect in most lighthouses
is best utilized by installation of vents at the top
and bottom of the lighthouse only. Consider
vandalism when locating the lower vent.
Be sure the built-in lantern vents are open and
screened. This will also capitalize on the
chimney effect that will naturally draw the air
up and out of the lighthouse as the hot air in the
tower rises.
In lighthouses with AC power, fans controlled
by thermostats and timers provide effective
ventilation that can be tuned to operate in
reaction to day-to-day climatic change. One fan
in a small- to medium-sized lighthouse can
reduce the amount of louvering substantially.
If electric fans are used, study the environmental
conditions of the lighthouse to determine
whether the fans should be controlled by
thermostats or automatic timers. Humidistats,
designed for enclosed climate-control systems,
generally are difficult to adapt for open
mothballing conditions. How the system will
draw in or exhaust air is also important. It may
be best to bring dry air in from the lantern or
upper levels and force it out through lower
tower windows. Additionally, less humid dry air
is preferred to damper night air; this can be
controlled with a timer switch mounted to the
fan.

openings. This louver type is also effective in

preventing rain from being blown into the
lighthouse during storm conditions.
In some extreme circumstances, heat will be
needed during the winter, even at a minimal
45 Fahrenheit (7 Celsius), and using forcedfan ventilation in summer and will require
retaining electrical service. For masonry
lighthouses the interior temperature should be
kept above the spring dew point to avoid
damaging condensation. In most lighthouses
the need for summer ventilation outweighs the
winter requirements.
Lighthouses using prime power (fuel-powered
generator) with hot-air exhaust (not combustion
emissions) into the lighthouse interior may not
require a vent near the base. The rising heat
will cause a natural upward draft to occur. To
take advantage of this natural draft, vents should
be located near the top and bottom of the
tower. The vents near the bottom will allow
fresh ambient temperature air into the tower.
Vents located near the top of the tower will
allow the hot air to escape. This configuration
will help keep the interior of the tower dry and
minimize the heat buildup that could damage
interior finishes.

(For more information on window louver

types and installation techniques refer to
the Windows section.)
Use the gentlest means possible; all
treatments should be reversible. Preserving
the lighthouse interiors during the
mothballing period will minimized the cost of
repairs over the life of the lighthouse.

Small preformed louvers set into a plywood,

polycarbonate, or lexan panel generally cannot
provide enough ventilation in most moist
climates to offset condensation, but this
approach is certainly better than no louvers at
all. Louvers should be located to give cross
ventilation; interior doors should be fixed ajar at
least 4 inches (10 cm) to allow air to circulate;
and hatches between floors should be left open.
The type of ventilation should not undermine
the security of the lighthouse. The most secure
installations use custom-made vents and heavy
millwork louvers set into existing window

Part IV. H, Page 4

INTERIORS

Historic Lighthouse
Preservation:

GROUNDS

Figure 1. Historic aerial view

of Anclote Key Light Station,
Florida.

and plantings, compromise the cultural

landscape of the light station.
Archeological sites in the vicinity of
previously existing buildings or possible
prehistoric sites also contribute to the
cultural landscape. These features and their
relationship to one another are characterdefining and therefore should be preserved.
The following are general guidelines for
historic light station site preservation based
on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties

Figure 2. View of the two light towers at Cape Henry,

Virginia. The relationship of the two generations of
lighthouses is part of the cultural landscape at the Cape
Henry Light Station.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

The landscape and ancillary buildings

immediately surrounding a lighthouse are
as important to defining the overall
character of the light station as the
lighthouse itself. The ancillary structures
that comprise a light stationkeepers'
quarters, fog signal building, oil house,
cisterns, privy, storage buildings, barn,
boat sheds, etc., and the manipulated
landscapeberms, sidewalks and pathways,

Figure 3. Outbuildings, fences, and walkways are all part

of the cultural landscape of a historic light station.

Part IV. I, Page 1

WPTC photo

Figure 4. Some light station sites are part of a larger cultural landscape such as this early 20thcentury lighthouse on a salient of Fort Wadsworth, a Civil-War-era stone fort in New York Harbor.

Figure 5. A simple sketch site plan records the relationship of a light station's buildings and features. This type of
recordation should be dated and filed with the lighthouse maintenance records. (WPTC drawing by H. Thomas McGrath)

Part IV. I, Page 2

GROUNDS

with Guidelines for the Treatment of

Cultural Landscapes (1996).

the historic relationship between the lighthouse,

the buildings, and the landscape.

Identify all character-defining features of the

light stations site, including all associated
ancillary structures; manipulated landscape for
the purpose of facilitating the operation of the
light station; and any plantings such as fruit
trees, shade trees, gardens, and archeological
sites. If potential archeological sites are not
readily identifiable, contact a professional
archeological firm to perform an archeological
site survey. Once all features are identified,
they should be documented photographically
and located on a site plan that is kept with the
light station maintenance file.
Evaluate the existing condition of materials and
features to determine whether more than
protection and maintenance are required, that
is, if repairs to light station building and site
features will be necessary.

WPTC photo

General Site Recommendations

Figure 6. The relationship of the keeper's quarters to its

support buildings, in this case a privy and a storage
building, are essential to understanding how the light
keeper lived and worked.

Repair features of the buildings and site by

reinforcing historic materials using recognized
preservation methods. The new work should be
unobtrusively dated to guide future research and
treatment.
Do not remove historic materials that could be
repaired, use improper repair techniques, or fail
to document new work.

WPTC photo

Provide continued protection of historic light

station building materials and plant features
through appropriate cleaning, rust removal,
limited paint removal, reapplication of
protective coating systems, and pruning and
vegetation management.

Figure 7. The relationship of this oil house (right) and

generator building (left) show the variety of structures
associated with a manned light station.

When performing any work on the lighthouse or

site, retain the historic relationship between
historic buildings and the landscape.

To avoid diminishing the stations character, do

not alter site features which are important in
defining the overall historic character of the
property.

WPTC photo

When necessary, stabilize deteriorated or

damaged historic site features as a preliminary
measure before undertaking appropriate
preservation work.

Figure 8. These circa WWII observation towers are part of

the evolution of the light station site.

Do not remove or relocate historic light station

buildings or landscape features, thus destroying

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. I, Page 3

WPTC photo

Figure 9. View of a
highly intact historic light
station in California. All
principal structures that
made up the light station
are intact including the
large concrete rain water
catchment (in the
foreground) and the
below-grade wood cisterns
(just the lids are visible in
the center of the photo)
used to store the rainwater
to produce steam for the
fog signal. The
preservation of a site at
this level of integrity is
essential to understanding
the relationship of the light
station buildings and their
contribution to the
stations overall operation.

Archeological Recommendations

Do not introduce heavy machinery into areas

where it may disturb or damage important
archeological resources.

Minimize disturbance of terrain around

buildings or elsewhere on the site, thus
reducing the possibility of destroying or
damaging important landscape features or
archeological resources.
Survey and document areas where the terrain
will be altered to determine the potential impact
to important landscape features or archeological
resources.
Protect important archeological resources by
preserving them in place.

Part IV. I, Page 4

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

When preservation in place is not feasible, plan

and carry out any necessary investigations using
professional archeologists and modern
archeological methods.

Figures 10 (left) and 11 (above). Views of potential

archeological sites.

GROUNDS

 Do not permit unqualified personnel to perform

data recovery on archeological resources. This
will prevent the loss of important archeological
material through improper methodology. (See
Archeological Documentation under Part VI.,
Resources for additional information.)
Do not leave known archeological material
unprotected so that it is damaged during
preservation work.

Landscape Features
Preserve important landscape features; this
includes ongoing maintenance of historic plant
material.
Protect and maintain the light station buildings
and sites by providing proper drainage to assure
that water does not erode foundation walls,
drain toward the buildings, or damage or erode
the landscape.
Do not introduce heavy machinery into areas
where it may disturb or damage important
landscape features.
Do not allow important landscape features to be
lost or damaged through lack of maintenance.

Protect light station buildings, landscape

features, and archeological sites against arson
and vandalism before preservation work begins,
i.e., erect protective fencing and install alarm
systems that are keyed into local protection
agencies. If possible, contact the local
community to see if the light station site can
become part of a police patrol or neighborhood
watch program.

Limited Replacement In Kind

Replace in kind extensively deteriorated or
missing parts of the light station buildings or site
where there are surviving prototypes such as
partial building remains, part of a fence,
portions of a walkway, or parts of other site
features. New work should match the old in
materials, design, color, and texture, and be
unobtrusively dated to guide future research and
treatment.
Do not replace an entire feature of the building
or site when limited replacement of deteriorated
and missing parts is appropriate.
Do not use replacement material that does not
match the building site feature, or fail to
properly document the new work.

WPTC photo

Do not advertise location of archeological sites,

unless protection mechanisms are in place.

Security

Figure 12. Historic plantings, such as this ice plant (the ground cover at the bottom of the image)
planted as a fire break around the light station structures, are part of the light stations cultural
landscape and should be preserved.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part IV. I, Page 5

USCG photo

Beyond Basic Preservation:

REHABILITATION

Figure 1. Rehabilitation of
Anacapa Island Lighthouse.

Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a
property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or
features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.
Rehabilitation as a Treatment: When repair and replacement of deteriorated features are
necessary; when alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or
continued use; and when its depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate,
rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment. Before undertaking work, a
documentation plan for rehabilitation should be developed.

Standards for Rehabilitation

Use the property as it was used historically or find a new use that requires minimal change to distinctive
features.
Preserve the historic character and character-defining features (continuum of propertys history).
Do not make changes that falsify the historical development.
Repair deteriorated features. Replace a severely deteriorated feature with a matching feature (substitute
materials may be used).
New additions and alterations should not destroy historic materials or character. New work should be
differentiated from the old, yet compatible with it.

This is a summary of the central ideals of the rehabilitation treatment standards excerpted from
the CRM article, Historic Preservation Treatment: Toward a Common Language by Kay Weeks
(Vol 19, No. 1, 1996, pp. 32-33).

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. A, Page 1

CASE STUDY: Design for Missing Historic Windows

by Michael Seibert, WPTC
A variety of factors should be considered when designing new windows for a historic
lighthouse where no original windows remain. New windows should be designed or
constructed only if the original historic windows are completely missing. The new
window design should be a restoration based on historical, pictorial, and physical
documentation, or a new design that is compatible with the historic character of the
lighthouse. If adequate documentation exists, windows that were blocked in or
boarded up after the historic period should be restored.
When developing a new design, there are many resources available to guide the
design of missing features. Archival sources include historic lighthouse plans and
photos. These are primary sources for historically accurate information. If these
resources are unavailable, there may be clues on the existing window frames, such
as hinge and lock mortises in casement type windows or remnants of parting beads
or stops that would indicate sash thickness or size of double-hung windows. When
designing a new window, avoid creating a false historical appearance based on
insufficient historical, pictorial, and physical documentation.
When replicating missing historic lighthouse windows, it is essential to accurately
reproduce the following character-defining elements of a window:
Type of window: double hung, casement, or fixed sash

Figure 2.

Part V. A, Page 2

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

Size and number of lights or panes of glass

Figure 3.

REHABILITATION

 Muntin (the vertical and horizontal members that divide the panes of glass) profile and size
Size and shape of the sill, head, and jambs

Figures 2 through 5 illustrate successful replacement window designs. These

solutions can be easily adapted to most historic lighthouse window designs. During
the rehabilitation of the lighthouse shown in Figures 2 and 3, the metal multiple-light
windows were reproduced based on the remnants of the original windows and on
historic lighthouse construction documents from a lighthouse built in the same region
during the same time period. During the restoration of the window opening, the
granite window frame was also replicated from remnants found in another window
opening. Even the tooling pattern on the stone surface was reproduced. A singleleaf, vertical-plank shutter can be seen on the lighthouse in Figure 3. This detail was
also based on existing evidence. Not only is this detail historically accurate, but it
has protected the lighthouse during hurricane-force winds.

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

The wooden, double-hung, six-over-six window were reproduced from historic

photographs. Subtle details such as molding profiles and hardware that could not be
determined from historic photographs were based on lighthouses constructed by the
same builder during the same time period. Figure 4 shows a close-up of the exterior
side of the window; note the simple detailing and lack of profiled trim. These
characteristics are typical of lighthouses constructed before the Civil War. Figure 5
shows the lighthouse after the installation of the replacement windows.

Figure 4.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Figure 5.

Part V. A, Page 3

CASE STUDY: Design for Missing Historic Doors

by Michael Seibert, WPTC
When designing new doors for a historic lighthouse where the original door is missing,
a variety of factors should be considered. A new door should be designed or
constructed only if the original historic door is completely missing. The new-door
restoration should be based on historical, pictorial, and physical documentation, or be
a new design that is compatible with the historic character of the lighthouse.

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

When developing a new design, there are many resources available to guide the design
of missing features. Archival sources include historic lighthouse plans and archival
photos. These are primary sources for historically accurate information. If these
resources are unavailable, there may be clues on the existing door frame such as hingeand-lock mortises that indicate the direction of door swing and hardware sizes and
locations. When designing a new door, avoid creating a false historical appearance
because the replacement door is based on insufficient historical, pictorial, and physical
documentation.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figures 6 through 9 are examples of successful replacement door designs. The

solutions displayed here can be easily adapted to most historic lighthouse door
designs. The wood replacement door design in Figure 6 was based on wood-frame
and panel-construction-style doors commonly used when this lighthouse was
constructed in 1928. The only difference made to the c. 1928 design was the
upgrade of the hardware to stainless steel components. This door design was based
on information from historic photographs from the U.S. Coast Guard archives and

Part V. A, Page 4

REHABILITATION

Vertical wood plank door: The design for

the door in Figure 7 was based on the
information in the historic photographs.
The materials used during the
construction of this door were chosen for
their durability. The wood chosen was
fir, which was primed before assembly to
ensure all surfaces would be coated to
deter rot caused by damp wood. The
planks were joined to the z batten with
stainless steel screws to decrease
maintenance and eliminate the possibility
of rusting fasteners. The hinges are
salvaged bronze strap hinges that will
also require minimal maintenance. The
copper hood or awning above the door is
another traditional protective measure for
historic lighthouse doors.

WPTC photo

evidence found during the rehabilitation

of the lighthouse. Historic photographs
showed a vertical plank door on the
exterior.

Figure 8.

Wood frame and panel door: Partial

remains of a wood frame and raised
panel was found inside the structure
during rehabilitation. This evidence was
used in conjunction with historic
construction drawings to develop this
design. The door shown in Figure 8 was
made by a local mill from Douglas fir.
The hardware is all stainless steel to
minimize maintenance and to extend the
serviceable life of the door. As an added
weather protection measure, a traditional
drip edge has been installed along the
bottom of the door to shed water away
from the door opening.

WPTC photo

The door in Figure 9 is designed to

minimize the problems at a lighthouse
that does not see regular visitation
because of its remote location. Four
factors took precedence over historical
correctness: weathertightness, ventilation,
security, and maintenance. The door had
Figure 9.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. A, Page 5

to be weathertight to withstand the seasonal driving rain storms. At the same time the
door had to provide adequate ventilation to minimize condensation buildup during
hot and cold temperature changes. The door had to be secure because the remote
location did not allow for regular security patrols; vandals or trespassers had to be
effectively deterred. The rest of the structure required minimal annual maintenance;
therefore the door should not require any more than annual routine maintenance.
The solution to the problems associated with the mothballing of this lighthouse was to
use high-quality materials and sound design. The doors are made of Type 304
stainless steel. The louvers are baffled to allow for more than adequate air exchange,
which will minimize interior condensation buildup, while at the same time preventing
water infiltration. The louvers are also screened to prevent animal infiltration. The
locks and hinges are also stainless steel to prevent corrosion and ensure long-term use.
The installation of this type of door should not permanently affect the historic door
frame.

CASE STUDY: St. Simons Island Lighthouse Lantern Glass

Replacement
by Paul Neidinger, WPTC
The USCG Civil Engineering Unit (CEU) Miami maintains a classical third-order
Fresnel lens as an active aid to navigation at St. Simons Island Light Station, Georgia.
This lighthouse and associated keepers quarters serve as the museum space and
offices for the Coastal Georgia Historical Society and Museum of Coastal History.
The third-order Fresnel lens remains in excellent condition because of the attention it
receives by dedicated USCG Aid to Navigation Team (ANT) and CEU Miami
personnel, as well as USCG auxiliarists. The NPS Williamsport Preservation Training
Center was contracted through the CEU Miami to rehabilitate the lantern glass. This
project had a limited budget and a tight schedule for completion.

Scope of Work
The scope of the project required the replacement of the 10 damaged wire-glass
panels with laminated glass and contemporary glazing materials. The treatment had
to incorporate and maintain the historic lantern elements as well as the character and
appearance of the historic glazing system. Design development was aided by
consultation with onsite USCG personnel and auxiliarists who perform routine
maintenance on the lighthouse, along with examination of existing conditions. The
project goal was not only to replace the lantern glass but to develop an incremental
program of historic lantern preservation where the lantern glass and lantern frame
members would be repaired without the need for a complete lantern restoration.
Ultimately, this implementation strategy could be replicated by USCG ANT Teams on
other lanterns, thus helping to preserve lighthouse lanterns without a complete costly
restoration.

Part V. A, Page 6

REHABILITATION

WPTC photo

The scope of work was limited

to the lantern glass panel
system, which included the
restoration of the bronze
mullions, astragals, and screws,
as well as preservation of the
cast-iron posts. Elements
contributing to the deterioration
of the lantern glass included
inoperative bronze sill vents and
a potentially blocked ventilator
ball; both of this conditions
elevated moisture levels in the
Figure 10. Oblique of the interior of the lantern room with exterior
bronze astragals stored in the foreground before cleaning and
lantern, which in turn caused
removal of the extent wire-glass panels.
premature corrosion of any
exposed metal surfaces. (These deficiencies should be addressed as a separate
preservation treatment.)

Figure 11. The extent of the damage to the cast-iron

column through exfoliation can be seen in profile
after the removal of loose rust and the lower bronze
mullion.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

The rehabilitation of the cast-iron posts was limited to treatment of the exposed
surfaces with rust inhibiting coatings. Any further treatment would have required the
removal of the bronze sill and cast-iron deck. The perimeters of the treatment were

Figure 12. Detail of the bronze sill when the lower

mullion is removed; the fastener is re-tapped and the
cast-iron column is treated with a rust converter. Note
that the bronze astragals have been cleaned and are
ready to accept the glazing system.

Part V. A, Page 7

carefully decided before the start of the work; any other approach could have easily
led to a total restoration rather than an incremental weatherization of the lantern by
replacing and upgrading the lantern glass panel system.

Logistical Challenges
The scope of the preservation work was limited to that which could be done under
typical conditions experienced by ANT Teams. The treatments were carried out using
simple handtools, eliminating the cost of specialty items. The focal plane of the St.
Simons Island Lighthouse is 102 feet above sea level. Regulations defined by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for fall protection were
adhered to throughout the project. Each worker wore a standard body harness that
was tied off to a secured location inside the lighthouse. This system provided
protection for the worker while maximizing his mobility around the lantern and
gallery deck. When removing coatings that contained lead, the procedures outlined
by the OSHA Interim Final Rule for Lead Exposure in the Construction Industry were
followed to avoid contaminating the lantern room and tower, which is visited by
tourists year round.

WPTC photo

WPTC photo

The area of operation, the lantern room, allowed for minimal movement. Access to,
or movement of, glass had to be in limited tolerances, sometimes as little as a oneinch clearance, especially at the stairway from the service room of the lower gallery

Figure 13. This detail of the bronze sill shows the

location of the new lower fastener before its removal
and resetting with the lower bronze mullion.

Part V. A, Page 8

Figure 14. Following placement of the restored bronze

mullion, the fenestration is ready to receive the new
glazing system.

REHABILITATION

deck to the lantern room deck. With

this in mind, each piece of glass was
carefully hand carried and stored in
the service room below the lantern
room until it was time for installation.
During the project, the lens was
covered to protect it from damage.
Foul weather could have delayed the
work on this structure; however,
during the course of the preservation
work, the only weather problem was
cold temperature. High wind gusts did
limit work for one day.

WPTC photo

Astragal and Fastener Removal

WPTC photo

Figure 15. The polybutyl sealant tape was placed on

all receiving surfaces on the plane of the interior face of
the glass and on the inside faces of the exterior
astragals.

Figure 16. This detail shows the new glazing system in

place with associated cast-iron post and bronze sill
available to receive additional cleaning and paint
removal.

Each glass panel relies on six bronze

astragals fastened to bronze mullions
with pan-headed bronze screws. The
historic astragal screws did not have
standard size threads. Machining new
screws to fit extant threads in the
bronze astragals and cast-iron posts
was not an option because of
prohibitive costs and lack of adequate
lead time in the project schedule for
machining. Making the extant threads
of bronze astragals and cast-iron posts
match contemporary thread sizes
would have involved extensive field
resizing and tapping of extant holes.
Since most of the fasteners remained in
excellent condition and could be
easily reused if extracted carefully,
extant fasteners were retained and
restored, and replacement screws
installed only when necessary. Broken
fasteners were usually limited to the

lower sill astragal where the bronze screws, astragals, and sill experienced the most
galvanic reaction with the cast-iron gallery deck. Since this area is directly below the
lantern roof drip line, the rain splash-back readily supported the galvanic action
because of the constant presence of water (the electrolyte). Typical damage to
fasteners was fracturing of the pan head from the screw shaft. The shaft itself was
typically heavily corroded in situ, making removal difficult or impossible without
grinding the extant burr flush; drilling out the screw shaft followed with care taken

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. A, Page 9

WPTC photo

not to impact the receiving threads.

During reinstallation, the reusable
screws were strategically placed, thus
distributing the missing screw locations
to less critical locations in the lantern.
This allowed placement of historic
screws in critical areas while awaiting
the manufacture of replica screws.

Figure 17. Note the detailing of the finished

exterior astragal in place and the polybutyl sealant
tape visible in profile.

The astragals were heavily coated with

linseed-oil-based putty, hard putty,
paint, and polyurethane sealant. In spite
of this, the base metal on all the
astragals and associated bronze
elements showed very little signs of
deterioration. There was slight pitting
of the surface of the astragals at the
headers and sill. All of the astragals
retained planing marks and
identification numbers from their
manufacture.

Glass Removal and Replacement

Damage to the lantern glass was the result of exfoliation or rust-jacking on every
exterior face of the cast-iron columns. Each bronze mullion fastened to the cast-iron
column had been deformed, with complete failure of the lowest fastener. The
exfoliating rust exerted forces on all ten glass panels, breaking the -inch-thick
annealed wire glass across the base of the panels. This allowed for water infiltration
and endangered the classical lens. The glass was removed in two to three panels at a
time so that rehabilitation of the fasteners and bronze mullions could be completed
before placement of the new glazing system.
One of the first comments heard after completion of the lantern glass replacement
was that the lighthouse projected a brighter and clearer beam of light. During the
replacement of the storm panels, USCG auxiliarists received a complaint from a local
pilot that the light on the lighthouse tower was going out. This impression resulted
from the distortion between the new and old glass and plexiglas that was temporarily
installed in the open panel locations while the work was in progress.
The success of this project indicates that preservation of historic lighthouse lantern
glass can be achieved in an incremental manner, working under a reduced budget
while being in full compliance with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for
Treatment of Historic Properties and with regulations defined by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration.

Part V. A, Page 10

REHABILITATION

CASE STUDY: Rehabilitation of Anacapa Island Lighthouse

USCG photo

by CWO3 Wayne Truax

(formerly with CEU
Oakland)

Figure 18. Close-up of the deteriorated conditions of the Anacapa

Island Lighthouse before rehabilitation.

Anacapa Lighthouse is
located on Anacapa Island,
11 miles off the coast of Port
Hueneme, California. It was
built in 1932 and was the
last lighthouse built by the
U.S. Lighthouse Service.
Until the 1995-1996 Coast
Guard rehabilitation,
Anacapa Lighthouse had
never undergone any major
repairs.

Determining the Scope of Work

Civil Engineering Unit Oaklands Facility Inspection Team originally identified the
need for this rehabilitation during an inspection of the lighthouse in 1992. The entire
lighthouse was in such poor condition that it was labeled the worst lighthouse on the
West Coast (see Figure 18). The inspection team initiated the paperwork that
identified both the need for the rehabilitation and funds. Although most large Coast
Guard projects normally take five years before being funded, Anacapa was in such
poor condition that it was given a high priority; design work started within two years.
In late 1994 the architect assigned to the project made his first site visit. The architect
determined that the best way to repair the badly deteriorated cast-iron lantern house
was to remove it from the concrete tower via heavy-lift helicopter and transport it to
the mainland for overhaul. Further investigation, however, disclosed several
insurmountable obstacles; he was forced to consider a more conventional but far from
easy onsite rehabilitation of the entire lighthouse. The following scope of work was
identified and budgeted for $325,000:
(a) Replace all broken lantern room glass.
(b) Replace the missing vent ball with a new fully functional replica cast 304 stainless steel (S/S) vent
ball.
(c) Replace the severely deteriorated ladder rails on the lantern room roof with 304 S/S replicas.
(d) Restore the solid bronze lantern room door and lock to a fully operational condition.
(e) Abate all lead and asbestos coatings.
(f) Restore all vents to an operational condition.
(g) Repair all decorative concrete details and structural concrete.
(h) Replace all missing ventilation hoods and covers with historically accurate replacement parts
fabricated from 304 S/S.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. A, Page 11

(i) Replace the severely deteriorated galvanized iron windows with new galvanized steel windows.
(j) Install new coatings that require minimal maintenance by Coast Guard personnel.

Logistics and Planning

Because Anacapa Island is home to several endangered bird species, the rehabilitation
had to take place during the winter months and be completed before the late spring
nesting season. The island is difficult to access; all materials had to be brought to and
from the site either by boat or helicopter. Transportation costs ranged from $300 per
hour for a barge to $500 per hour for helicopter services. Constant changing winter
weather, rain, fog, 100 m.p.h. winds, and rough sea conditions often ruined the best
logistical plans. Some days the landing area for the boat would go from calm at 6:00
a.m. to very rough by 10:00 a.m., forcing the contractors supply boat to turn around
and wait another day. Other days the wind was so strong that materials could not be
delivered by boat or helicopter. Since the island was so remote, the workers had no
choice but to stay on the island for four days at a time and work ten-hour days.
Everyone learned very early just how quickly work could come to a stop when
equipment broke down or supplies failed to arrive. There was no quick run to the
parts store or to the equipment rental center. A breakdown was either corrected
onsite or the work was delayed until parts could be brought out to fix it. Sometimes
the work could be postponed until another scheduled supply run was made to the
island. There were a few times, however, when the helicopter had to fly out with
nothing but a small part because no one else was coming out to the island for several
days. A simple $30 item then cost the contractor $250 in helicopter services.

Dissimilar Metals
Anacapa Lighthouse did not have damage caused by dissimilar metals; however, a lot
of new stainless steel (S/S) replacement parts were introduced and care taken to
prevent any future problems. A barrier was applied in all cases where S/S was
attached to the cast-iron or bronze areas of the lantern. S/S fasteners were coated with
a modern anti-seize compound to prevent galvanic reaction and to take the place of
the original white lead. A thick gasket made of roofing felt and coated with a silicone
caulk was installed between the new S/S vents, vent hoods, and cast-iron lanternhouse
walls (see Figures 19 and 20). The gasket was made from 15 lb. roofing felt which
was inexpensive, easy to apply, and did not crush when the vents were bolted in
place. Installing the new S/S ladder rail ring stanchions required a two-step process.
First a coat of primer was applied and allowed to dry. Then a heavy coat of primer
was applied and the stanchions were installed while the primer was still wet creating a
watertight seal. This last step was needed because when the original stanchions were
removed, a heavy coat of red lead was found sealing the joint.
On previous lighthouse rehabilitations broken bolts were replaced with 316 S/S to
avoid painting the nonferrous metal; however, on more recent rehabilitations, a bolt

Part V. A, Page 12

REHABILITATION

USCG photo
USCG photo

Figure 19 (left). Buildup of rust in parapet wall vents.

Figure 20 (above). The finished vent installation: 15-lb. roofing
felt was placed between the bronze vent grill and the cast-iron
parapet wall.

that would develop a green patina to match the mullions was selected. All the
broken bronze bolts on the lantern window mullions were replaced with marine
grade silicone bronze instead of stainless steel. Use of the silicone bronze bolts also
removed any concerns of dissimilar metal reaction, and they are equal in strength to
stainless steel for this application.

Enclosure, Hazardous Waste Containment, Prep Methods, and

Painting
The rehabilitation took place during the winter months, so no repair work could
begin until the contractor completed an enclosure around the lighthouse. The
enclosure served several purposes: containment of hazardous materials; protection of
workers from severe weather; and a dry environment for the repair, prepping, and
painting of the lighthouse. The first step in building the enclosure was the erecting
of a scaffolding completely around the 30-foot concrete tower. Next was a
weathertight plywood enclosure for the cast-iron lantern, complete with pitched roof
to shed heavy rain. The final step was sealing the scaffolding in heavy shrink wrap to
provide weather protection and containment of any hazardous materials (see Figures
21 and 22). The entire enclosure phase of the project took two weeks because of
difficulties in handling the plywood and applying the shrink wrap in high winds.
After the enclosure was complete, all deteriorated metal pieces that were scheduled
to be replaced and did not require abrasive blasting were removed.
Because the lantern was sealed off from the rest of the tower while being blasted,
chemical stripping of the paint could take place on the exterior tower walls and

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. A, Page 13

USCG photo
USCG photo

Figure 21. View of the plywood lantern enclosure

and scaffolding.

Figure 22. View of the lighthouse scaffolding

covered with shrink wrap to contain all hazardous
materials and protect workers from severe weather.

Part V. A, Page 14

windows. The stripper was water-based

and applied by brush and airless sprayer.
After soaking for at least 1 1/2 hours, it
was scraped off (see Figure 23). The
stripped area was then neutralized with
water and finished with power sanding
where necessary. The interior leadpainted walls which were originally only
to be lightly scraped and painted were
causing problems. The paint was so old
and brittle it continually flaked off. The
abatement contractor asked for a change
order to completely remove the paint
because the current finished product was
proving to be unacceptable. Chemical
stripping of the interior walls had been
selected over light blasting to save on the
costs of transporting more blasting media
to the island. Air-driven needle gun
scalers using low pressure air, however,
proved to be a more cost-effective
method. The paint was so brittle, it
shattered when struck by the needles,
leaving the concrete virtually paint free
(see Figure 24). There was no damage to
the concrete and only lead-paint chips
were left to be swept up and disposed of.
This method could not be used on the
exterior concrete because of the 3/8-inch
white mortar skim coat that had been
applied as a finish coat when the light
was built in 1932.
After the interior walls were complete,
the cast-iron spiral staircase was the last
item to be abated. The blaster started at
the top floor of the lantern and backed
his way to the front doors. This process
took three days and prevented any other
interior work from taking place because
of the dust. After the blasting was
complete, the entire structure was swept
and vacuumed before being rinsed down
to remove the remaining dust. The water
did cause flash rusting on the newly
blasted cast-iron staircase but that was

REHABILITATION

expected and did not pose a problem (see Figure 25). All surfaces were then wire
brushed, prepped, and primed by a three-man team who only prepped what they
could prime within an hour. Although the primer used was designed for use over
flash-rust, we did not want to chance a coating failure.
The following generic paint systems were selected based on durability, performance
over minimally prepared surfaces, non-toxicity, and permeability:
(1) Exterior ferrous metalwork: moisture cure
urethane primer and top coat*
(2) Interior ferrous metalwork: moisture cure
urethane primer and top coat*

USCG photo

Figure 23. The water-based paint stripper was very

effective in removing the many layers of paint from the
exterior of the tower.

Figure 24. The interior paint was effectively removed

using needle gun scalers, without damaging the concrete
as evidenced by the visible impressions of the formwork
boards.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

(4) Interior masonry: breathable acrylic,

minimum 55% permeability
*This product will cure in 99% humidity; this
facilitated application during fog and misting
weather.

USCG photo

USCG photo

(3) Exterior masonry and concrete: elastomeric

acrylic, coarse texture

Figure 25. After the cast-iron stairs were blastcleaned, they were rinsed to remove all traces of lead
dust; flash rust immediately formed (as seen in this
photo). Before painting, this light rust was removed
with wire brushes.

Part V. A, Page 15

The 3/8-inch white mortar finish coat

that had been applied over the exterior
concrete when the light was built in
1932 was not identified in any of the
original drawings. As a result, no one
looked during the work site visit for
signs of delamination. After the
scaffolding was in place, however,
several areas were found to be loose
between the 10- and 30-foot elevations.
The foreman became concerned that
other unidentified delaminated areas
would fall out after the job was
complete and ruin his work. The
foreman inspected the entire tower and
found an additional 100 square feet of
delaminated mortar. After receiving
approval to repair any bad mortar, he
personally chipped away all the loose
mortar and applied a two-part masonry
patch material. The repair work was of
such high quality that the patches were
unnoticeable when the tower was
repainted (see Figures 26 and 27).

USCG photo

Concrete Repair

Figure 26. Once the scaffolding was erected, areas of the

delaminated white mortar finish coat were removed.

USCG photo

Of the 12 tower windows, 8 required

extensive exterior concrete repairs.
Rusted rebar had spalled the concrete
and caused severe damage. The old
rebar was removed, new holes drilled
and the new rebar epoxy injected in
place. The rebar was then covered,
packed, and reshaped with a two-part
Sika Flex product.
Figure 27. The areas where the loose mortar finish
One major area of concern was the
coat was removed were repaired with a two-part mortar
concrete gallery deck located outside
patch. The final texture on the patch was tooled to
the lantern. This deck had considerable match the historic wall surface. The patch was
completely invisible after the tower was painted.
damage in two areas without any
evidence of the cause. The outer rebar
showed signs of corrosion but the damage went 18 to 24 inches deeper into the
concrete. Since freezing was not an issue, the cause of the damage was at first
unknown. Closer examination revealed signs of an explosion inside the concrete,
and we noticed bolt patterns for two old antenna mounts directly above the area.
We determined lightning to be the cause. There was no practical way to dig out the

Part V. A, Page 16

REHABILITATION

USCG photo

Figure 30. The finished concrete repair is virtually

invisible after the surface has been painted.

Figure 31. Close-up of the finished metal work on the

lantern.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

USCG photo

USCG photo

broken concrete; the project was already

over budget. We decided to do a
pressurized epoxy injection and fill all the
voids. The area was prepped and
pumped full. The outer three inches were
left unfilled so the two-part mortar
patching compound could be used to
restore the damaged area (see Figures 29
and 30).

Figure 29. The first application of the mortar patch

material to the damaged concrete.

USCG photo

USCG photo

Figure 28. Close-up of the damaged concrete gallery

deck after the loose concrete has been removed and
before the damaged concrete was repaired using
pressure-injected epoxy grout.

Figure 32. View of the finished lantern

Part V. A, Page 17

CASE STUDY:
Rehabilitation of Point
Bonita Light Station
by CWO3 Wayne Truax, USCG
(formerly with CEU Oakland)

USCG photo

The original Point Bonita

Lighthouse was built in 1855 on a
cliff top in the Marin headlands
260 feet above the water. Within
a few years of operation it
became obvious that the light was
Figure 33. Point Bonita Lighthouse before rehabilitation; note
missing gallery deck and holes below between the bottom of the
too high and frequently blocked
lantern glass and top of the service room wall.
by the San Francisco fog. In
1877, a lower site on the point
was chosen for a new lighthouse which reused the existing lantern and watch room.

Determining the Scope of Work

The poor condition of Point Bonita was first noted by the Officer in Charge of the San
Francisco Aids to Navigation Team (ANT). His request prompted a site visit to Point
Bonita in January 1993 to conduct a facility assessment and provide advice on how to
repair the structure (see Figure 33). The original plan was to stop the water from
entering the lighthouse and let Civil Engineering Unit (CEU) Oakland do the overall
renovation in a couple years. But further investigation indicated the need for more
immediate repairs, using self help-funding and the ANT personnel. The project soon
grew into a full renovation that took six months and $75,000 to complete.

Researching Historic Details

In researching the history of Point Bonita, none of the books mentioned that the
lantern on the current lighthouse was from the original lighthouse. Files at CEU
Oakland had only site drawings describing the relocation of the lighthouse. Hundreds
of copies of other 19th-century lighthouse drawings were available, but very little on
Point Bonita. The Coast Guard Historian in Washington located two 1950s black-andwhite photos that provided clear details of the awnings, storm doors, and gallery deck
around the lantern that were removed in the early 1960s.
A lot of questions remained unanswered. The original 1855 Point Bonita watchroom,
as in most lighthouses, was entered through the floor. The current watch room is
entered through the side via a ladder from the first floor bunk room into the weather
shelter on the southern roof. One door leads to the watch room and the other leads to
the roof. Another problem was that the southern roof had at one time been
completely covered by a large observation station. The lookout room had large, tinted
green, plate-glass windows on three sides and electronic equipment installed. Was the

Part V. A, Page 18

REHABILITATION

ladder from the sitting room to the roof added; was the weather shelter even original?
To compound problems, no original drawings of the current lighthouse were found.
In the process of moving files in the bottom floor at CEU, 12 file drawers and several
boxes of microfilm were found. The drawers contained microfilm with drawings of
almost every lighthouse on the west coast. The Point Bonita file, unfortunately, was
missing. A check of all lighthouse files with a B in their name revealed the missing
1877 Point Bonita drawings, filed under Point Blunt. These drawings removed all
doubt concerning the original historic features and made the restoration possible.
During that same week, files of old black-and-white pictures were found in a cabinet.
The Point Bonita file was full of pictures from the 1800s to modern day. There were
pictures of the light after construction, as well as demolition photos of the exterior
gallery deck and pictures of the now-removed observation room.
The old black-and-white pictures as well as the original drawings provided a strong
base to work with, but not all the dimensions were clear or listed. Facilities
assessments visits to several lighthouses built in the late 1800s helped. A visit to Cape
Disappointment Lighthouse in Washington was most useful. Cape Disappointment
and the original Point Bonita Lighthouses were both built in the mid 1850s and had
the same style lantern, as well as the unique eagle-head downspouts for the roof
gutters. Although Cape Disappointment was a larger first-order lantern and Point
Bonita a second order, many of the details and dimensions were the same. The Cape
Disappointment visit provided measurements, construction details, and close-up
photos for later work at Point Bonita.

Gallery Deck Restoration

Investigative demolition followed. The original gallery deck had been removed in the
1960s, but no details were available on how it was performed. First removed was the
fiberglass cloth that sealed the watchroom panels to the lantern room and covered the
areas of the original gallery deck brackets. Fortunately, the old brackets had been cut
off above the wide base flange with a torch, leaving the tenons from the original
brackets intact inside the cast-iron lantern frame (see Figures 34 and 36). Removal of
the remaining tenons from the frame and fabrication of new gallery deck brackets
duplicating the originals proved impractical because the tenons were rusted tight and
pinned in place. The tenon was therefore used as an anchor. The old base flange
flush with the frame was cut using a portable metal-cutting bandsaw and the area
ground flush. A special jig was designed for the magnetic drill press; two holes were
then drilled and tapped directly between each set of tenons (see Figures 35, 36, and
37). A one-inch-thick mild steel mounting plate consisting of two recessed bolt holes
and four tapped holes was then put in place. (304 S/S might have been an even better
choice; the mild steel is holding up well, but may become a maintenance problem if
the lighthouse isnt properly maintained.) The two recessed holes allowed the plate to
be bolted to the lantern frame and the new bracket bolted directly over the two base
bolts. The area beneath the plate was covered with a 1/8-inch layer of Belzona Metal
filler to ensure there would be no voids and to act as a leveling compound (see Figure
38). The bolts as well as the plate were covered with a releasing compound (Vaseline)

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. A, Page 19

USCG photo

and then slowly tightened until

the plate was plumb. The
Belzona was then allowed to dry
before all excess Belzona was
ground off (see Figure 39). This
procedure worked very well and
took no more than three days to
accomplish. The base plates
were then primed, painted, and
caulked before being torqued in
place.

The new gallery deck brackets

were constructed of 3/4- and 3/8inch steel plate welded and
fabricated to match the original cast-iron brackets details. (This is another area where
304 S/S might have been better.) The stanchions were made of 1-inch 304 S/S round
stock and 1-inch 316 S/S bolts. The bolts had a 1-inch diameter and 1/4-inch-deep
recess machined in the head to ensure the bolts were properly aligned during
welding. Custom 1-inch 316 S/S acorn nuts were then purchased to secure the
stanchion to the brackets and the handrails. With the brackets and stanchions in
place, the 3/8-inch flat bar handrails were then drilled, scribed, and fitted (see Figure
40).

USCG photos

Figure 34. Close-up showing what remained after the gallery

deck brackets were cut off with a torch. Note the heavy rust
and paint failure caused by exposure.

Figure 35. Jig used to bore holes

in the gallery bracket tenons.

Part V. A, Page 20

Figure 37. After drilling, threads were

Figure 36. View of the gallery
cut into each hole using a handbracket tenons after the holes have
been drilled. The tenon on the right operated tap.
connected to the exterior gallery; the
tenon on the left is part of the
interior gallery deck bracket. The
v that has been stamped in the end
of the left tenon is an assembly
identification mark.

REHABILITATION

USCG photo

The hard part was laying out the

new gallery deck. One 3-foot
section of 1/4-inch-thick hard
board was laid out at a time.
Each section was different and
had to be custom fitted. The
completed templates were then
taken to the Coast Guard
Industrial Metal Fabrication Shop
and used to lay out the new 3/8inch 6061 aluminum diamondplate gallery deck. Once
completed, the new gallery deck
Figure 38. To provide a plumb mounting surface for the gallery
deck, each mounting surface was covered with Belzona (a two-part
sections were brought back to
metal paste); then the mounting plates were installed and tightened
the lighthouse for final drilling,
until they were plumb. The excess Belzona can be seen oozing near
fitting, and painting. (The
the middle of the plate.
aluminum is working well here,
with no signs of dissimilar metals reacting. S/S diamond plate, might however, avoid
any future problems (see Figure 41).)

USCG photo

USCG photo

The final installation of the gallery deck required the use of an impregnated felt tape
between the dissimilar metals to avoid galvanic reaction. All hardware was also
coated with anti-seize compound before being installed. The choice of aluminum
was based on cost and the knowledge that when properly installed, it will function
very well with other materials. In an effort to ensure that the structure has a long life,
however, dissimilar metals should be avoided. Not everyone who does maintenance

Figure 39 (left). View of the mounting surface after the Belzona

had cured and the mounting plate had been removed. The knobs
or protrusions on the surface are where the Belzona was squeezed
through the holes in the mounting plate. These were ground off
along with the excess Belzona that squeezed out around the plate.
Figure 40 (above). The new gallery deck brackets after
installation.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. A, Page 21

on lighthouses understands
dissimilar metals or even
how to ensure that materials
are properly reinstalled (see
Figure 42).

USCG photo

Awnings and Exterior

Doors

USCG photo

Figure 41. Final fitting and installation of the new aluminum deck plate.

USCG photo

Figure 42. View of the Point Bonita Lighthouse after the gallery deck
replacement.

The exterior copper awnings

were easy to duplicate and
relocate. The historic blackand-white photos provided
close-up views, and the
outlines of the original
awnings were still visible. A
sheet-metal shop
reproduced the awnings
based on dimensions and
the old photo. The wall
anchors should have had S/S
hardware. This is minor
item and can be easily
corrected with new anchors.
The exterior storm doors
were also easy to duplicate.
The pictures were clear and
showed one door open and
one closed. Both exterior
doors were made of 1- by 6inch tongue-and-groove
redwood and fastened
together using S/S carriage
bolts, nuts, and washers.
After the doors were test
fitted, they were
disassembled, primed,
painted, and reassembled.
These doors have held up
extremely well and have
given no trouble (see Figure
43).

Figure 43. Installation of the new exterior wood storm door.

Part V. A, Page 22

REHABILITATION

USCG photo

Figure 44. Before the rehabilitation. Note the doors at the watch room. A new
louvered panel will be installed for added ventilation.

CASE STUDY: Rehabilitation of Point Conception Light

Station
by Judd Janes, USCG Architect, formerly with CEU Oakland
In 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard completed a major six-month rehabilitation of Point
Conception Light Station located near Lompoc, California. The historic lighthouse
was built in 1882 and contains its original first-order Fresnel lens. Other than being
automated in 1973, the only major structural rehabilitation to the light station was in
1947. The goals of the project were to stop the water infiltration and condensation
that was accelerating the deterioration of the lighthouse; repair all damaged
structural members; and install new work that would require minimal maintenance
by Coast Guard personnel. The major structural work on the lantern involved
complete reconstruction of the lantern gallery deck, the lantern ladder, ladder rails,
cornice, and sill castings as well as installation of a natural ventilation system to
reduce condensation. The extremely remote location (approximately 30 miles off
the highway and down 198 steep wooden stairs) as well as constant exposure to
heavy rains and over 100-m.p.h. winds made the project extremely challenging.

Determining the Scope of Work

The main factors in determining the scope of work were overall project cost and
preservation of the integrity of the structure. The original budget was set at
$250,000. Given the severity of the deterioration, the primary focus was to
complete all major structural repairs to the lantern, as well as minor painting and
repairs to the masonry tower and fog signal building.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. A, Page 23

Selection of the Contractor

A contractor was chosen under the 8A Small Business Administration Program who
was experienced in previous Coast Guard light station rehabilitation projects.
This particular method of government contracting involves negotiating the final cost of
the job with one known contractor, rather than a low bid situation with many
unknown contractors. In California, the Coast Guard has been able to use the 8A
program effectively to achieve a more consistent quality of workmanship. Light
station projects require very specialized skills, so selecting a qualified contractor is
crucial. Prequalification criteria should require knowledge of the Secretary of the
Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation, and include the minimum following
experience:
Logistic planning and mobilization for remote sites.
Rigging and scaffolding around towers and historic structures.
Asbestos and lead paint removal on historic structures.
Masonry and concrete repair on historic structures.
Fabrication and repair of historic metalwork.
Applying industrial paint systems in marine environments.

Logistical Planning

USCG photo

Because of difficult site accessibility, all materials were airlifted to and from the light
station via helicopter. Since helicopter services are very costly, staging had to be
planned very carefully. A complete inventory of materials and equipment was
required in advance to determine size and weight of the lifts. The proximity of the
staging area to the lighthouse was also critical given the radius of the blades and the
local wind conditions. No electrical, telephone, water, or sanitary facilities were
available for use onsite. Basically, everything had to be brought in and out by the
contractor. The lighthouse is 198 wooden steps down from the parking lot; the
nearest town is located over 40 miles away, down one-lane roads following hairpin
turns and steep ravines. The
contractors mobilization costs,
as well as personal travel and
per diem costs, significantly
increased normal project costs.

Figure 45. Staging the work. Note the temporary location of the
auxiliary light on the fog signal building chimney.

Part V. A, Page 24

The weather was also a major

factor on this project. Heavy
fog, rain and plus-100-m.p.h.
winds, common at Point
Conception, caused many
delays in the construction
schedule and created extremely
difficult working conditions. At
one point during the project,

REHABILITATION

USCG photo

heavy rain washed out portions of the

road, which cut off access for over a
week. A special plywood curtain was
erected in the lantern room with
clamps to protect the classical lens
from the weather and shore up the
lantern structure during reconstruction.

USCG photo

Figure 46. Lighthouse lantern before rehabilitation. Note

the missing ladder rails and the severe rust on the lantern
cornice and lower watch room panels. The badly spalled
concrete gallery deck was installed in 1947 and is not
original.

Figure 47. Lantern room before rehabilitation. Note the

lower sill channels filled with concrete. This shortsighted
repair method blocked the ventilators and caused
condensation to spill out on the deck, effecting rust and
further damages below.

Dissimilar Metals
Although surface rusting was the main
problem at the lantern, some of the
deterioration was caused by galvanic
reaction between dissimilar metals.
Dissimilar metal problems were
eliminated by replacing the original
deteriorated cast-iron cornice plates
and brackets with copper and bronze.
The original copper roof dome was
then stripped of its paint and allowed
to naturally patina. Besides low
maintenance, the other advantages of
copper are its flexibility to withstand
strong winds, building movement, and
wide temperature changes. In other
areas, neoprene gaskets, felt or teflon
tape, thick epoxy primers, and
bituminous paints were used between
dissimilar metals to prevent future
corrosion.

USCG photo

Preparation Methods and

Painting Systems

Figure 48. Reconstructing the cornice. The cornice plates

were removed to expose the corroded cast-iron brackets and
top channels. New brackets were cast in bronze, and the
top sill channels were fabricated in stainless steel. Note the
plywood curtain erected for weather protection and
shoring the lantern roof during reconstruction.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

The Secretary of the Interiors

guidelines mandate using the gentlest
method possible in preparing surfaces
on historic buildings. This generally
means hand tool preparation, noncaustic strippers, and low pressure
blasting. Given the lead paint and
heavy rust on the lantern, a variety of
methods were used including chemical
stripping, hand tool preparation, power
tool preparation, and grit blasting. The
existing exterior paint on the masonry
tower and fog signal building was in
Part V. A, Page 25

USCG photo
USCG photo

Figure 49. Reconstructing the gallery deck. After

removing the existing concrete, remnants of the original
cast-iron deck were found.

USCG photo

Figure 50. Lantern cornice after rehabilitation. Replacing

the original steel cornice plates with copper eliminated the
dissimilar metals problem.

Figure 51. Lantern galley deck after rehabilitation. The

new gallery deck was fabricated with stainless steel
diamond plate and carefully flashed with copper at the
lantern room. The interior lower sill channels were rebuilt
to catch condensation from the glass.

Part V. A, Page 26

good condition and required only

hand scraping and washing to
remove the loose paint, dirt, salt, and
contaminants. The interior masonry
walls of the tower were stripped of
loose paint and repainted with a
breathable acrylic paint to alleviate
hydrostatic pressure. Paint removal
on lighthouses can be a costly
operation because it often involves
lead or asbestos abatement. This can
necessitate using specialized safety
equipment and tools, as well as
hiring certified abatement contractors
and installing very expensive
containment systems.
Painting in this harsh marine
environment was a difficult
challenge. To avoid flash rusting, a
rust inhibitor was applied
immediately after preparing the
surfaces. Even with this painstaking
effort, bleeding rust was a constant
problem that often led to rework.
Under these conditions, it is
unrealistic to expect any paint system
to last beyond five years without
some maintenance. The following
generic paint systems were selected
based on durability, performance
over minimally prepared surfaces,
non-toxicity, and permeability:
Exterior ferrous metalwork: synthetic rust
inhibitor, inorganic zinc primer (new
metal only), high-solids self-priming
epoxy, aliphatic polyurethane topcoat.
Interior ferrous metalwork: waterborne
epoxy primer, epoxy acrylic topcoat.
Exterior masonry and concrete:
elastomeric acrylic, coarse texture.
Interior masonry: breathable acrylic,
minimum 55% permeability.

REHABILITATION

USCG photo

Figure 52. Light tower lantern after rehabilitation. The nonferrous metalwork at the lantern room is left
unpainted and allowed to naturally patina, thus saving maintenance costs.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. A, Page 27

Beyond Basic Preservation:

International Chimney Corporation (ICC) photo

RESTORATION
Figure 1. New ornate
cast-iron handrail posts
were recast and installed
on the new gallery deck as
part of a restoration at
Cape Hatteras Lighthouse,
Buxton, North Carolina.

Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and
character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by removing features
from other periods in its history and reconstructing missing features from the restoration
period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a
restoration project.
Restoration as a Treatment: When the propertys design, architectural, or historical
significance during a particular period of time outweighs the potential loss of extant
materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods; when
there is substantial physical and documentary evidence for the work; and when
contemporary alterations and additions are not planned, restoration may be considered as
a treatment. Before undertaking work, a particular period of time, i.e., the restoration
period, should be selected and justified, and a documentation plan for restoration
developed.

Standards for Restoration

Use the property as it was historically or find a new use that reflects the propertys restoration period.
Remove features from other periods, but document them first.
Stabilize, consolidate, and conserve features from the restoration period.
Replace a severely deteriorated feature from the restoration period with a matching feature (substitute
materials may be used).
Replace missing features from the restoration period based on documentation and physical evidence. Do
not make changes that mix periods and falsify history.
Do not execute a design that was never built.

This is a summary of the central ideals of the Restoration treatment standards excerpted from the
CRM article, Historic Preservation Treatment: Toward a Common Language by Kay Weeks
(Vol 19, No. 1, 1996, p. 34).

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. B, Page 1

CASE STUDY: Restoration of the Cape May Lighthouse

by Joseph Jakubik, International Chimney Corporation
The Mid Atlantic Center for the Arts, Inc., a non-profit organization, obtained
funding for the restoration of the Cape May Lighthouse, Cape May, New Jersey,
through local donations, the state of New Jersey, a grant from the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, and the Department of Transportation through the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. The architect selected for the project was
Watson & Henry Associates, of Bridgeton, New Jersey, a veteran of other lighthouse
projects, including the Barnegat Lighthouse. The restoration required a variety of
disciplines including masonry restoration, painting, machining, steel and cast-iron
fabrications, copper work, and glazing. Plans were completed and the project sent
out to bid to a list of pre-qualified bidders. International Chimney Corporation
(ICC) of Buffalo, New York, was selected.

ICC photo

ICC photo

The project was started in January 1994 with the mobilization of ICCs crew and
equipment, including a GCI 5400 tower crane, capable of 325-foot tip height. The
first step was to remove the lantern from the tower of the lighthouse. The plane of
separation was to have been at the sill connection to the lantern deck, allowing
removal of the lantern intact and relocation to ICCs facility in Buffalo, New York.
After carefully removing the many layers of paint and corrosion around the
connection, it was discovered that the stiles that supported the window wall and
roof were embedded into the masonry at least 4 feet below the level of the lantern
deck. Shop restoration of the entire lantern room was not possible.

Figure 2 (left). Condition of the bronze sill sitting on the

lantern deck inside the lantern room. The sill is wedged
between two vertical cast-iron stiles, which are anchored
into the masonry below.
Figure 3 (above). Horizontal mullions run in between the
stiles and serve to keep the stiles straight and frame the
individual pieces of glass. Before restoration, the mullions
and sills had been bolted in place over 140 years.

Part V. B, Page 2

RESTORATION

Necessity is truly the mother of invention. The job was replanned to include
disassembly of the roof only and rework of the lantern in the field. A large
temporary steel enclosure, affectionately referred to as the soup can, was fabricated
to fit over the window wall system and allow craftsmen to work in relative comfort
during the coldest winter in Cape May history. The temporary steel enclosure,
designed to accommodate both interior lighting and ventilation, was installed on a
system of cantilevered beams that
concentrated the load on the brick
column of the tower. A lifting jig was
designed and installed underneath the
roof, and the roof was disconnected
from the window wall system.

Figure 5. As the roof is being removed from the lighthouse,

the tie rod system, supported by ICCs aluminum roofing
frame, is visible. This frame was designed to fully support
the roof and alleviate any stress or strain on the roof during
the lift. Protruding down from the roof are the ends of the
rafters which connect to the top of the stiles.

In Buffalo, extreme care was required

to restore the roof without
compromising dimensional integrity of
the 16 tie rods and 16 roof rafters. The
roof would be reinstalled in the same
position, mating in 16 individual
points, bolting together in 48
individual machined holes. The roof
measured over 13 feet in diameter;
restoration included replacement of
the original cornice brackets that held
the roof to the window wall and kept
the shape of the copper. A 1/16-inch
difference at each location would add
up to a one inch deviation, preventing
the roof from fitting.

ICC photo

ICC photo

Figure 4. The first step in removing the roof was to take

off the vent ball. The vent ball not only serves as a
lightning rod but also provides ventilation to the glass in the
lantern room, limiting condensation.

Even on a calm day, the winds at 195

feet above sea level blow at a constant
25 to 30 miles per hour. The roof was
carefully removed, lowered to grade,
and transported to Buffalo, New York,
for repair. True restoration work could
now begin. The window wall system
was carefully dismantled, all
components tagged, wrapped, and sent
to Buffalo for restoration. Imagine the
difficulty of trying to free over 200
bolted connections that have been
corroded by a moist salt air
environment for over 140 years. Many
of the replacement fasteners had to
accommodate thread designs used in
the 19th century.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. B, Page 3

ICC photo

Figure 6. During the restoration, this Campbell Soup Can was installed over the lantern room in order to protect
restoration efforts from the environment.

ICC photo

Back at the lighthouse, attention was turned

to stripping all existing paint from the
lighthouse, exposing the original color;
meticulously repairing all damaged or
eroded mortar joints; and repainting the
structure with a special coating that
matched the original color of the
lighthouse.

Figure 7. Inside the lantern room, the mullions

have been reworked and reattached to the stiles.
New stainless steel bolts have been used to
prevent corrosion and teflon tape has the used as
a gasket between the bronze and the cast iron.
Teflon washers also separate the bronze from the
stainless steel bolt.

Part V. B, Page 4

In June 1994, all preparations were

complete for reassembly of the lantern
room and roof system. The matched,
marked pieces were carefully refitted with
new stainless-steel hardware and teflon tape
which acts as an isolator between the
dissimilar bronze and cast-iron metals. In
the 19th century, little was known about the
chemical reaction between dissimilar
metals. When a copper-based metal is
placed in contact with a ferrous-based
metal, an anode-cathode reaction occurs,
similar to a battery. This changes the
molecular structure of the ferrous metal,
causing corrosion.

RESTORATION

ICC photo

Figure 8. New hand holds were replicated to replace

missing pieces. These exactly match the originals.

Meticulous preparations were made on

the ground and in the air for the lift. The
refurbished roof was centered as close as
possible to the center line of the
lighthouse and turned to allow for the
proper fit in its original position. ICCs
craftsmen were perched on ladders
waiting for the roof to be hoisted. When
all was ready, the signal was given and
the lift began. The roof was centered
above the window wall and began its
descent. The result was anticlimactic.
The roof came down exactly into
position as if sucked in by a giant
magnet. The major portion of the
restoration was complete.

ICC photo

ICC photo

New safety glass was installed on the

window wall system, and the soup can
was no longer needed. A relatively calm
wind would be required to remove the
enclosure and set down the newly
refurbished roof. On the June 4, 1994,
conditions appeared favorable. The
enclosure was lifted and, for the first
time in five months, the efforts of the
craftsmen were revealed. The newly
lacquered bronze mullions, glazing bars,
and sills gleamed in the bright early
summer sun.

Figure 10. All glass is now in place and final

preparations are made for the reopening.

Figure 9. The refurbished roof is replaced on the

lantern room. The fit is almost exact.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. B, Page 5

CASE STUDY:
Restoration of Cape
Hatteras Lighthouse
by Joseph Jakubik,
International Chimney
Corporation

ICC photo

Late in 1990, International

Chimney Corporation (ICC)
was chosen by the National
Park Service to perform the
preservation work on the Cape
Hatteras Lighthouse in the
Cape Hatteras National
Seashore in North Carolina.
The Cape Hatteras Lighthouse
has served a section of the
Atlantic ocean known as the
Grave Yard of the Atlantic
since the 1870s, but the
elements and corrosive
seawater had taken their toll.
The first-order Cape Hatteras
Figure 11. The Cape Hatteras Lighthouse during restoration.
Lighthouse is the tallest brick
lighthouse in the U.S. The ornate, victorian-gothic, cast-iron construction of the
interior and exterior iron work was produced after the Civil War, when foundries, no
longer producing cannons for the war, focused their efforts on producing ornate castiron architecture and hardware.

Figure 12. Some brackets were so deteriorated that

they were totally exposed to the elements.

Part V. B, Page 6

ICC photo

ICC photo

The time for replacement of these ornate castings was at hand. The large gallery deck,
with its ornate tread patterns and hand rail had deteriorated to the point where it was
no longer feasible to repair. On the interior of the lighthouse, many of the steps of

Figure 13. After the most severely deteriorated portion of

the brackets were removed, new cast-iron pieces were
made and installed; and new deck plates installed.

RESTORATION

ICC photo

the long spiral staircase were

cracked, weathered, or deteriorated.
The ornate cast-iron sections at the
landings, complete with handrails
would no longer protect climbers on
their way up or down the tower.

ICC photo

Figure 14. The handrail assembly has been removed and

the ornate cast-iron post is ready for removal.

The restoration was scheduled to

begin early in 1991 with the
mobilization of International
Chimneys GCI crane, capable of
325-foot tip height. At the last
moment, however, a barge ran into
the Bonner Bridge over the Oregon
Inlet. While ferries were
immediately put into service to
accommodate traffic, the crane was
too large to move to the site. The
schedule was adjusted to
accommodate the change in plans,
and the interior lighthouse work
started first.
The first step was to remove the
deteriorated castings of the spiral
staircase and return them to Buffalo
to be used as a guide for the new
castings. The spiral staircase is built
so that each step supports the
remainder of the staircase to the next
landing. To remove the deteriorated
pieces, the stairways were
supported, both above and below
the removal area, by steel cables
from the landings above.

The ornate cast-iron pieces of

handrail were carefully removed,
examined, and shipped back to Buffalo. The service room windows were severely
deteriorated, with only portions of the existing cast pieces available for a guide to
new work. These were removed, new pieces cast, and custom-fit to the window
openings. New 1-inch safety glass was installed in the service room.
Figure 15. A replica handrail is installed.

The lantern room in the lighthouse was severely corroded as a result of interaction
between dissimilar metals. All components were removed, reworked, and
replaced, and new 5/16-inch laminated safety glass installed.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. B, Page 7

ICC photo

ICC photo

Figure 16. At the base of the brackets, the cast-iron

belt course is removed, exposing deteriorated
masonry below.

Figure 17. The cast-iron belt courses are repinned to

new masonry beneath.

When repairs were completed to the Bonner Bridge, exterior work could begin. A 7foot-wide, circular work deck was placed below the large gallery deck. This afforded
access to the complete hand rail system and deck plates. The hand rail components
were carefully removed, as were the deck plates. The surviving pieces of deck plate
were so deteriorated that accurate measurements could not be made. The deck was
recalculated and a template made of the theoretical size and shape of the new deck
plates. This was custom-fitted to each individual bracket, revealing that the
lighthouse was slightly out of round. Measurements were taken for each individual
section, which required custom casting, machining, and fitting of each individual
section of plate. The brackets supporting the plate were reworked, and individual
components recast. The belt course holding the brackets together below was
removed, the masonry underneath repinned, and the cast belt course reinstalled.
Deteriorated masonry was carefully cut out and repainted, as was the granite pedestal
at the base.
All doors were refurbished and the seven landing windows replaced. The project
took approximately a year and a half, and was completed before a hurricane hit in
the fall of 1993. The hurricane damaged (by impact) three of the windows in the
lantern room and tore off a portion of the hand rail of the lantern deck. (This hand
rail was not replaced under the original contract). ICC performed the needed repairs
in the spring of 1994, and once again the lighthouse opened to the general public.

Part V. B, Page 8

RESTORATION

Beyond Basic Preservation:

NMI photo

Related
Activities

Figure 1. A historic site managed by the Minnesota Historical Society, most of the buildings
(including one of the keepers' quarters shown above) at Split Rock Light Station are interpreted
to the period of its construction in 1909.

Examples of Adaptive Use/

Rehabilitation
B&Bs/Inns: A few light stations have been
successfully adapted into bed-andbreakfasts by both private owners and
nonprofits. Examples include East Brothers
Island Light Station in San Francisco Bay,
California; Saugerties Light on the Hudson
River, New York; Selkirk Light Station in
Pulaski, New York; and Isle Au Haut Light
Station near Isle Au Haut, Maine. At Rose
Island Light Station off Newport, Rhode
Island, guests are expected to perform daily
chores including noting the weather;
keeping a lookout for boating emergencies;
and working on maintenance tasks such as
painting, washing windows, and making
minor repairs.
Youth Hostels: Point Montara and Pigeon
Point Light Stations1 are located just 28
miles apart along the northern coast of

Historic Hostels Report (Washington, DC,

American Youth Hostels, n.d.).
1

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

California. Both light stations serve as youth

hostels established through a cooperative
agreement with the U.S. Coast Guard via
the state of California. In 1978 the
California legislature appropriated $1.9
million for the California State Park Systems
Coast Hostel Facilities Plan in response to a
preliminary state plan developed in 1975.
Five vacant and abandoned lighthouses
were considered as suitable hostel sites.
Point Montara and Pigeon Point were in the
best shape and were recommended for
development into part of a chain of hostels
along the California coastline.
Because of initial leasing difficulties, these
lighthouse projects took nearly three years
to launch. Initially the Coast Guard, which
owned the lighthouses, would offer only a
short-term lease to the state. Without a
long-term lease, the state was hesitant to
invest large amounts of money for
renovations. The Coast Guard allowed
interim use of Point Montara and Pigeon
Point until a long-term lease finally was
approved. Under the interim agreement,
the state began renovations and issued

Part V. C, Page 1

NMI photo

Figure 2. East Brother Island Light Station in San Francisco Bay, California, serves both as an active aid
to navigation and bed-and-breakfast.

operating permits to the Golden Gate

Council of American Youth Hostels (AYH).
The two hostels were developed almost
simultaneously. Several organizations
contributed to the restoration of both
lighthouses, including the California
Department of Parks and Recreation, which
contributed in excess of $100,000 as part of
its pilot coastal hostel project. The
California Coastal Conservancy contributed
to the hostels as part of its program to
promote low-cost visitor access to the
states increasingly expensive and exclusive
coastline.
Restoration of the Point Montara Lighthouse
and the conversion of both the vandalized
Victorian-style and modern light keepers
quarters into a 35-bed hostel facility cost
more than $100,000. AYH volunteers and
staff contributed $45,000 worth of labor
and time. Renovations for Pigeon Point
were also heavily dependent upon
volunteer labor, cash contributions, and

Part V. C, Page 2

donated supplies. One of the major private

contributors to this project was Crocker
Bank with a $25,000 grant.
The two lighthouses attract more than
23,000 overnight guests each year. Park
rangers and hostel managers cooperate to
offer educational programs on the coastal
environment for guests. If AYH had not
occupied these lighthouses 15 years ago,
the station buildings other than the towers
which were maintained by the Coast
Guard, would be largely in ruins today.
Occupancy generally precludes damage to
a historic structure. AYH is not only
preserving historic sites, but enabling young
people to learn about them and use them.
Tibbetts Point Lighthouse, New York, and
the former lifesaving station on Nantucket,
Massachusetts, are other AYH projects
which have preserved historic Coast Guard
structures.

RELATED ACTIVITIES

NMI photo

Figure 3. At Bodie Island Light Station in Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina, the tower holds an
active aid to navigation while the keeper's quarters serves as a museum.

Museums: Numerous light stations have

been adapted into museums or interpretive
centers. A few examples include: Montauk
Point Light Station in Montauk, New York;
Split Rock Light Station on Lake Superior,
Minnesota; Hereford Inlet Light Station in
North Wildwood, New Jersey; St. Augustine
Light Station in St. Augustine, Florida; Key
West Light Station in Key West, Florida; and
St. Simons Island Light Station in St.
Simons, Georgia. In some cases the
keeper's quarters have been turned into
residences for caretakers while the rest of
the station such as the tower and oil house
are open to the public. Currituck Beach
Light Station in Corolla, North Carolina, is
an example. In some cases museums,
particularly maritime museums, have
obtained lighthouses and moved them to
their museum to serve as exhibits.
Examples include Calvert Marine Museums
Drum Point Lighthouse in Solomons,
Maryland; Chesapeake Bay Maritime
Museums Hooper Strait Lighthouse in St.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Michaels, Maryland; and Shelburne

Museums Colchester Reef Lighthouse in
Shelburne, Vermont.
Parks: Many light stations are located
within the boundaries of national, state, and
local parks. In some parks, buildings at the
light station are accessible to the public, in
others, only the grounds. A few of the
better-known examples of lighthouses in
parks would be Cape Hatteras Light Station
in Cape Hatteras National Seashore along
the Outer Banks of North Carolina; West
Quoddy Head Light Station in Quoddy
Head State Park, near Lubec, Maine; and
Point Reyes Light Station in Point Reyes
National Seashore, in California.
Research/educational facilities: Because of
their location in wildlife refuges and nature
preserves, a few light stations have served
as research facilities. At the Lime Kiln Light
Station on San Juan Island in Washington,
the tower serves as a whale research lab.
Matinicus Rock Light Station off Rockland,

Part V. C, Page 3

NMI photo

Maine, is used as research headquarters by

Audubon biologists.

Figure 4. At the Lime Kiln Light Station on San Juan

Island in Washington, the tower serves as a whale research
lab while the keepers' quarters serve as park housing. The
station is located within Lime Kiln State Park

Private homes: Numerous light station

keepers quarters have been converted to
private homes. Examples include New
Dorp (Swash Channel Range Rear) Light on
Staten Island, New York; Chapel Hill Range
Rear Light in Leonardo, New Jersey;
Roanoke River Lighthouse in Edenton,
North Carolina; Mendota (Bete Grise)
Lighthouse on Lake Superior, Michigan; and
Grand Island North Light Station in Grand
Island, Michigan. Other keeper's quarters
are used for housing of park employees or
military personnel when located in or near
a park or military installation. Examples
include Point Fermin Lighthouse at Point
Fermin, California; Yerba Buena Island
Light near San Francisco, California;
Egmont Key Light Station on Egmont Key,
Florida; and Prospect Harbor Point

SIDEBAR: To Relight or not to Relight?

Lighthouses which are decommissioned by the Coast Guard are no longer considered active
aids to navigation although at least 17 privately owned lighthouses serve as private aids to
navigation. Many restoration projects call for relighting the lighthouse. Before such efforts
can be undertaken certain procedures must be followed so that new lights do not interfere
with present navigation lighting systems. Coordination with the Coast Guard is absolutely
necessary and approval not guaranteed. Furthermore, a new liability may result. If your light
was being used for navigational purposes and for whatever reason it failed, the owners of a
vessel which suffered damage as a consequence of this failure could sue. This is a major burden
for a fledgling lighthouse preservation organization. The Coast Guard is protected from
liability under the Federal Torts Claim Act which limits their responsibility, but this does not
apply to non-Coast Guard operated aids to navigation. For stations where the Coast Guard
still maintains the light, even when the light tower is under non-public ownership, the Federal
Torts Claim Act is still in force. While such an arrangement may be considered an advantage,
the Coast Guard will require access to the lantern room and they usually want this area
restricted from public access with special exceptions. In an attempt to obtain protection from
the Federal Torts Claim Act some organizations such as Friends of Sakonnet Point have
attempted to lease back their lighthouse to the Coast Guard for as little as $1.00 per year, while
still maintaining responsibility for the maintenance of the structure. But the Coast Guard has
declined such offers. Another possible option is to relight the tower so that it is visible only
from land and not visible from the water, thereby not serving as an active aid to navigation.
The Coquille River Lighthouse was relit so that the light could be seen from the town of
Bandon but not from the river approach at sea.

Part V. C, Page 4

RELATED ACTIVITIES

Lighthouse in Prospect Harbor, Maine. In

some cases keepers quarters are rented out
by nonprofit groups to help generate
operating and maintenance funds.
Examples include Piney Point Light Station,
Piney Point, Maryland; and Rose Island
Light Station off Newport, Rhode Island.
Miscellaneous adaptations: Many light
stations, such as Piedras Blancas Light
Station in San Simeon, California, have
been turned over to other federal agencies
and in this case, used for housing of Fish
and Wildlife Service staff. The Army Corps
of Engineers allow a local Coast Guard
Auxiliary unit to use the keeper's quarters
as a meeting and office site at Ontonagon
Light Station, Ontonagon, Michigan. Other
stations have been turned over to local
governments. For example, the engineer's
office at Government Island, formerly part
of the Minots Light Station, is now used by
the Cohasset Harbor Master; the oil house
by the Cohasset Sailing Club; and the
keeper's quarters turned into efficiency
apartments. Perhaps the most unusual
adaptation of a lighthouse is that of
Tillamook Rock Lighthouse. Located off the
coast of Oregon, it is used as a
columbarium (repository for the ashes of
cremated persons). Oakland Harbor
Lighthouse in Oakland, California, was
moved to land and turned into Quinns
Lighthouse Restaurant. Though not a
lighthouse, the St. Joseph Lighthouse Depot
complex is in the process of being turned
into a microbrew pub and restaurant.

Interpretation and Public Outreach

A restored light station without
interpretation is an artifact with no
associated informationvery little
educational value can be gleaned. There
are several ways good interpretation can be
added to lighthouses/light stations.
Interpretive panels (signage) are the most
commonly used method. The advantage is that

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

they are relatively inexpensive to make and

have relatively low maintenance cost;
interpretive signs can be read at the leisure of
the visitor and do not require an individual
(paid or volunteer) to be present to provide
information orally. Panels placed outside
buildings enable visitors who arrive after hours
or out of season an opportunity to learn about
the property even when closed. The physically
impaired, who cannot gain access to some areas
can still view photographs of lantern rooms, etc.
Pamphlets, brochures, and published histories
are another means to educate the public about
the property. They can be reproduced rather
cheaply, and printing costs might be sponsored
by a local bank or business in exchange for a
credit line. A keyed map to the property can
also serve as a guide to the site. Histories of the
property can be published and sold both as an
educational outreach tool as well as a
fundraiser. Printed materials can be taken home
and read at leisure as a post-visit educational
tool.
Guided tours: Many visitors prefer the personal
touch of a tour given by a knowledgeable
individual. Properly trained, such tour guides
can add life to a site by imparting not only
historical facts, but insights into the people who
worked and lived there. Many light stations
have recreated living and work spaces as they
may have appeared at some moment in the past.
A tour guide can also keep a watchful eye on
small objects which add to the realism of the
recreation but might be picked up and handled,
damaged, and/or stolen by unsupervised
visitors. Some guides dress in keepers' uniforms
or other period costumes to add realism to the
experience.
Living history/plays: Living history programs
using actors who portray persons who once
lived at the site are another means of
interpretation. A play, based on local fact, can
create a history of the site which informs the
public in an entertaining way. These can be
done on- or off-site and may also be used as a
way to raise funds for restoration and/or
operation of the facility.
Audio/audiovisuals: An effective interpretative
tool which can stand alone or be used with
other educational methods is an audio tour of
the site. Numerous companies create and sell
the hardware. These options are relatively
expensive, but have proven very popular with

Part V. C, Page 5

Minnesota Historical Society

Figure 5. Since Split Rock was first accessible by highway in 1924, it has been popular with travelers. Today
it continues to draw over 120,000 visitors annually.

CASE STUDY: Interpretation at Split Rock Lighthouse

by Lee Radzak, Historic Site Manager, Split Rock Lighthouse
The keeper finished cranking the 250-pound cast-iron weights up the 40-foot weightway tube running up through the center of the lighthouse. He removed the crank
handle from the clockwork mechanism and pulled a handkerchief from the pocket of
his midnight-blue wool uniform coat and wiped a few smears from the polished
brass of the lens assembly. As he took a moment to admire the sparkling prisms of
the Fresnel lens, he heard strange voices coming up the spiral staircase. An eager
family came puffing into the lens room to stare wide-eyed at the glittering four-and-ahalf-ton marvel of French technology revolving above them. They then turned to
look out the window at Lake Superior 160 feet below. Welcome to Split Rock
Lighthouse, said the keeper. Ill bet youre wondering why the lighthouse service
would build a lighthouse way up on top of this cliff.
This scene could have occurred in the late 1920s as easily as the late 1990s. The
major difference is that in the 1990s the keeper is a historic site interpreter
employed by the Minnesota Historical Society; in the 1920s he was a light keeper
employed by the U.S. Lighthouse Service. In 1939, when the U.S. Coast Guard
assumed responsibility for the countrys aids to navigation, they said that Split Rock
was one of the most frequently visited lighthouses in the United States. Although
Split Rock Lighthouse was decommissioned as a navigational aid in 1969, visitors
continued to stop at the popular landmark. The light station is now a Minnesota state

Part V. C, Page 6

RELATED ACTIVITIES

historic site; preservation and interpretation are the responsibility of the Minnesota
Historical Society (MHS). Visitation peaked in 1989, the year of the U.S. Lighthouse
Service bicentennial, at 212,000.
With the well-preserved light station and with public interest and high attendance a
given, Split Rock was a natural addition to the Minnesota historic site system in 1976.
As with all open-air museums, the interpretive program at Split Rock has been
developed and customized to fit specific conditions. Visitation patterns, audience
interest and demographics, the physical environment of the site, availability of
historical and research information, and, of course, financial resources, are among
some of the considerations when developing an interpretive plan for any historic site.
For an interpretive program to succeed at a historic lighthouse, the administrating
entity needs to have a clear vision of what they want visitors to understand about the
site. This can only be done by first developing a concise interpretive plan that sets
objectives for what story is to be told at the site and how it is told. At Split Rock we
were very fortunate: when we began research on the site in the mid-1970s, several
sons and daughters of the early keepers who actually lived at the light station in the
1910s, 1920s, and 1930s were helpful in providing us with firsthand information about
life at Split Rock. They were a very valuable source of anecdotal information, and
even provided written records and early photographs of life at the lighthouse. This
information was corroborated by the official logs for the light station that were kept by
the keepers. From these, and other archival sources, we had an excellent base of
information on which to build an interpretive program, as well as good documentation
for restoration projects that have returned the buildings and grounds to their pre-1924
appearance.
Solid and well-researched documentation provides the fuel that will drive a successful
interpretive program. For us, the next step was to look at the resources we had and
how best to present them to the visiting public. First, an interpretive staff manual was
developed. While this is updated annually, the basic information it contains gives an
interpreter a primer in interpretive technique, as well as an in-depth background on the
history of lighthouses, shipping, the Great Lakes, the U.S. Lighthouse Service, and Split
Rock Lighthouse. A detailed interpretive outline for guided tours is included along
with expected learner outcomes for each of the stations on a tour. In-depth staff
training, though expensive, is key to an effective and successful interpretive program.
Each spring we hold two full days of training for our entire staff of 22 to 24 employees.
Morning meetings are held with the daily staff each day of the season and monthly fullstaff meetings are held throughout the summer.
After being open to the public for 20 years, Split Rock Lighthouse historic sites
program evolved into one that gives visitors a variety of options for touring the light
station. For the casual visitors, self-guiding brochures allow them to see the buildings
and grounds of the light station at their own pace and to interact with stationed
interpreters as they wish. Hour-long guided tours are led by site interpreters to seven
tour stations, or stops, on the light station. Beginning in the 1996 season the decision
was made to expand our interpretive program to include costumed interpreters who
role-play either the keepers or their wives from the time period of 1925. We chose

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. C, Page 7

that year as our target date for the first-person interpretation because it was the first
year that the new highway allowed tourist access to the isolated light station. The
head light keepers log for 1925 shows that the isolated life at Split Rock was changing
and that they were dealing with tourist traffic on a regular basis. The highway is a
perfect interpretive vehicle or bridgeexcuse the punsbetween that historical
period and our interpretation of it. Visitors today still travel the same road to see the
same lighthouse, and they can relate to the historical connection between the keepers
and their early visitors.
Adding a living history component to an interpretive program can greatly enrich a
visitors appreciation and understanding of a site and its content. If done right, firstperson, costumed role playing can be very effective, but much care, forethought, and
a high level of commitment to accuracy must accompany the decision. At Split Rock
we had used costumed role playing to a limited extent for special events; because of
the very positive reception, we have now incorporated it into our daily interpretation.
Every day, three of our seven interpreters portray either a keeper or a wife of a keeper.
A limitation at our site is that only the lighthouse and one of the three light keepers
dwellings is totally restored to the 1920s, complete with period furnishings, so the
first-person interpretation is most effective inside these two buildings.
If living history is to be done with any credibility, it has to be done right. That means
no short cuts on costumingaccurate period keepers uniforms and 1920s vintage
reproduction house dresses for the women. Only appropriate jewelry and hairstyles
are to be worn by costumed interpreters, and even the language and slang that the
interpreters use while in character have to fit the 1920s. Since the time period that we
are interpreting at Split Rock is relatively recent we do not portray actual keepers and
family members that served at Split Rock Lighthouse. Instead, through extensive
research, we have developed composite characters based on historical information
specific to Split Rock and generic qualities shared by light keepers of the time period.
Biographical histories were developed for six fictional characters so that an interpreter
is assigned a specific character to portray for the day.
At Split Rock we use a form of modified first-person that we call my eyes, your eyes.
If a visitor asks the keeper why there is a light bulb in the lens, the interpreter will
drop character enough to say, To your eyes you see a 1000-watt light bulb that was
used after the light station was electrified in 1940, but to my eyes in 1925 it looks like
an incandescent oil vapor lamp that burns kerosene. Some living history sites and
interpreters around the country would not break character if the site were burning
down around them. This works well for some sites that have been able to totally
reconstruct a given time period. At Split Rock we have found that many visitors have
needs and questions that just can not be answered from a different time period and
are confused, intimidated, or just plain do not want to play along. For them we will
briefly break character if it will help interpret a concept or idea to them.
Additional methods of interpretation can strengthen a sites program. Each historic
site has a unique story that should be told. There are many very good methods to
facilitate the telling of that story. Interpretive film can be an extremely effective way
to illustrate facts and ideas that can be difficult to convey in other ways. In our 22

Part V. C, Page 8

RELATED ACTIVITIES

Minnesota Historical Society

Figure 6. The lives of the Split Rock light keepers and their
families in the 1920s is portrayed for visitors to the site by presentday interpretive staff and volunteers.

minute film, Split Rock Light:

Tribute to the Age of Steel,
which is shown every halfhour in our history center
theater, we show how the
growth of the Minnesota iron
ranges led to the need for
lighthouses on Lake
Superior. In an age when
every visitor relates to video,
even short two or three
minute audiovisual programs
can be effective, and made
inexpensively. A museum
store should also act to
support and reinforce the
interpretive theme of the site.
Selling either period craft
items appropriate to the
theme of the site or
publications will take the
visitor one step further in
their understanding of the
site. An exhibit gallery can
allow for interactive displays
or describe or illustrate ideas
that supplement what the
interpreters are able to do.

While all of these

interpretive tools are a means
to an endunderstanding the pastwe will never be able to recreate history in any
kind of literal way. In some ways interpreting the past is like the mariner studying
the lighthouse from the watery distance. Using his compass and his light list for
guidance, and hoping that fog or a snow squall do not alter the beam, he keeps an
eye to his one true contact with land. The actions of the past are a constant focal
point; our interpretations of these actions in the present can affect how clearly we
are able to see the past as it truly was.
(References for this case study can be found under the Related Activities portion of
the Bibliography in Part V., Resources.)

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. C, Page 9

visitors and make learning easy. Audio tours

use hand-held tape decks, radio headsets, and/
or telephone stations. Another tool is a well
produced audio slide show, tape, or film. A
room or portion of a room at the property can
be turned into a small theater, used either for an
introductory or post visit interpretative show.
Cassettes can also be sold to help generate
funds. One of the best introductory lighthouse
films was created by the Minnesota Historical
Society for Split Rock Lighthouse.

CAUTION: All of the above suggestions can

be made into excellent interpretive tools, but,
1) the end product will be only as good as the
basic research; 2) a poorly researched
program or product can be worse than
nothing at all. Misinforming the public is
worse than not informing them at all. Base
research on primary sources and use
professionals when possible. Local museums
and/or state museum associations may be
able to assist in planning and creating a
program. The American Association for
State and Local History, 530 Church Street,
Suite 600, Nashville, TN 37219-2325 (phone
615/255/2971) can also provide assistance.
They also have several publications dealing
with preservation, local history, and
interpretation.

Fundraising Ideas
Montauk Point Lighthouse (New York)
This 108-foot-tall light tower sits on a bluff
on the eastern end of Long Island and rises
160 feet above sea level. The U.S. Coast
Guard leased the lighthouse and grounds,
which include a small museum, to the
Montauk Historical Society. To raise funds
for the Societys restoration, Arlo Guthrie, a
famous American folk singer, has given
concerts to benefit the Montauk Point
Lighthouse and museum. Proceeds from
the concerts have contributed towards
measures to control erosion of the shoreline
which has threatened the lighthouse since
the 1960s.

Part V. C, Page 10

Anclote Key Lighthouse (Florida)

The Anclote Key Save the Light
preservation group has similarly raised
money. Entertainer Bertie Higgins, known
for his hit song Key Largo, performed a
benefit concert in 1994 to help raise public
awareness and funds for the restoration of
the Anclote Key Lighthouse. He also paid
for signs which were erected on the island
announcing the preservation efforts for the
lighthouse. The Florida poet and
songwriter team of Lee Paulet and Betsy
Bolger-Paulet performed a benefit concert
aboard the Casablanca Cruise Ship in
September 1995, also to benefit Anclote
Key Lighthouse.
Fire Island Lighthouse (New York)
The Fire Island Lighthouse Preservation
Society has successfully completed its 10th
annual Barefoot Black Tie, which includes
a buffet dinner, auction/raffle, dancing, and
entertainment, all under the stars by ticket
only (rain or starlight). Over 500 people
attended the 1996 event, coming from all
over the country and arriving by car, water
taxi, and private boat. The King Wellington
Calypso Band provided the entertainment
appropriately set in front of the lighthouse.
Grand Haven Lighthouse Catwalk
(Michigan)
Lighthouse catwalks were constructed to
allow the light keepers to safely transit
above the long piers (1,000 plus feet)
extending into Lake Michigan at Grand
Haven, South Haven, St. Josephs, and
Manistee, Michigan, as well as Michigan
City, Indiana. The catwalks allowed the
light keeper to access and tend the pierhead
lighthouses by walking 10 to 12 feet above
the breaking waves and ice formed during
stormy weather and during the winter.
Once the lighthouses were automated in
the 1960s, however, the catwalks were no

RELATED ACTIVITIES

longer needed by servicing or maintenance

personnel.
The U.S. Coast Guard made plans to
demolish the catwalks in 1987 because of
their deteriorating conditioncaused by ice
damage to the iron supporting structure and
concrete footingsand missing and rotting
wood planking. The catwalks were an
attractive nuisance to youth who would
attempt to climb them even though access
to the steps was fenced off and locked.
There was a serious concern of possible
injuries.
Grand Haven catwalk was originally
constructed of wood in 1871. It was
replaced by the present iron catwalk with
wooden planking in 1922. The catwalk

and the two lighthouses it serviced on the

Grand Haven pier became landmarks to the
tourist community over the years and were
even featured on the citys official
stationary. Coast Guard officials asked the
city if it would take over responsibility for
repairing and maintaining the catwalk
before drafting plans and specifications for
demolition. The city was not in a position
at the time to assume responsibility;
however, a local citizens group, Save the
Catwalk, Incorporated, was formed on May
22, 1987, for that purpose. The group
worked actively with the city and the U.S.
Coast Guard to develop an acceptable plan
to 1) make repairs to the catwalk under a
license from the Coast Guard, and 2)
develop a plan (including liability

USCG photo

Figure 7. To raise
funds to combat erosion
problems at Montauk
Point Light Station,
Montauk, New York,
the Montauk Historical
Society sponsors
concerts.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. C, Page 11

NMI photo

Figure 8. As a result of the Mid Atlantic Center for the Arts' successful fundraising and restoration program, the Cape May
Light Station was transferred to that organization through the State of New Jersey. The Coast Guard still maintains access
to the active aid to navigation in the historic tower.

insurance) to maintain the catwalk in the

future.
The group arranged many local fundraisers
to attract attention and assistance for their
cause. Once the license to make repairs
was issued, they removed all of the existing
wood planking on the catwalk. They kept
the good boards and cut them into pieces
approximately 12 inches in length. Working
with local artists and woodcarvers, a silk
screened image of the Grand Haven
lighthouses and catwalk was placed on
each board. Then the wood was carved to
make the lighthouses and catwalk stand out
and a short history of the catwalk and the
groups cause was glued on the back. Each
board was sold as a piece of the Catwalk.
This innovative idea raised substantial funds
which were later used for repairs and
maintenance of the catwalk.
Cape May Lighthouse (New Jersey)
Cape May Lighthouse, a conical brick tower
standing 157 feet tall, was completed in

Part V. C, Page 12

1859. Over the years this lighthouse and

others of similar design built along the midAtlantic seaboard during the 1850-1870
era, have shown significant structural
deterioration. Repairs to the Cape Lookout
Lighthouse, North Carolina, (of similar
design and built during the same period) to
prevent structural collapse of the lantern
room cost approximately $300,000 in
1988. Likewise, the Cape May lighthouse
needed repair work totaling $200,000300,000. The U.S. Coast Guard placed this
maintenance/repair project on its agenda,
and although this work was necessary, it
was lower priority than many other repair
projects. The high cost of the lighthouse
repairs prevented funding; the lighthouse
continued to deteriorate, with the only
maintenance being performed by servicing
personnel who had very limited
capabilities.
In 1983, a local citizens group, the MidAtlantic Center for the Arts (MAC),
expressed an interest in leasing the Cape

RELATED ACTIVITIES

May Lighthouse from the U.S. Coast Guard

for restoration and public education. After
extensive negotiations between the U.S.
Coast Guard, the state of New Jerseys
Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy (NJDEPE), and the MAC group,
an agreement was reached. In December
1986 the Coast Guard leased the lighthouse
to NJDEPEs Division of Parks and Forestry,
which operates an adjoining state park. At
the same time, the NJDEPE signed a
sublease with the Mid-Atlantic Center for
the Arts to restore, maintain, and open the
structure to the public.
MAC hired restoration architects to
determine the cost to restore the lighthouse.
The architects projected that $1,000,000
would be needed over a ten-year period.
Over $500,000 has been spent already by
the group to allow the public to safely
climb to the top of the tower.
The group used many innovative and
successful fundraising ideas to pay for
completed and planned repairs. In addition
to giving tours of the tower and selling
lighthouse souvenirs such as T-shirts,
pictures, books and magnets, they initiated
brick owner certificates. For a nominal $1
a visitor could get a certificate stating that
the bearer of such certificate owns one
brick of the Cape May Lighthouse in
recognition for their contribution to the
restoration of this historic landmark. Larger
contributors were recognized for
purchasing steps ($100), windows ($500),
and landings ($1,000). In addition to
receiving certificates, contributors of $500
or more were included on a bronze plaque
mounted on the first floor of the lighthouse.
As a result of MACs successful fundraising
and restoration plan, the Coast Guard
transferred ownership of the Cape May
Lighthouse to the Mid-Atlantic Center for
the Arts in 1992. U.S. Coast Guard
personnel still retain access rights to
maintain the active light and associated
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

equipment atop the lighthouse. This

undertaking was a win-win situation for
both the local community and the U.S.
Coast Guard and is an excellent example of
how leasing/privatization of lighthouses can
succeed under the right management and
circumstances.

Funding Sources
The National Historic Preservation Act
provides financial support to state historic
preservation programs from the Historic
Preservation Fund managed by the National
Park Service. Using these funds allocated
to each state, State Historic Preservation
Offices provide grants for historic
preservation activities throughout each
state. At least 10 percent of the HPF
allocated to each state must be granted to
local governments whose preservation
programs have been certified by the State
Historic Preservation Officer and the
Secretary of Interior. The certified local
government can use these funds for a
variety of historic preservation activities,
subject to guidelines established by the
National Park Service. A number of states
have state-funded grant or loan programs to
support historic preservation activities
including purchase, rehabilitation, and
acquisition of easements on historic
properties. Contact your SHPO to receive
guidelines on application for federal and
state funds and to determine if your project
could qualify for certified local government
funds.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) declares that
it is national policy to develop a National
Intermodal Transportation Systems that is
economically efficient, environmentally
sound, provides the foundation for the
Nation to compete in the global economy
and will move people and goods in an
energy efficient manner. ISTEA requires
coordination in transportation planning

Part V. C, Page 13

between state transportation departments

and metropolitan planning organization,
and these planning efforts must have a
significant public participation component.
An important feature of ISTEA is that a
minimum of 10 percent of Surface
Transpiration Program funds allocated to
each state must be used for transportation
enhancement activities. Eligible
enhancement activities include acquisition
of scenic easements and scenic or historic
sites; landscaping; and rehabilitation and
operation of historic transportation
buildings, structures, or facilities including
lighthouses.
The Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974, as amended, include many
provisions including historic preservation.
In 1974, the existing law was changed to
combine a number of categorical grant
programs into a single program under
which the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) provides
Community Development Block Grants
(CDBG) to local government, which have
broad discretion in their use. CDBG funds
can be used to support historic preservation
activities, as well as activities that may
damage historic properties. The local
government that receives the grants, not
HUD, is responsible for compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act and
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. Participation in a local
governments housing and community
development program is an important
activity for many local preservation
programs.
Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 permits income and estate
tax deductions for charitable contributions
of partial interests in historic property.
Generally, the donations of qualified real
property interest to preserve a historically
important land areas or a certified historic
structure meets the test of a charitable

Part V. C, Page 14

contribution for conservation purposes. For

purposes of the charitable contribution
provisions only, a certified historic structure
need not be depreciable to qualify, may be
a structure other than a building, and may
also be a remnant of a building, such as a
facade, if that is all that remains, and may
include the land area on which it is located.
State arts and humanities councils are also a
possible source of funding for particular
preservation projects. Private foundations
and charitable organizations that fund
projects in special fields of interest to your
project may also be possible sources of
funding. For information on these and
other possible funding sources, contact your
State Historic Preservation Office and the
following sources:
National Endowment for the Humanities
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 318
Washington, D.C. 20506
(202) 606-8310
National Endowment for the Arts
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20506
(202) 606-5437
The Foundation Center
1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(800) 424-9836

Use of Volunteers/Community
Involvement
One the most important resources in any
restoration or interpretation effort is the use
of volunteers. Forming partnerships with
members of the community where the
lighthouse is located can be the most
critical element in the success of a
lighthouse project. Local businesses may
be willing to support restoration projects
with donations of supplies or expertise.
Citizens may want to show their support
not just in monetary ways, but with their
time and expertise.

RELATED ACTIVITIES

CASE STUDY: Point San Luis Lighthouse Keepers

by Robert S. Vessely, Point San Luis Lighthouse Keepers
The Point San Luis Obispo Light Station at Avila Beach, California, was automated in
1973; subsequently the Coast Guard personnel were moved out of the station and the
property was closed. Maintenance and security of the site fell to the personnel of the
Port San Luis Harbor District which owns and manages the adjacent harbor. In 1992
the light station and its 30-plus acre reservation were granted to the Harbor District on
the condition that the buildings and site be restored in conformance with the Secretary
of the Interiors Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects and be
opened to the public.
Almost immediately, the Harbor District and the Land Conservancy of San Luis
Obispo County began to study the site and raise funds for its restoration. To handle
the dimensions of the task, they set up an organization in 1994the Point San Luis
Lighthouse Keepersindependent of both the Harbor District and the Land
Conservancy, for the sole purpose of carrying out the conditions of the agreement.
The Lighthouse Keepers is an all-volunteer, nonprofit organization, made up of a wide
variety of individuals from throughout the county. Through community outreach and
word-of-mouth, the Keepers have developed a solid core of members who are
consistently involved and a peripheral group of helpers and patrons.
When the Lighthouse Keepers began to analyze the site, they found a mixed blessing.
Many of the original buildings remained, but the weather, vandalism, and theft had
taken a serious toll. Fortunately, the fourth-order Fresnel lens had been removed from
the tower in 1976 and safely kept in the County Historical Museum. The original
tower, which is attached to the head keepers quarters remains largely intact along
with the whistle house, coal house, oil house, catch water basin and cisterns, and one
privy. Originally there had been another privy and a double dwelling for the assistant
keepers, but they were removed by the Coast Guard. Two new assistant keepers
quarters have been added, one in about 1950 and the other in 1961. The pier that was
originally the only means of supply for the station had been damaged and was
removed by the Coast Guard.
Fortunately, the roofs of the buildings were in reasonable condition and kept the rain
out. Unfortunately, many of the windows and doors had been broken out by vandals.
The head keepers quarters had been stripped of nearly everything, including door and
window hardware, light fixtures and even many of the stone mantle pieces. When the
Lighthouse Keepers took over, there was literally only one set of door knobs left and a
couple of window latches. Since the head keepers quarters had been partially open to
the weather, many of the double-hung window pulleys had been almost completely
dissolved by the marine air.
Aside from the restoration issues, the Keepers are faced with a significant access
obstacle. The road to the light station is a narrow, winding, one-lane road precariously
perched on the bluff above the bay. In addition, it crosses land owned by Pacific Gas
and Electric Company (PG&E), which operates the Diablo Canyon nuclear power
plant just four miles up the coast from the light station. Originally the road was built

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. C, Page 15

Point San Luis Lighthouse Keepers photo

Point San Luis Lighthouse Keepers photo

Figures 9 and 10. The Point

San Luis Keepers devote one
Saturday a month to
preserving the San Luis
Obispo Light Station, Avila
Beach, California.

on an easement granted by the previous property owner, but whether or not the
easement is transferable is not clear. PG&E will allow the Lighthouse Keepers access
for restoration work, but will not allow access by the general public. Clearly, the legal
and physical status of the road will have to be improved before the light station can
be opened to the public. The Lighthouse Keepers and the Harbor District have
explored the idea of replacing the light station pier, but the complications and costs of
that are just as daunting.
The Lighthouse Keepers have organized on a number of fronts. Committees have
been set up to study the buildings and make recommendations about restoration, to
collect oral histories from people who lived at or had contact with the light station
when it was in operation, to study the access issues, and to work on fundraising.
Monthly work days have been established. One Saturday each month the group
cleans, trims trees, replaces windows, scrapes and applies paint, inventories doors or

Part V. C, Page 16

RELATED ACTIVITIES

hardware, and documents the buildings and site. These workdays have proven to be an
important part of the glue that holds the Lighthouse Keepers together. Everyone enjoys
the work daysskilled professionals and others as well. Its a chance to have a handson part in the restoration.

Relocating Lighthouses
Recently there has been much publicity
over the movement of lighthouses in an
effort to save them from impending dangers
such as erosion. When the Lighthouse
Establishment approved the first Sharps
Island Lighthouse, built in 1837 in
Chesapeake Bay, the plans called for a
small wooden keepers house surmounted
with a lantern and designed with wheels
so it could be easily moved in the event
that erosion threatened the structure. The
lighthouse was so moved in 1848,
presumably on these wheels.
Likewise the U.S. Lighthouse Board well
understood the dangers of erosion; several
lighthouses were specifically designed to be
moveable. In areas with shifting and
eroding beaches, cast-iron plate towers
were designed so they could be
disassembled and re-erected as needed.
This was relatively easy to accomplish as
the prefabricated, curved, cast-iron panels
were bolted together. Cape Canaveral
Lighthouse (1868), Florida, and Hunting
Island Lighthouse (1875), South Carolina,
are examples of this design; both have been
successfully moved.
The National Park Service has conducted
studies which conclude the safest method
to preserve Cape Hatteras Lighthouse,
which is presently being threatened by
erosion, is to move it back from the beach
front. Ironically, some citizens argue that
such a move will destroy the integrity of the
lighthouse setting. Actually, when the Cape
Hatteras Lighthouse was built in 1870, it
was located approximately one-half-mile
inland to protect it from beach erosion. But
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

erosion of the beach has encroached to the

point where it now endangers the structure.
The movement inland of the lighthouse and
its other station structures would in reality
present a more appropriately true setting of
the lighthouse as it appeared when it was
first completed.
Should a lighthouse be moved? The best
answer is nounless the structure is
threatened by destruction. While any
historic structure is best located in its
original location, it is better to have a
historic structure in a non-original location
than to have no historic structure at all. If a
move is necessary to save the structure,
every effort should be made to maintain as
much of the original station integrity as
possible. The lighthouse tower should
normally have the same orientation to the
water as it had before the move. Other
station structures should be similarly moved
to demonstrate the same relationship of one
structure to the other. Landscaping can also
be used to help restore the original setting
of the station. Before any move of any
historic structure is undertaken, contact
your SHPO. Any historic structure listed in
the National Register of Historic Places may
lose such designation once moved. If a
move is absolutely necessary and approved
by the SHPO, make sure the move is
conducted by a reliable moving company
with proven success.

Part V. C, Page 17

CASE STUDY:
Relocation of the
Block Island
Southeast Lighthouse
by Mike E. Prible,
International Chimney
Corporation

ICC photo

When originally constructed

in 1873, Block Islands
Southeast Lighthouse rested
safely atop Mohegan Bluff on
the Southeast tip of Block
Figure 11. Block Island Southeast Light Station before the move.
Island, Rhode Island,
approximately 150 feet above
sea level. By 1993, 120 years of erosion had whittled the 300 feet of land between
the lighthouse and the edge of Mohegan Bluffs down to a mere 55 feet, putting the
lighthouse in danger of crashing into the sea.
Thanks to local preservation efforts, money was raised to save the historic lighthouse.
In February 1993, International Chimney Corporation (ICC) of Buffalo, New York, was
awarded a $1.9 million dollar contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to move
the lighthouse to safety, back away from
the edge of Mohegan Bluffs. The move
was paid for with money raised by local
sources and funding from the State of
Rhode Island and the Federal
Government. ICCs plan called for the
entire lighthouse, complete with attached
masonry building and upper portion of
the original foundation, to be moved
intact.

ICC photo

An ingenious and complex system was

devised to move the lighthouse over its
360-foot journey. Pete Friesen, a noted
consultant in the house-moving field
worked with ICC to design the move. In
simplified terms, the entire weight of the
lighthouse (estimated at a total of
4,000,000 pounds) was to be transferred
from its masonry foundation to a grid of

Part V. C, Page 18

Figure 12. In preparation for the move, the cellar

windows openings are temporarily bricked in to stabilize
the masonry above the lift point.

RELATED ACTIVITIES

ICC photo

crisscrossing steel beams and then

pushed along tracks to its new home.
The tracks were made of steel beams
with case-hardened strike plates and laid
on oak cribbing along a zig-zag path
between the old lighthouse location and
the new. In all, approximately 800,000
pounds of steel was used in the beam
grid and track system.

ICC photo

Figure 13. A complete structural survey of the building

was performed and documented in order to perform the
structural repairs necessary to move the building intact.
All loose or eroded mortar joints were cut out and
carefully pointed with a new mortar mix designed to
closely resemble the original. All chimneys were
braced and cabling installed around the perimeter to
catch problem areas.

Figure 14. The concrete floor of the light tower was

removed and earth excavated by hand in order to perform
stabilization from the interior of the structure.

In April 1993, after a detailed

engineering analysis and planning, the
design was complete. Preparations at
the site began. The 237,000-candlepower Fresnel lens, handcrafted in
France (seen from as far away as 22
miles), was packed with sound- and
vibration-dampening insulation to
protect it during the move. Fire escapes
and porches were removed, with porch
roofs left in place. All mechanical
equipment was removed from the
basement. Six feet of earth was
excavated from around the entire
lighthouse and a path between the
original foundation and the new
foundation was excavateda total of
approximately 5,000 cubic yards of earth
in all. Cellar windows were bricked in,
the beam grid system installed, a new
18-inch-thick reinforced concrete slab
foundation constructed, and other
preparations made. Approximately 245
yards of concrete, 75 yards under the
tower and 170 yards under the building,
and 72,000 pounds of steel reinforcing
were used in the new slab foundation.
Other reinforcing included wooden
bracing in window openings and around
chimneys, 3/4-inch-diameter steel
cabling around the entire structure,
temporary wooden bracing supporting
porch roofs, and bricked-in window
openings.
Transfer of the lighthouse to the beam
grid was accomplished by cutting holes

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. C, Page 19

Figure 17. A foundation slab is being poured using 36

tons of rebar and 245 yards of concrete. This 18-inchthick slab was designed to handle the dynamic load of
the building travelling across the slab to its final
position.

Part V. C, Page 20

ICC photo
ICC photo

Following the transfer of the lighthouse

load from its foundation to the beam
grid, all 38 hydraulic lifting jacks were
activated in unison and the entire
structure was raised vertically
approximately 2 feet from its original
elevation. The structure was then
cribbed on oak timbers, tracks positioned
below and parallel to the main beams,
and the hydraulics for the jacks rerouted
to three separate zones to allow for
compensation on uneven surfaces during
travel, i.e., no stress would be placed on
the structure if a bump or soft spot was
encountered, because the structure
would roll like a ship rather than bend.
By August 11, 1993, preparations were
complete. The lighthouse was ready for
the move.

Figure 15. A hydraulic chain saw with industrial

diamond teeth is being used to cut openings below the
grade line for insertion of the steel beams.

Figure 16. Close-up of the opening for the beam cut

by the wire saw measuring 5 feet high by 3 feet, 6
inches wide. The depth of the cuts ranged from 18
inches to 16 feet for multiple wall cuts.

ICC photo

through the original foundation, below

grade level; then beams were inserted
through the holes, in one side of the
building and out the other. Multiple
levels of beams were required. The
lighthouse rested on an upper level of
cross beams that were perpendicularly
seated on four duplex main beams,
which would house the hydraulic jacks.
Thirty-eight hydraulic lifting/levelling
jacks (capable of lifting 60 tons each)
were installed to lift the lighthouse and
to keep it level during the move. Thirtyeight 75-ton Hilman roller dollies were
installed under the jacks. Once all the
beams were in place, remaining portions
of the foundation (the area between
holes cut in the foundation) were
removed. ICC worked in unison with
Expert House Movers, a subcontractor
experienced in moving large structures.

RELATED ACTIVITIES

ICC photo

Figure 18. Large cross steel beams are inserted into the cut
opening to form part of the grid that will carry the building.

The move was accomplished by

pushing the lighthouse along its
newly installed track system in 5-foot
increments with four hydraulic
pushing rams (capable of pushing 30
tons each). After the lighthouse was
pushed approximately 5 feet, all four
pushing rams had to be retracted for
the next 5-foot move. The lighthouse
did not travel in a straight line from
its original location to its new home.
If this were done, loads on the
network of beams under the
lighthouse would have become too
uneven. Instead, the move was
accomplished in three separate stages
(legs). Time was required between
legs of the move for changes in the
track system in preparation for the 90degree change in direction the
lighthouse was about to take.

ICC photo

ICC photo

On August 24, 1993, Block Island

Southeast Lighthouse reached its new
home. It sat positioned with
approximately 5 feet between the top
Figure 19. Once the initial lift was performed, the
remaining foundation between the beams was removed.
of its new reinforced concrete slab
foundation and the underside of
remaining portions of its original
masonry foundation. Solid brick was
laid to fill the 5-foot gap
(approximately 80,000 brick were
required). Beams used to support the
lighthouse during its journey were
removed after brick was laid between
the beams to carry the load. Wooden
bracing and other temporary
measures were removed; porches
were installed; grading, landscaping,
Figure 20. Four hydraulic rams set into the track steel
and final cleanup tasks completed.
pushed against the main steel to set the lighthouse in
Once again, the Block Island
motion.
Southeast Lighthouse rests a safe
distance from the edge of Mohegan Bluffs, still facing in its original direction.
Subsequent restoration work performed in 1994 focused on the stabilization of the
lower gallery deck and disassembly, repair, and isolation of all lantern elements. This

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. C, Page 21

ICC photo

ICC photo

Figure 21. After the first leg of the journey was

completed, the track steel was repositioned for a 90
turn.

Figure 22. Construction of a new foundation around the

support beams.

ICC photo

included removal of the existing lens and pedestal, the design and installation (by the
Coast Guard) of a different fixed lens, and installation of a new lens support platform.

Figure 23. On August 23, 1993, the Block Island Southeast Light Station reached its new home.

Part V. C, Page 22

RELATED ACTIVITIES

Safety Management Issues

Tripping: Proper lighting and handrails are

the two most critical methods for reducing
tripping on stairs. Most stairs in lighthouse
towers consist of a spiraling series of pieshaped treads. The narrow part of the tread
toward the center of the tower is the most
dangerous because there is usually no hand
rail and the tread to riser ratio of the stair
makes a misstep more likely to lead to a
trip, possibly resulting in a fall. Precautions
used at some lighthouses include the
placement of a second inner handrail about
two-thirds of the way across the tread. This
keeps visitors from using the narrow portion
of the tread and provides a second handrail.
In larger lighthouses where the tread is
wide enough, visitors going up can use the
outer handrail along the inner wall of the
tower and visitors going down can use the
inner handrail. In smaller towers where it is
difficult for visitors to share the stairs going
both up and down, it may be necessary to
limit access to guided tours and/or
alternating one-way sections along the
stairs; similar to traffic lights on a one-lane
bridge.
Stairwells are often not well lit so that
sections between landings where windows
are usually located are dark. On cloudy
days these sections become even less well
lit. Artificial lighting can also create

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

NMI photo

Lighthouse towers were not designed for

access by the general public and were built
before modern building code regulations.
Therefore, providing safe access to light
towers for the general public is challenging.
The most serious concerns include: tripping
on stairs; falling, either deliberately or
unintentionally, from the tower; throwing of
objects from tower; visitor behavior;
emergency evacuation; and fire safety.
Because of these concerns, some lighthouse
sites restrict public access to the tower
altogether.

Figure 24. Visitors are prohibited from the Barnegat

Lighthouse's lantern room; however, they can view it from
the watch room through plexiglas sheets. While these
protective sheets prevent access to the lantern room, they do
collect dust and need periodic cleaning. In other
lighthouses, a person is stationed in the watch room to
prohibit access to the lantern room as well as control visitor
behavior.

problems if not well designed. For

example, many treads in light towers are
cast-iron treads with perforations cast into
them to make them lightweight. Light
directed from below may shine through the
treads and/or around them, making the
tread surface appear less visible to those
descending the stair. Strong light directed
into the eyes of climbers can also affect
their ability to see the stair tread surfaces
properly. At one lighthouse tower (Cape
May), strip lighting, similar to that seen in
movie theater isles, was placed under the
nose of each tread illuminating the surface
of the tread below. Installations of such
systems can be made reversible so they do
Part V. C, Page 23

not permanently harm the historic fabric of

the structure.

Figure 25. To protect visitors from falling or jumping from

a lighthouse tower, a safety railing system or cage is often
built around the gallery decks. The cage at Barnegat
Lighthouse was designed so that it has minimal impact on
the historic structure and can be removed with little, if any,
damage to the original fabric. Note that the cage is also
enclosed to prevent climbing over the top.

Part V. C, Page 24

NMI photo

NMI photo

Falling: For those lighthouses where visitors

are allowed to access the gallery decks
around the watch room and/or lantern,
special precautions must be taken to keep
visitors from accidentally falling or from
attempting suicide. Some visitors who are
not in good health, while climbing the stairs
and/or upon reaching the gallery deck may
experience dizziness, cardiac or respiratory
distress, disorientation, fear of heights,
unsteadiness of legs, etc. High
temperatures in the upper portion of a
tower may also be a health hazard. All of
these symptoms may contribute to
accidental falling. The most effective

method used by many lighthouse groups is

to build a metal cage that fits around the
gallery deck. The maximum space between
pickets should be no more than four inches
(BOCA, Building Officials & Code
Administrators, International). The pickets
need to completely extend to a structural
element above or bend back to the tower/
lantern wall so no one, even if deliberately
climbing, could get over the top. One
lighthouse suicide in 1995 was
accomplished by climbing between
overhead cage pickets with 9-inch spacing.
Cages can be designed so they are attached
reversibly to light towers without doing any
permanent damage to the historic fabric of
the structure.

Figure 26. Note how the cage is clamped to the gallery

deck, minimizing any impact on the structure's original
fabric.

RELATED ACTIVITIES

Throwing Objects: The throwing of objects

from any height can cause serious harm,
even death, to visitors below. The use of
screens, such as rat-wire, will limit such
practices but can also detract from the
visitor experience. Most lighthouses have
adopted the practice of prohibiting the
throwing of objects from the tower as part
of the rules for being admitted to the tower.
Docents must be present at the top of the
tower to remind visitors, especially
children, of such rules.
Visitor Behavior: While most visitors do not
run up or down stairs, push or pass others
on the stairs, climb rails, throw objects, or
horse around, there will always be that
small faction who do. Children often run
ahead of their parents and essentially
become unchaperoned; large school groups
also can be problematical. Others just do
not realize the hazards of a lighthouse
tower. Many lighthouse groups have
devised rules for visitors which are posted
at the base of the tower and which visitors
are expected to follow. These same rules
are often provided in onsite brochures.
Caution can also be indicated on signage,
warning those in poor physical condition of
potential hazards to their health. It is
helpful to indicate the total height of the
climb and number of stairs to the top.
Some larger lighthouses which have stair
landings provide a cross-section of the
tower plan showing visitors where they are
in relation to the top or bottom of the
tower. Many lighthouses also have
someone at the bottom and someone at top
to help control visitors.
Weather conditions: Adverse weather
conditions such as high velocity winds,
rain, and lightning may force lighthouse
sites to close temporarily for safety reasons.
Emergency Evacuation for Injury &
Accidents: The most probable injury/
emergency is an accident from tripping,
falling, or heart attack. Most lighthouse
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

groups have a person on station at the

bottom and one at the top of the tower. For
tall towers this is essential. These
individuals must have communication
between themselves and outside help in the
form of a telephone or walkie talkie. They
should be trained in first aid, CPR, and have
a clear understanding of when to and when
not to move an injured individual. They
should also have written guidelines on
proper procedures for notifying the police
and/or ambulance. It is highly
recommended to keep a well stocked firstaid kit onsite at all times.
Fire: Another concern is fire. Smoke in the
tower can make emergency evacuation
from a tower very difficult. This is
especially true for a light tower attached to
a keepers quarters or other structures where
a fire might begin and affect evacuation
from the tower itself. Staff, whether paid or
volunteer, must have training in fire
evacuation procedures, which in some
cases may require keeping visitors on the
gallery deck instead of descending into the
smoke. Smoke detectors are difficult to
position in a lighthouse tower as smoke is
not trapped until it reaches the watch room
and/or lantern. Many types of smoke
detectors are not rated for use in unheated
buildings or for below-freezing
temperatures; towers in areas with
subfreezing environments will require
another solution. Lighthouse towers are not
treated as a separate building type in code
books. One lighthouse tower was
successfully evaluated as an aviation traffic
control tower as far as meeting fire code
concerns. Lighthouse organizations need to
work closely with their local fire marshal
and code officials. Preparation of fire safety
objectives is strongly recommended (see
following text, Fire Prevention and
Protection Objectives").
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
Providing accessibility for people with

Part V. C, Page 25

disabilities in historic lighthouses and

associated structures is an important and
challenging task. To balance accessibility
and historic preservation mandates, owners
of historic properties should take care to
provide the greatest level of accessibility
without threatening or destroying features
and materials that convey a propertys
significance. New construction and
alterations to historic properties, including
restoration and rehabilitation, must meet
specific accessibility requirements (in
general, maintenance, such as reroofing and
painting, do not trigger specific compliance
requirements). While ADA regulations
mandate that accessibility for the disabled
be given priority, if it is not possible to
make a historic building physically
accessible without threatening or destroying
its significance, which is the case with most
lighthouses, alternative methods of access
must be used. This includes management
of interpretive programs and media, such as
audio/visual materials and other interpretive
devices which show inaccessible areas of
the historic property, and/or displays and
written material located where it can be
used by an impaired, challenged, or
disabled person. These alternatives are
only possible for qualified historic
properties such as those listed or
determined eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places, and
those designated under State or local law,
and only after consultation and approval
from your State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) (see Part VI., Resources for
SHPO list). A useful free brochure on this
issue, Preserving the Past and Making it
Accessible for People with Disabilities, is
available from the National Park Service's
Heritage Preservation Services (see Part VI.,
Resources).

Fire Prevention and Protection

Objectives
Despite the fact that most lighthouses are
constructed of noncombustible materials,1
fire can still be a threat to historic
lighthouses. The impacts of a fire are
devastating and will often cause serious
irreversible damage and loss of historic
fabric, not to mention injury or even death
to its occupants. Fire prevention and
protection work together to create a fire
safety plan. The working assumption must
be that there will be a fire despite the best
prevention efforts. Fire safety plans for the
control of a fire, or for understanding the
consequences of lack of fire control, must
be developed and must be realistic.
Prevention planning is the most important
element of protecting historic lighthouses
and their admiring public from fire.
A systematic approach to fire prevention
should seek to satisfy the following three
general fire safety objectives: prevent fire
ignition; control the effects of fire should
one start; and protect the building
occupants and contents from the effects of a
fire. A fire safety plan would also help in
identifying those architectural features of
the lighthouse which are significant; part of
the plan would be to identify ways to limit
damage to the structure caused by fire,
smoke, and firefighting efforts.
In historic lighthouses the most important of
these three goals is to prevent fire ignition.
Fire prevention management is essentially
the control of possible ignition sources
within the lighthouse. Three conditions
contribute to ignition: inadequately
controlled ignition sources, hazardous
arrangements of fuel, and circumstances or
behaviors that bring the two together.

Twelve percent of all lighthouses are constructed

of wood according to the National Park Service's 1994
Inventory of Historic Light Stations.
1

Part V. C, Page 26

RELATED ACTIVITIES

There is seldom a high degree of control

over these conditions. Consequently,
lighthouse managers must be alert to their
possible presence in a project and be
prepared to control or compensate for
them.
Identify possible ignition sources such as
fuel and seek to control or eliminate them.
The three most common sources of ignition
are: open flame (especially related to
careless use of smoking materials),
electrical energy (arc), and mechanical
energy (friction).
Suggestions for minimizing the threat of
ignition are:
To minimize fires caused by vandalism the
interior should be kept clean and free from
storage of maintenance and operational
equipment and supplies. This includes items
such as fuel containers, old batteries, lawn
mowers, bulk paper, or rags, etc., as well as
combustible materials. Grounds should be kept
in a similar manner. Security is another high
priority and all openings should be secured to
prohibit unauthorized entry.
To minimize the threat of an electrical fire, any
existing electrical service should be inspected
by a licensed electrician. Any deficiencies
should be corrected or the service should be
disconnected if there is no need for power. This
is especially critical during times of stabilization
or mothballing when the structure is likely to be
unoccupied for long periods of time.

Tragically, another frequent cause of fire is

construction activities. Work taking place
during the protection and stabilization
phase has often created dangerous
situations sometimes leading to disaster.
Careful planning and oversight of
construction activities should include the
development and use of a strict fire safety
plan. Storage of combustible or volatile
construction or housekeeping materials
such as paints, solvents, cleaning fluids and
rags, packing materials, or fuels in the
lighthouse must be prohibited.

Open flames should not be allowed in or near

the lighthouse. If the structure has a fireplace or
stove pipe connection, chimneys, flues, or
stoves, they should be inspected regularly and
fires permitted only under strict guidance with
properly rated fire extinguishers nearby. The
use of fire in a historic setting for interpretive
reasons must be carefully considered. Smoking
should be prohibited in all locations.
Hazardous areas, such as a generator room,
should be compartmentalized and separated
through the use of fire-rated partitions if they are
located in the historic lighthouse. Removing
this type of use from the historic structure is
another alternative.

NFPA2 241 Safeguarding Construction,

Alteration and Demolition Operations;
NFPA 911 Protection of Museums and
Museum Collections; and NFPA 914
Recommended Practice for Fire Protection
on Historic Structures offer valuable
guidance in developing fire prevention and
protection strategies.
Suggestions for controlling the effects of fire
after one has started:
Fire extinguishers should be located at various
positions throughout the lighthouse for prompt
use in the event of a localized emergency.
Local authorities should be brought in for a tour
of the structure and grounds so they may assist
in planning the number, type, and location of
fire extinguishers or other firefighting
equipment. Fire extinguishers require annual
inspection and maintenance. Some types
should not be subject to below-freezing
temperatures.
In populated areas a Neighborhood Watch
program can be organized in cooperative effort
with local police and fire department
authorities. An intrusion alarm system
connected to a central station alarm will alert
managers to vandalism events.
There are two ways to detect a structure fire:
human observation and fire-detection systems.
Unfortunately, most historic lighthouses are no
longer occupied on a full-time basis. Therefore,

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA),

Quincy, Massachusetts, 617/ 770-4543
2

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part V. C, Page 27

photoelectric smoke detectors and mechanical

heat detectors should be used to supplement the
human detector capability when it makes sense.
Photoelectric- or ionization-type smoke
detectors are not rated for use in below-freezing
environments. Consult with local authorities or
professionals for placement, number, and types
of detectors.
A combination of heat and smoke detectors
connected to a central station alarm is an
effective way to detect fires when a signal can
be relayed to authorities who can respond in a
timely manner. Heat and smoke detectors must
be used to create a system designed for each
individual structure as each building has its own
unique fire behavior. The use of these systems
is more problematic with lighthouses located in
remote areas, although an emergency response
plan should still be developed.
An evacuation plan should also be developed
with the local authorities. The performance of
the tower itself as a natural chimney must be
carefully considered, especially if the attached
vestibule house or dwelling house construction
is combustible. Since most lighthouse towers
have only one means of egress, and that may be
through a combustible structure, evacuation
must be carefully planned. This plan should be
posted at entry points and available onsite for
education of all docents.
An emergency or disaster plan should be drawn
up by responsible parties. Local authorities
should have input. Meeting with the local fire
department or volunteer fire company is a first
step. Orientation to the structure will
familiarize the authorities with the nature of the
structure and will allow for discussion of local
options for dealing with fire prevention,
detection, firefighting strategies, and other
emergencies. This plan should also identify the
important architectural features of the structure
which warrant special attention and protection
during firefighting operations.

Work with them to develop strategies for

placement of water streams and
identification of locations where smoke
vents will be opened through the structure.
Loss of historic fabric is inevitable, but
identifying what is important will help fire
fighting officials plan their strategy to
minimize damage to the historic lighthouse.
Protecting the building occupants and
contents from the effects of a fire is an
important consideration, especially at sites
where the lighthouse complex is open to
the public and may include museum
facilities housing precious, irreplaceable
artifacts. In these instances careful attention
must be given by lighthouse managers to
the primary protection of life safety and
secondarily to the museum artifacts.
Working with registered architects or fire
department authorities to develop a realistic
and manageable fire safety program should
be a top priority for the historic lighthouse
management community.
See also the following references: NFPA 1
Fire Prevention Code; NFPA 10
Standards for Portable Fire Extinguishers;
NFPA 17 Standard for Dry Chemical
Extinguishing Systems; NFPA 70 National
Electrical Code; NFPA 78 Lightning
Protection Code.

An important part of managing a fire is

support for firefighters. Develop a
firefighting plan with the local authorities as
part of the emergency or disaster plan.
There may be specific character-defining
features of the lighthouse that are more
important to protect than others. Historic
lighthouse managers should talk about
these concerns with firefighting officials.
Part V. C, Page 28

RELATED ACTIVITIES

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

National Archives

RESOURCES
Figure 1. Front elevation drawing plan (1886) for Horn Island Light, Mississippi.

Glossary
Preservation Terms
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
The National Historic Preservation Act created the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an
independent federal agency with statutory authority to
review and comment on federal actions affecting
properties listed in or eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places, to advise the President and the
Congress on historic preservation matters, and to
recommend measures to coordinate activities of federal,
state, and local agencies. Its members include Cabinetlevel representatives from Federal agencies and
presidential appointees from outside the Federal
government.
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA) of
1974 (P.L. 93-291m 88 Stat. 174; 16 U.S.C. 469469c) directs Federal agencies to report to the Secretary
of the Interior when their actions may damage
archeological sites, and to conduct or assist in the
recovery of data from such sites. AHPA authorizes
transfer of up to 1% of project funds to the Department
of the Interior to help cover costs of such recovery.
Archeological ResourcesAs defined by Archeological
Resources Protection Act, an archeological resource is
any material remains of past human life or activities
which are of archeological interest, as determined
under uniform regulations promulgated to this Act...
Non-fossilized and fossilized paleontological
specimens... shall not be considered archeological
resources...No item shall be treated as an archeological
resource...unless such item is at least 100 years of age.
Examples include but are not limited to: pottery,
basketry, bottles, weapons, tools, pit houses, rock
paintings, rock carvings, graves, and human skeletal
materials. Such resources are capable of revealing
scientific or humanistic information through
archeological research.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Condition Assessment ReportA written document

which is the result of the inspection, documentation, and
analysis of the physical condition of the features of an
asset on which work is performed or creates an
identifiable workload. The Condition Assessment Report
will typically include recommendations for corrective
treatment of known maintenance deficiencies as
measured against the applicable maintenance or
condition standards. An asset is the real property which
is managed as a distinct identifiable entity. It may be a
physical structure (lighthouse, keepers quarters, lens) or a
grouping of structures, land features, or other tangible
property which has a specific service or function. A
feature is a distinct element or separately identifiable part
of the structure. Examples of lighthouse specific features
are tower, lantern, interior stair, gallery deck, gallery
brackets, lantern deck, lantern glass, ventilation devices,
roof structure, roof covering, ventilation ball, interior
doors, hardware, window frame, lens pedestal, lens, etc.
The condition assessment report provides the basis for
long-range maintenance planning as well as annual work
plans and budgets. There are varying degrees of
inspection and assessment and these must be tuned to the
improvement requirements for the lighthouse.
Major AssessmentA specialized type of
Condition Assessment in which the focus is on
identifying and documenting long-range
maintenance, repair, restoration, major
modification, and improvement requirements
for assets (historic structures) and their features.
Major Assessments are usually conducted by
experienced professionals on an as-needed
basis.
Scheduled AssessmentCondition Assessment
conducted at the local level, typically by staff or
well trained volunteers, with the intent to
develop the annual maintenance work
requirements for the structure (lighthouse).
Cultural ResourceAn aspect of a cultural system that is
valued by or significantly representative of a culture or
that contains significant information about a culture. Any

Part VI, Page 1

prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or

object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the
National Register [of Historic Places] including artifacts,
records, and material remains related to such property or
resource.
Cultural Resource ManagementThe range of activities
aimed at understanding, preserving, and providing for
the enjoyment of cultural resources. It includes research
related to cultural resources, planning for actions
affecting them, and stewardship of them in the context to
overall agency operations. It also includes support for
the appreciation and perpetuation of related cultural
practices, as appropriate.
DocumentationRecording the condition of a structure
or object before, during, and after reconstruction,
rehabilitation, restoration, stabilization, etc. using visual
(photography, drawings, etc.,) and written (notes,
transcripts, etc.) means.
Executive Order No. 11593, Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural EnvironmentExecutive
Order No. 11593, May 13, 1971, Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (36 Fed. Reg.
8921, reprinted in 16 U.S.C. 470 note) was issued by
President Nixon. It elaborated on Federal agency
responsibilities under NHPA and NEPA and included
direction for agencies to identify historic properties
under their jurisdiction or control, extended Section 106
review to effects on eligible properties, and gave the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation independent
agency status. Many of these responsibilities were
folded into NHPA by amendment in 1980.
Federal Preservation OfficersThe National Historic
Preservation Act mandates that each federal agency must
have a designated Federal Preservation Officer (FPO).
Both the Coast Guard and the Department of
Transportation have designated FPOs as does the
Department of the Navy. The FPO is the official
designated by the head of each Federal agency
responsible for coordinating that agencys activities
under the NHPA of 1966, as amended, and Executive
Order 11593 including nominating properties under that
agencys ownership or control to the National Register.
Federal Property and Administrative Services ActThe
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949 as amended in 1972 (40 U.S.C. 484(k)(3))
authorizes the General Services Administration to
convey approved surplus Federal property to any State
agency or municipality free of charge, provided that the
property is used as a historic monument for the benefit
of the public. The act is also applicable to revenueproducing properties if the income in excess of
rehabilitation or maintenance cost is used for public
historic preservation, park, or recreation purposes and
the proposed income-producing use of the structure is
compatible with historic monument purposes, as
approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The act
includes provisions under which the property would

Part VI, Page 2

revert to the Federal Government should it be used for

purposes incompatible with the objective of preserving
historic monuments.
Folklore/FolklifeThe traditions, beliefs, and customs,
etc. of people which are preserved in song, stories,
crafts, oral histories, and other lifeway forms.
HABS/HAERHistoric American Buildings Survey/
Historic American Engineering RecordThe Historic
American Buildings Survey (HABS) is the oldest Federal
preservation institution. Created in 1933, as a Works
Progress Administration (WPA) program, to document
the historic architecture of the United States through
existing condition measured drawings, large-format
photography, and written historical reports. This
documentation has for generations provided baseline
records for restoration or renovation, and is a permanent
archival and insurance record. The Historic American
Engineering Record (HAER) was created in 1969 and
charged with documenting the nations rapidly
disappearing early engineering, industrial, and
transportation structures. HAER employs many of the
same documenting techniques as HABS, but has also
developed new graphical methods for charting industrial
processes in factories, mines and mills. Since 1933
HABS and HAER have employed over 3,000 architects,
engineers, historians, and photographers in the
documentation of over 32,000 structures.
Historic or Pre-Historic Real PropertyAny
archeological or architectural district, site, building, ship,
aircraft, structure, or object, as well as monuments,
designated landscapes, works of engineering, or other
property that may meet the criteria for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places or an equivalent
register maintained by a State or local government or
agency.
Historic PreservationIncludes identification,
evaluation, recordation, documentation, curation,
acquisition, protection, management, rehabilitation,
restoration, stabilization, maintenance, research,
interpretation, conservation, and education and training
regarding the foregoing activities or any combination of
the foregoing activities.
Historic RecordsAny historical, oral-historical,
ethnographic, architectural, or other document that may
provide a record of the past, whether associated with
real property or not, as determined through professional
evaluation of the information content and significance of
the information.
Historic SiteA site of a significant event, prehistoric or
historic occupation or activity, or structure or landscape
whether extant or vanished, where the site itself
possesses historical, cultural, or archeological value
apart from the value of any existing structure or
landscape.
Historic Sites ActThe Historic Sites Act (HSA) of 1935
(P.L. 74-292, 49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467)
established as national policy to preserve for public use
historic sites, buildings and objects of national

RESOURCES

significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people

of the United States. The Act authorizes and directs the
Secretary of the Interior to make a survey of historic and
archeological sites, buildings, and objects for the
purpose of determining which possess exceptional value
as commemorating or illustrating the history of the
United States. This program has become known as the
National Historic Landmark Program and properties so
designated are referred to as National Historic
Landmarks (NHLs). NHLs are usually designated as part
of theme studies such as War in the Pacific, Man in
Space, and a current theme study on American
Lighthouses. NHLs are automatically listed on the
National Register. Establishes a maximum fine of $500
for violation of the Act.
Historic StructuresHistorically significant constructed
works usually immovable by nature or design,
consciously created to serve some human activity.
Examples are historic buildings of various kinds,
monuments, dams, roads, railroad tracks, canals,
millraces, bridges, tunnels, locomotives, nautical vessels,
stockades, forts and associated earthworks, Indian
mounds, ruins, fences, and outdoor sculpture. In the
National Register program, structure is limited to
functional constructions other than buildings.
Historic Structure Report (HSR)The National Park
Service's historic structure report (HSR) is the primary
guide to treatment and use of a historic structure and
may also be used in managing a prehistoric structure.
Groups of similar structures or ensembles of small,
simple structures may be addressed in a single report.
An HSR includes the following:
Management Summary. This is a concise
account of research done to produce the HSR,
major research findings, major issues identified
in the task directive, and recommendations for
treatment and use. Administrative data on the
structure and related studies are included.
Part 1, Developmental History, is a scholarly
report documenting the evolution of a historic
structure, its current condition, and the causes
of its deterioration. It is based on documentary
research and physical examination. The scope
of documentary research may extend beyond
the physical development of the structure if
needed to clarify the significance of the
resource or to refine contextual associations;
however, major historical investigation of
contextual themes or background information
should be conducted as part of a historic
resource study.
Part 2, Treatment and Use, presents and
evaluates alternative uses and treatments for a
historic structure. Emphasis is on preserving
extant historic material and resolving conflicts
that might result from a structures ultimate
treatment. Part 2 concludes by recommending

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

a treatment and use responding to objectives

identified by park management. In most cases,
design work does not go beyond schematics.
Part 3, Record of Treatment, is a compilation of
information documenting actual treatment. It
includes accounting data, photographs,
sketches, and narratives outlining the course of
work, conditions encountered, and materials
used.
Historical SignificanceThe meaning or value ascribed
to a structure, landscape, object, or site based on the
National Register criteria for evaluation. It normally
stems from a combination of association and integrity.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA)Public Law 102-240, enacted in 1991 is a 6year reauthorization of federally funded transportation
programs. Ten percent of the funding has been set aside
for transportation enhancements and may be used on
different activities, six of which are preservation related.
Lighthouses are transportation related and may qualify
for preservation funding through creative and
cooperative programing.
Major ModificationWork performed on an asset
(historic structure) that is beyond the scope of day-to-day
corrective, preventative, or routine maintenance. Major
modifications typically involve capital improvements;
large scale restorations, rehabilitations, or repairs;
demolitions; or conversions of an asset. Usually, major
modifications are managed as distinct projects, not
maintenance.
MothballingThe temporary closing of a structure such
as a building or ship to protect it from the weather,
reduce the rate of deterioration of materials and systems,
and secure it from vandalism. In Navy facility
management, this term is synonymous with layaway.
National Environmental Policy ActThe National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(P.L. 91-190,
31 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370) created a new
context in which the management of all kinds of cultural
resources could be addressed. It was only after NEPAs
passage that Federal agencies began to address
community lifeway resources in any explicit way, and
NEPA remains the primary legal authority for
considering such resources. NEPA also caused agencies
to develop the infrastructure of the positions, offices,
regulations, and guidelines needed to manage other
kinds of cultural resources, notably historic real
property. The Council on Environmental Quality (40
CFR 1500-08) regulate the policy. The Council
encourages combining NEPA documents and procedures
with other necessary agency documentation (40 CFR
1506.4).
Federal Agency ResponsibilitiesAssure for all
Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically
and culturally pleasing surroundings; preserve
important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our
national heritage; and agencies are directed to utilize a
systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure

Part VI, Page 3

the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and

the environmental design arts in planning and in
decision making...
National Historic LandmarkWhile National Register
listing may include local, state, or national historical
significance, National Historic Landmark status requires
national historical significance. All nominations must be
reviewed and approved by the National Park System
Advisory Board and then by the Secretary of Interior for
final designation. The criteria for selection are the same
as for National Register, but only the exemplary
examples of national significance qualify.
All undertakings that may have an effect on a National
Historic Landmark usually must be reviewed by
adoption of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or a
letter from the Federal agency to the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966The
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as
amended in 1980 (P.L. 89-655, 80 Stat. 915; as amended
by P.L. 91-243, 84 Stat. 204; P.L. 93-54; P.L. 94-422, 90
Stat. 1313; P.L. 94-458; P.L. 96-199; P.L. 96-244; P.L.
96-515, 94 Stat. 2987; P.L. 98-483; P. L. 99-514; P.L.
100-127, 106 Stat. 4753; 16 U.S.C. 470) is the nations
central historic preservation law. The Act sets forth
policy of the U.S. Government regarding historic
preservation and promotes conditions in which historic
properties can be preserved in harmony with modern
society, and fulfill societys needs.
Federal Agency ResponsibilitiesThe Act directs Federal
agencies to name Agency Preservation Officers to
coordinate their historic preservation activities, to seek
ways to carry out their activities in accordance with the
purposes of the Act, to identify historic properties under
their jurisdiction, to consider such properties when
planning actions might affect them, to give the Advisory
Council an opportunity to comment on such actions, and
to document historic properties that cannot be saved.
The Agency Preservation Officer for the Coast Guard is
located at the Department of Transportation
Headquarters, Washington, D.C. The Act also
established the National Register of Historic Places and
the State Historic Preservation Officers, which are
described below.
The 1980 amendments included the addition of Section
of 110, which articulated broad, affirmative
responsibilities in historic preservation for Federal
agencies. These amendments also directed the National
Park Service to issue regulations governing how Federal
agencies would manage, or curate, their collections of
artifacts recovered from archaeological excavations.
These regulations, 36 CFR Part 79, were published in
1990. They provide the basic standards that Federal
agencies must meet in managing their artifact
collections. In addition, the amendments specified State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) responsibilities and
established a special program for participation by local
governments. 36 CFR Part 800 was revised and reissued
in 1986.

Part VI, Page 4

NHPA was amended again in 1992. This amendment

strengthened Section 106 review and increased, among
several items, the historic preservation responsibilities of
Federal agencies including:
require Federal agencies to have preservation
programs with specially defined elements;
require Federal agencies to have Section 106
procedures meeting specific standard; and
discourage anticipatory demolition of
historic properties.
National Register of Historic PlacesThe National
Historic Preservation Act authorizes the Department of
Interior to establish, maintain, and expand a National
Register of Historic Places. The Register is maintained
by the National Park Service; it is a computerized listing
of properties that have been nominated and accepted as
having historic, architectural, archeological, engineering
or cultural significance, at the national, State, or local
level. The Register grows steadily as more properties are
identified and nominated each year. The National
Register is considered the official list of the Nations
cultural resources worthy of preservation.
A property is eligible for the Register if it meets one or
more of the following criteria:
The quality of significance in American history,
architecture, archeology, engineering and culture is
present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects:
a) that are associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the broad
pattern of our history; or
b) that are associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past; or
c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of
a type, period, or method of construction, or
that represent the work of a master, or that
possess high artistic values, or that represent
significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; or
d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history.
In addition, Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the National Historic
Preservation Act provides that properties of traditional
religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or
Native Hawaiian organization may be determined to be
eligible for inclusion on the National Register.
Besides meeting one or more of the National Register
criteria, a property must also have integrity of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association in order to be eligible for the National
Register. This means, in effect, that if a property has
been seriously compromised by unsympathetic
alterations, it may not be eligible for the National
Register. See also:

RESOURCES

 National Register Bulletin #15: How to

Apply National Register Criteria for
Evaluation.

sometimes referred to as repair. It typically

corrects deficiencies caused by wear,
component failure, and other damage.

National Register Bulletin #16 Part A: How

to Complete the National Register Form.

Routine MaintenanceAll maintenance not

specifically corrective or preventative in nature.
It includes recurring and ownership functions
such as custodial services, maintenance
repainting, reglazing windows oiling hardware,
etc.

National Register Bulletin #16 Part B: How

to Complete the National Register Multiple
Property Documentation Form.
These are available from the National Register of
Historic Places, National Park Service (NHRE-2280),
P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127.
PreservationThe act or process of applying measures
necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and
materials of a historic structure, landscape, or object.
Work may include preliminary measures to protect and
stabilize the property, but generally focuses upon the
ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and
features rather than extensive replacement and new
construction. For historic structures exterior additions
are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the
limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing systems and other coderequired work to make properties functional is
appropriate within a preservation project.
Preservation MaintenanceThe action to mitigate wear
and deterioration of a historic property without altering
its historic character by protecting its condition,
repairing when its condition warrants with the least
degree of intervention including limited replacement inkind, replacing an entire feature in kind when the level
of deterioration or damage of materials precludes repair,
and stabilization to protect damaged materials or
features from additional damage. For archeological sites
it includes work to moderate, prevent, or arrest erosion.
For museum objects it includes actions to prevent
damage and to minimize deterioration by practicing
preventive conservation or by performing suitable
treatments on objects themselves. Types of preservation
maintenance are:
HousekeepingThe removal of undesirable
deposits of soil in ways that minimize harm to
the surfaces treated, repeated at short intervals
so that the gentlest and least radical methods
can be used.
Preventative MaintenancePlanned,
scheduled periodic inspection, adjustment,
cleaning, lubrication, parts replacement, and
minor repair of features. Preventative
maintenance is the cornerstone of a good
maintenance program. It extends the life and
reduces overall maintenance costs of assets by
minimizing wear and catching emerging
maintenance problems prior to failures.
Corrective MaintenanceMaintenance work
performed to restore a feature to a condition
substantially equivalent to its originally
intended and designed capacity, efficiency, or
capability. Corrective Maintenance is

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Cyclic maintenanceMaintenance performed

less frequently than annually; usually involves
replacement or at least mending of material.
Stabilizationaction to render an unsafe,
damaged, or deteriorated property stable while
retaining its present form.
ProtectionThe action to safeguard a historic property
by defending or guarding it from further deterioration,
loss, or attack or shielding it from danger or injury. In
the case of structures and landscapes such action is
generally of a temporary nature and anticipates future
preservation treatment; in the case of archeological sites,
the protective measure may be temporary or permanent.
Protection in its broadest sense also includes long-term
efforts to deter or prevent vandalism, theft, arson, and
other criminal acts against cultural resources.
ReconstructionThe act or process of depicting, by
means of new construction, the form, features, and
detailing of a none-surviving site, landscape, building,
structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its
appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic
location.
RehabilitationThe act or process of making possible a
compatible use for a property through repair, alterations,
and additions while preserving those portions or features
which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural
values.
RestorationThe act or process of accurately depicting
the form, features, and character of a historic structure,
landscape, or object as it appeared at a particular period
of time by means of removal of features from other
periods in its history and the reconstruction of missing
features from the restoration period.
Section 106 Review, Section 106, or 106"Refers to
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
requires federal agencies including the Coast Guard,
DoD, and military services to consider the effects of
their proposed actions on historic properties included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places and gives the independent Federal
reviewing agency, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on
the proposed undertakings.
StabilizationThe intervention treatment action taken to
increase the stability or durability of an object when
preventive conservation measures fail to decrease its rate
of deterioration to an acceptable level or when it has
deteriorated so far that its existence is jeopardized.

Part VI, Page 5

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)The

National Historic Preservation Act establishes the
responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation
Officers, the State officials who administer the national
historic preservation program at the State level. Each
SHPO is responsible for developing a statewide plan for
preservation; identifying historic properties; nominating
properties to the National Register; and providing
technical assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies
and the public, participating in the review of Federal
undertakings that affect historic properties, among other
activities.

EaveThe lower edge of a sloping roof; that part of a

roof of a building that projects beyond the wall.

StructureSee Historic Structures

ExtantStill existing, not extinct, not lost or destroyed.

UndertakingAs referred to in Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act, any federal, federally
assisted, federally licensed, or federally sanctioned
project, activity, or program that can result in changes to
the character or use of historic properties. Undertakings
include new and continuing projects, programs, and
activities that are (1) directly undertaken by federal
agencies; (2) supported in whole or in part, directly or
indirectly, by federal agencies; (3) carried out pursuant
to a federal lease, permit, license, approval, or other
form of permission; or (4) proposed by a federal agency
for congressional authorization or appropriation.
Undertakings may or may not be site-specific. (See 36
CFR 800.2[o] and Section 301(7) of the National Historic
Preservation Act.

FabricThe basic elements making up a building; the

carcass without finishes or decoration.

Technical Terms
As-BuiltRefers to drawings or conditions at the
completion of construction that record any modifications
or deviations from the original construction plans or
drawings; existing configuration of the structure
(lighthouse).
BalustradeAn entire railing system (as along the edge
of a balcony) including a top rail and its balusters, and
sometimes a bottom rail.
BermA wall or mound of earth
Chamfer1. A bevel or cant, such as small splay at the
external angle of a masonry wall. 2. An oblique surface
produced by beveling an edge or corner, usually at a
45 angle, as the edge of a board or masonry surface.
CladdingA layer of metal bonded to another material
for strength and protection.
ConsolidantsA hardening liquid that will increase the
strength of deteriorated material whose integrity has
been compromised because of the degradation.
Cornice1. Any molded projection which crowns or
finishes the part to which it is affixed. 2. The exterior
trim of a structure at the meeting of the roof and wall,
usually consists of bed molding, soffit, fascia, and crown
molding.
DormerA structure projecting from a sloping roof,
usually housing a window or ventilating louver.

Part VI, Page 6

EllA secondary wing or extension of a building at right

angles to its principal dimension.
EpoxyDesignating or of a compound in which an
oxygen atom is joined to each of two attached atoms,
usually carbon; specifically, designating any of the
various thermosetting resins, containing epoxy groups,
that are blended with other chemicals to form hard,
strong, chemically resistant substances used as
adhesives, enamel coatings, etc.

FasciaAny flat horizontal member with little

projection.
Faux-grainingA type of decoration where surfaces are
painted in such a way to simulate natural looking wood
grain.
FenestrationThe arrangement of windows and doors in
a building; an opening in a wall.
FillerA preparation used to fill in the cracks, grain,
etc., of wood before painting or varnishing.
FrustumA figure consisting of the bottom part of a
cone or pyramid, the top of which has been cut off by a
plane parallel to the base. The conical portion of a
lighthouse is considered a frustum.
GuanoManure of birds.
In-kindThe preservation practice of limited
replacement using matching materials in type, species,
and configuration.
Light1. An aperture through which daylight is admitted
to the interior of a building. 2. Pane of glass, a window.
3. The illuminating fixture of a lighthouse, i.e., light
bulb, lamp, etc.
MullionA slender, vertical dividing bar between the
lights (or panes) of windows, doors etc.; a vertical
member separating (and often supporting) window,
door, or panels set in a series.
MuntinA secondary framing member to hold panes
within a window, window wall, or glazed door; an
intermediate vertical member that divides the panels of a
door.
Patina1. A fine crust or film on bronze or copper,
usually green or greenish-blue, formed by natural
oxidation and often valued as being ornamental. 2. Any
thin coating or color change resulting from age.
Pointing1. In masonry, the final treatment of joints by
the troweling of mortar into the joints between the
masonry units (bricks, stones, etc.). 2. The material with
which the joints are filled.
P.S.I.Pounds per Square Inch: a unit used to measure
pressure.

RESOURCES

Quantity Take-offThe practice of accounting

individual elements, components, and units of a
structure for purposes of a detailed cost estimate for
construction purposes.
RabbetA longitudinal channel, groove, or recess cut
out of the edge or face of a member, especially one to
receive another member, or one to receive a frame
inserted in a door or window opening, or the recess into
which glass is installed in a window sash.
Rising dampA phenomenon where moisture rises
through a masonry wall above grade because of capillary
action in the masonry units.
Rust-jackingDeformation that is the result of rusting
iron. The jacking is the result of the chemical change
that takes place when iron corrodes or rusts. As the iron
rusts it changes from iron to iron oxide; this change is
the result of the oxygen carried in water combining with
the iron. The iron oxide which results takes up more
volume than the iron. The force of this expansion is
strong enough to crack glass and force steel components
apart.
SisteringA technique of structural stabilization or
reinforcement where the extant member is reinforced by
attaching a stronger member along its span.
SoffitThe exposed undersurface of any overhead
component of a building, such as a arch, balcony, beam,
cornice, lintel, or vault.
SpallingThe exfoliation of layers of a material,
especially bricks, where the layers break off parallel to
the face of the material.

Lighthouse Specific
ANTAid to Navigation TeamUnited States Coast
Guard term and title given to the typically small units
responsible for the care and maintenance of the majority
of the Coast Guards fixed aids to navigation:
lighthouses, range lights, etc.

DavitEither of a pair of uprights that can be swung out

over the side of a water-based lighthouse for lowering
or raising a small boat.
DaymarkA distinctive pattern painted on the exterior
of a lighthouse, used by mariners during daylight
navigation. In many cases, the lighthouse structure itself
is considered a daymark.
Fixed LightA steady, non-flashing beam.
Focal planeThe level plane at which the lighthouses
or range lights lens is focused; the height of this plane is
measured from mean sea level.
Fog signalSee sound signal"
Fresnel lensA system of annular prisms that refract and
reflect into a beam; invented in 1821 by Augustine
Fresnel; this system captures and focuses up to 70% of
the light emitted from the illuminant. Fresnel designed a
variety of lens system sizes which he defined by orders.
Today, there are 9 modern equivalents to his original
orders, first through sixth (including a 3 order), a meso
radial, and hyper radial. The first-order lens is the largest
and is typically used in coastal lights. The sizes of the
lenses and their effective range decrease as the order
number increases.
Gallery deckThe exterior walkway outside the lantern.
KeeperThe person in charge of maintaining the light
station and attending the optic.
LampThe oil lighting apparatus inside a lens. A lamp
was used before electricity powered the illuminant.
LanternThe portion of the lighthouse structure that
houses and protects the lens and illuminant; relative size
described/defined by the size of the lens based on the 7
Fresnel orders. Also referred to as the lantern room.
Lantern deckInterior deck of large first- through thirdorder lanterns; encircles lens to provide access for
maintenance and cleaning.

ATONAid To NavigationUnited States Coast Guard

term used to describe any device used as an aid to
navigation such as lighthouses, range lights, buoys, etc.

Lantern glassGlass panes in the lantern that protect the

lens and illuminant while allowing the maximum
amount of light to pass. Also referred to as lantern
glazing.

AstragalsVertical members that retain the storm panels

in the frame of the lantern, typically made of bronze.

LensAny glass or transparent material that is shaped to

focus light.

BalconyThe exterior walkway around a lantern room

or watch room on a light tower.

LighthouseA fixed aid to navigation located at some

place important or dangerous to navigation which was
historically kept by a resident keeper; it has a very bright
light at the top and is often outfitted with foghorns,
sirens, etc., by which ships are guided or warned.

Caisson1. A watertight enclosure inside which

underwater construction work can be done. 2. An
offshore lighthouse type, so called because a caisson is
used during the construction of the lighthouse
foundation.
CellarThe lower chamber of a caisson type lighthouse,
typically houses cisterns, fuel tanks and other storage.
ClampsHorizontal members that retain the storm
panels at the top and bottom, typically made of bronze.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Light StationRefers not only to the lighthouse but to all

the buildings at the installation supporting the lighthouse
including keepers quarters, oil house, fog signal
building, cisterns, boathouse, workshop, etc. Some light
stations have had more than one lighthouse over time.
Lighthouse TenderShip used to supply the light and
fog signal stations, maintain buoys, and service
lightships. Today, similar vessels are called buoy
tenders.

Part VI, Page 7

LightshipA moored vessel which marked a harbor

entrance or a dangerous projection such as a reef where
lighthouses could not be constructed. Eventually
replaced with Texas Towers and large navigational
buoys. The Coast Guard no longer maintains any active
lightships.
Oil houseA small building, usually made of stone or
concrete, which stored oil for lighthouse lamps. Oil
houses were built after kerosene, a highly flammable
agent, came into use as an illuminant.
ParapetIn third- through sixth-order lighthouses, the
low wall in the lantern room that supports the storm
panel frame and roof.
PrivyAn outbuilding used as a toilet; an outhouse.
RadiobeaconA radio-sending device which transmits a
coded signal by which a mariner can determine his or
her position using a radio-direction-finding apparatus.
The only radiobeacons being retained by the Coast
Guard are those that will be used to transmit Differential
GPS signals.
Range lightsPairs of fixed aids that are typically used
to guide ships into or through channels; the lights are
typically defined by upper and lower positions; when
the lights are aligned as described in the USCG light list,
the mariner will know his position relative to the
channel.
Screwpile1. A type of piling fitted with a helical fluke
that is twisted into the bottom of a body of water. 2. A
lighthouse type that employs screwpilings as a primary
foundation system.
Sound SignalA device used to provide a loud patterned
sound during foggy weather to aid mariners in
establishing their position or to warn them away from a
danger. Also referred to as the "fog signal"; types
include bells, whistles, sirens, reed trumpets, diaphone
and diaphragm horns, and electric horns.
Storm panels The term used by the U.S. Lighthouse
Board for emergency or temporary glazing. Historically,
storm panels were kept on hand and fitted to the interior
of the lantern when the primary glazing was broken in a
storm and needed immediate repair.
TowerThe portion of the lighthouse that supports the
lantern.
Ventilation ballThe perforated spherical ball at the
apex of the lantern roof that originally provided
ventilation for the oil-fired illuminant.

Organizations
Preservation Related
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (see glossary
for description)
1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 809
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 606-8503; Fax: (202) 606-1172
Office of Education and Preservation (202) 606-8505
Western Review Office
730 Simms Street, #401
Golden, Colorado 80401
(303) 231-5320
American Institute of Architects
Historic Resources Committee
1735 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 626-7457/ 7418, (800) 242-3837
Or check in the yellow pages under architects for the
closest chapter
American Society of Civil Engineers
345 East 47th Street
New York, NY 10017
(212) 705-7220
American Society of Landscape Architects
4401 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 686-2752
Association for Preservation Technology International
(APT)
P.O. Box 3511
Williamsburg, VA 23187
(703) 373-1621
Construction Specifications Institute
600 Madison Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-1791
(703) 684-0300
National Historical Publications and Records
Commission (NHPRC)
National Archives Building, Room 607
Washington, D.C. 20408
(202) 501-5610
National Park Service
Archeology and Ethnography Program
National Park Service (2275)
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
(202) 343-4101

Part VI, Page 8

RESOURCES

Heritage Preservation Services

National Park Service (2255)
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 343-9565, Fax: (202) 343-3803
Historic Preservation Training Center
The Gambrill House
4801 Urbana Pike, #A
Frederick, MD 21704
(301) 663-8206; Fax: (301) 663-8032
National Center for Preservation Technology and
Training
108 Kyser Hall
Northwestern State University of Louisiana
NSU Box 5682
Natchitoches, LA 71497
(318) 357-6464; Fax: (318) 357-6421

Lighthouse Preservation Society

4 Middle Street
Newburyport, MA 01950
(800) 727-2326
(508) 499-0011
LPS is largely an advocacy and fundraising group for
lighthouse preservation issues and projects; membership
includes the monthly magazine Lighthouse Digest.
National Maritime Initiative
National Park Service (NRHE-2280)
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
(202) 343-9508; Fax: (202) 343-1244
e-mail: [email protected]
The Initiative maintains a database of historic light
stations around the U.S.

National Register of Historic Places

National Park Service (2280)
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 343-9500

Nautical Research Centre

335 Vallejo Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 763-8453
Library containing over 1000 books and plans relating to
both the U.S. Lighthouse and Lifesaving Services

National Trust for Historical Preservation

1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 673-4000; Fax: (202) 673-4059

Record Group 26
National Archives
Washington, DC 20408
Record Group 26 includes records of the Bureau of
Lighthouses and it predecessors, 1789-1939; U.S. Coast
Guard records from 1828 to 1947; as well as
cartographic and audiovisual materials from 1855 to
1963. (See description of holdings later in this section)

Society of American Military Engineers

607 Prince Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 549-3800
Society of Architectural Historians
1365 N. Astor Street
Chicago, IL 60610-2144
(312) 573-1365

Lighthouse Specific
U.S. Lighthouse Society
244 Kearny Street - 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 362-7255
USLHS provides its members with Keepers Log, an
illustrated quarterly journal, lighthouse tours, and a
general information service on lighthouse and lightship
preservation
Great Lakes Lighthouse Keepers Association
Henry Ford Estate
4901 Evergreen Road
Dearborn, MI 48128
(313) 436-9150
GLLKA provides its members with a quarterly journal
and hosts annual meetings

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

U.S. Coast Guard

Historians Office G-CP-4
Headquarters, U.S. Coast Guard
2100 2nd Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20593
The Coast Guard History Office maintains operational
records and historical materials relating to the U.S. Coast
Guard and its predecessor agencies.
Federal Preservation Contact:
Chief, Environmental Management Division
Office of Civil Engineering COMDT (G-SEC-3)
Headquarters, U.S. Coast Guard
2100 2nd Street, SW
Washington, DC 20593-0001
U.S. Coast Guard Civil Engineering Units:
Commander
Maintenance and Logistics Command Atlantic
300 East Main Street
Norfolk, VA 23510

Part VI, Page 9

Commanding Officer
Civil Engineering Unit Miami
Brickell Plaza Federal Bldg.
15609 S.W. 117 Avenue, Suite A
Miami, FL 33177
Commanding Officer
Civil Engineering Unit Cleveland
1240 E. Ninth Street
Cleveland, OH 44199-2060
Commanding Officer
Civil Engineering Unit Providence
300 Metro Center Blvd.
Warwick, RI 02886
Commander
Maintenance and Logistics Command Pacific
Coast Guard Island
Alameda, CA 94501-5100
Commanding Officer
Civil Engineering Unit Oakland
2000 Embarcadero, Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94606-5337
Commanding Officer
Civil Engineering Unit Juneau
P.O. Box 21747
Juneau, AK 99802-1747
Commanding Officer
Civil Engineering Unit Honolulu
Prince Kalanianaole Federal Building
300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 8122
Honolulu, HI 96850-4982
World Wide Web
For more information on publicly accessible lighthouses,
visit the National Maritime Initiatives site on the World
Wide Web. The internet address for this NPS site is
http:/www.cr.nps.govhistory/maritime/ltaccess.html
For a listing of lighthouse internet sites around the
world, visit http://www.maine.com/lights/www_vl.htm

State Historic Preservation Officers

ALABAMA
Mr. F. Lawerence Oaks
State Historic Preservation Officer and
Executive Director, Alabama Historical Commission
468 South Perry Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-0900
334-242-3184; Fax: 334-240-3477
[email protected].
ALASKA
Ms. Judith E. Bittner
Chief, History and Archeology
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
3601 C Street, Suite 1278
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5921
907-269-8721; Fax: 907-269-8908
CALIFORNIA
Ms. Cherilyn Widell
State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of Historic Preservation
Department of Parks and Recreation
P.O. Box 942896
Sacramento, California 94296-0001
916-653-6624; Fax: 916-653-9824
CONNECTICUT
Mr. John W. Shannahan
State Historic Preservation Officer and
Director, Connecticut Historical Commission
59 South Prospect Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06l06
860-566-3005; Fax: 203-566-5078
DELAWARE
Mr. Daniel R. Griffith
Director, Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs
Hall of Records
P. O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19901
302-739-5313; Fax: 302-739-6711
Delaware State Historic Preservation Office
#15 - The Green
Dover, DE 19901
FLORIDA
Mr. George W. Percy
State Historic Preservation Officer and Director, Division
of Historical Resources
Department of State
R. A. Gray Building, 500 S. Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
904-488-1480; Fax: 904-488-3353
GEORGIA
Mr. Mark R. Edwards
Director, Historic Preservation Division

Part VI, Page 10

RESOURCES

Department of Natural Resources

500 The Healey Building
57 Forsyth Street, NW.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
404-656-2840; Fax: 404-651-8739
GUAM
Mr. Richard Davis
Historic Preservation Officer
Historic Resources Division
Department of Parks and Recreation
Building 13-8, Tiyan
P.O. Box 2950
Agana Heights, Guam 96910
011-671-475-6259; Fax: 671-477-2822
E-mail: [email protected]
HAWAII
Mr. Michael D. Wilson
State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Land and Natural Resources
1151 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
808-548-6550; Fax: 808-587-0018
ILLINOIS
Mr. William L. Wheeler
Associate Director, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency
Preservation Services Division
Old State Capitol
Springfield, Illinois 62701
217-785-9045; Fax: 217-524-7525
(St. Address: 500 E. Madison)
LOUISIANA
Mrs. Gerri J. Hobdy
Assistant Secretary, Office of Cultural Development
P.O. Box 44247
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
504-342-8200; Fax: 504-342-8173
MAINE
Mr. Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr.
Director, Maine Historic Preservation Commission
55 Capitol Street, Station 65
Augusta, Maine 04333-0065
207-287-2132; Fax: 207-287-5624
[email protected]
MARYLAND
Mr. J. Rodney Little
Executive Director, Historical and Cultural Programs
Department of Housing and Community Development
Peoples Resource Center
100 Community Place
Crownsville, Maryland 21032-2023
410-514-7600; Fax: 410-514-7678
[email protected]
MASSACHUSETTS
Ms. Judith B. McDonough

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

State Historic Preservation Officer

Executive Director, Massachusetts Historical
Commission
Massachusetts Archives Facility
220 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, Massachusetts 02125
617-727-8470; TTD: 1-800-392-6090
Fax: 617-727-5128
MICHIGAN
Dr. Kathryn B. Eckert
State Historic Preservation Office
Michigan State Historic Preservation Office
Michigan Historical Center
717 W. Allegan
Lansing, Michigan 48918-0001
517-373-0511; Fax: 517-335-0348
[email protected]
MINNESOTA
Dr. Nina M. Archabal
Director and State Historic Preservation Officer
Minnesota Historical Society
345 Kellogg Boulevard West
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
612-296-2747; Fax: 612-296-1004
MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Elbert Hilliard
Director, State of Mississippi Department of Archives
and History
P.O. Box 571
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
601-359-6850; Fax: 601-359-6905
[email protected]
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Nancy Muller
Director, Division of Historical Resources
P.O. Box 2043
Concord, New Hampshire 03302-2043
603-271-3483 or 3558; Fax: 603-271-3433
NEW JERSEY
Mr. Robert C. Shinn, Jr.
Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Protection
CN-402, 401 East State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
609-292-2885
SHPO Fax: 609-292-8115
All documents requiring immediate attention should be
faxed to James F. Hall or Dorthy Guzzo, DSHPO.
NEW YORK
Mrs. Bernadette Castro
Commissioner
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Empire State Plaza, Agency Building 1, 20th Floor
Albany, New York 12238
518-474-0443; Fax: 518-474-4492

Part VI, Page 11

NORTH CAROLINA
Dr. Jeffrey J. Crow
Director, Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
919-733-7305; Fax: 919-733-8807
OHIO
Dr. Amos J. Loveday, Jr.
State Historic Preservation Officer
Ohio Historical Society
567 E. Hudson Street
Columbus, Ohio 43211-1030
614-297-2470; Fax: 614-297-2496
OKLAHOMA
Mr. J. Blake Wade
Executive Director, Oklahoma Historical Society
Wiley Post Historical Building
2100 N. Lincoln Boulevard
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
405-521-6249; Fax: 405-521-2492
State Hist. Pres. Ofc.
Oklahoma Historical Society
2704 Villa Prom, Shepherd Mall
Oklahoma City, OK 73107
Fax: 405-947-2918
OREGON
Mr. Robert L. Meinen
Director, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department
1115 Commercial Street NE
Salem, Oregon 97310-1001
503-378-5019; Fax: 503-378-6447
[email protected]
PENNSYLVANIA
Dr. Brent D. Glass
State Historic Preservation Officer
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission
P.O. Box 1026
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1026
717-787-2891; Fax: 717-783-1073
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
Ms. Lilliane D. Lopez
State Historic Preservation Officer and Architect
La Fortaleza; P.O. Box 82
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901
809-721-2676 or 809-721-3737; Fax: 809-723-0957
RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Frederick C. Williamson
State Historic Preservation Officer
Historical Preservation Commission
Old State House, 150 Benefit Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
401-277-2678; Fax: 401-277-2968

Part VI, Page 12

SOUTH CAROLINA
Dr. George L. Vogt
Director, Department of Archives and History
P.O. Box 11669, Capitol Station
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
803-734-8592; Fax: 803-734-8820
TEXAS
Mr. Curtis Tunnell
Executive Director, Texas Historical Commission
P.O. Box 12276, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
512-463-6100; Fax: 512-475-4872
[email protected]
VERMONT
Mr. Townsend H. Anderson
State Historic Preservation Officer and Director, Agency
of Development and Community Affairs
Vermont Division for Historic Preservation
135 State Street, Drawer 33
Montpelier, Vermont 05633-1201
802-828-3226; Fax: 802-828-3206
VIRGINIA
Mr. H. Alexander Wise, Jr.
Director, Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-3143; Fax: 804-225-4261
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Beulah Dalmida-Smith
State Historic Preservation Officer and Commissioner,
Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Division of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
Foster Plaza, 396-1 Annas Retreat
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802
809-776-8605; Fax: 809-774-5416
WASHINGTON
Mr. David Hansen
Acting State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Washington State Department of Community, Trade, &
Economic Development
111 West 21st Avenue, Box 48343
Olympia, Washington 98504-8343
360-753-4117
FAX: 360-586-0250
[email protected]
WISCONSIN
Mr. Jeff Dean
State Historic Preservation Officer
State Historical Society
816 State Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
608-264-6500
FAX: 608-262-5554 or 608-264-6504

RESOURCES

Preparing a National Register

Nomination
Where to Start: Before one begins to
prepare a National Register Nomination,
contact the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) of the State in which your
property is located (and/or the Federal
Preservation Officer if the owner is a federal
agency) to receive appropriate forms,
instructions, and guidance (a list of SHPOs
and the Coast Guard FPO are found earlier
in this section). Nomination forms are
generally available both in paper and
computer disk formats. Your SHPO and or
FPO can save you time and frustration.
SHPOs can also inform applicants if the
community where the property is located is
a Certified Local Government (CLG) and
has a preservation officer who also can
provide information and assistance. SHPOs
have an important role in the nomination
process. They review all documentation on
the property, schedule the property for
consideration by the state review board,
and notify property owners and public
officials of the meeting and proposed
nomination. The SHPO makes a case for or
against eligibility at the boards meeting,
and, considering the boards opinion,
makes the final decision to nominate the
property. The SHPO also comments on
nominations and determinations of
eligibility requested by federal agencies.
Guides to assist in preparing a National
Register Nomination:
National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply
National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
Bulletin #15 is a detailed discussion of each
criteria which may be used for nominating a
structure to the National Register including
specific examples which qualify and others
which do not. It should be used by anyone
who is 1) preparing to nominate a property to
the National Register, 2) seeking a
determination of a propertys eligibility, 3)
evaluating the comparable significance of a

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

property to those listed in the National Register,

or 4) expecting to nominate a property as a
National Historic Landmark (includes a
summary of Landmark Criteria for Evaluation) in
addition to nominating it to the National
Register.
National Register Bulletin #16 Part A: How to
Complete the National Register Form. Part A is
a step-by-step how-to approach guide including
a section on Getting Started. It provides
information on 1) how to identify and locate
nominated properties as per National Register
requirements, 2) how the property meets one or
more of the National Register criteria, and 3)
how to make a case for the historic significance
and integrity.
National Register Bulletin #34: Guidelines for
Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aids to
Navigation. Bulletin #34 has specific
information geared to nomination of lighthouses
including examples of descriptive text and
statement of significance.
National Register Bulletin #39: Researching a
Historic Property.

These bulletins are available from the

National Register of Historic Places,
National Park Service (2280), P.O. Box
37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127.

Steps in Research
The SHPO will be able to determine if the
property has already been listed on the
states or some other inventory and possibly
provide information about significant
historic contexts and documentation that
may be useful in researching a property.
Remember that researching a historic
property for National Register nomination
differs from researching a property for other
purposes. Information collected must be
directed at determining the propertys
historical significance. When evaluating a
property against National Register criteria,
significance is defined as the importance of
a property to the history, architecture,
archeology, engineering, or culture of a
community, a state, or the nation. Every
National Register nomination must place a

Part VI, Page 13

property in its historic context to support

that propertys significance.
Two other considerations affect evaluations
of significance: association and period of
significance. Association refers to a direct
connection between the property and the
area of significance for which it is
nominated. Period of significance refers to
the span of time during which significant
events and activities occurred. Events and
associations with historic properties are
finite; most properties have a clearly
definable period of significance. Lastly, a
property is evaluated for its integrity.
Integrity is the authenticity of physical
characteristics from which properties derive
their significance. A lighthouse depends
upon a number of specialized ancillary
buildings, and most light towers were
originally part of such a complex which
included the keepers quarters, oil house,
fog signal, storage sheds, boat house, and in
later years radio beacons. Lighthouses
where ancillary buildings and structures
have been destroyed will have difficulty
meeting integrity requirements. Bulletin
#39 is written specifically to assist the
beginner who is researching a National
Register nomination. It includes basic
sources and techniques for the collection of
data and should be used in conjunction
with Bulletin #16.
One of the most challenging tasks facing a
researcher is knowing when enough
material has been gathered. As Bulletin
#39 points out, a National Register
nomination can usually be completed when
the following questions can be answered:
What was the property called at the time it was
associated with the important events or persons,
or took on the physical character that gave it
importance?
How many buildings, structures, and other
resources make up the property?
When was the property constructed and when
did it attain its current form?

Part VI, Page 14

What are the propertys historic characteristics?

What changes have been made over time and
when? How have these affected its historic
integrity?
What is the current condition of the property,
including the exterior, grounds, setting, and
interior?
How was the property used during its period of
significance, and how is it used today?
Who occupied or used the property historically?
Did they individually make any important
contributions to history? Who is the current
owner?
Was it associated with important events,
activities, or persons?
Which of the National Register criteria apply to
the property? In what areas of history is the
property significant?
How does the property relate to the history of
the community where it is located?
How does the property illustrate any themes or
trends important to the history of its community,
state, or the nation?
How large is the property, where is it located,
or what are its boundaries?
Would this property more appropriately be
nominated as part of a historic district?

To save time and frustration, organize

research tasks in an efficient and logical
fashion. Decide what needs to be known
and where to find it. Make a list of the
questions to answer. Make a list of specific
tasks, noting where to go, to whom to
speak, what to look for, and the order in
which to proceed. Determine your
possibilities and limitations. Identify what
historic information is readily available,
perhaps in the collections of current or
previous owners, a neighbor, or the
community. As early as possible, establish
the construction date for the property. This
date may help establish an earliest
beginning date for the period of
significance. In addition, try to discover the
names by which the property and/or
lighthouse has been known through its

RESOURCES

history, so as not to overlook information

under an unfamiliar name. Save time and
effort by defining the parameters of the
project in advance. Questions and tasks
can be altered, discarded, or added as the
research proceeds. Once you know exactly
what you need to find, and have a good
idea of where to find it, you are well on
your way to accomplishing your goal.
Bulletin #39 includes a general guide to
research sources including abstract of title,
architectural/construction drawings,
building permits, court documents, deeds,
land records, maps and plats, federal
records, newspapers, photographs, and
postcards.

Textual and Non-textual Historic

Resources
Start with local libraries, historical societies,
and museums collections. Often,
photographs, letters, and other materials not
available anywhere else show up at these
sources. Check newspapers (clipping files
or microfilm) for information. Lighthouses
were big news and articles almost always
appeared when lighthouses were built,
damaged, decommissioned, or other
significant events occurred.
The National Archives, Washington, D.C.,
has the largest and most complete
collection of books, documents,
photographs, plans, and other printed
resources relating to lighthouses in the
United States (see "National Archives
Historical Resources" on page 33 of this
section). Copies of the Light Lists and
Annual Reports can be found at the Library
of Congress; National Archives; USCG
Historians Office, Headquarters,
Washington, D.C.; USCG Academy Library,
New London, Connecticut; Mariners
Museum, Newport News, Virginia; The
Peabody Museum, Phillips Library, Salem,
Massachusetts; J. Porter Shaw Library, San
Francisco Maritime National Historical
Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Park, San Francisco; the Nautical Research

Center, Petaluma, California; and the U.S.
Lighthouse Society, San Francisco,
California. The library at the U.S. Navy
Historical Center, Washington, D.C., has
some scarce material not found in the
libraries mentioned above.1
There are hundreds of books written about
lighthouses. Two of the better ones are
George R. Putnams Lighthouses and
Lightships of the United States (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1917) and Francis Ross
Holland, Jr.s Americas Lighthouses: An
Illustrated History (New York: Dover
Publications, Inc., 1988). Putnam was
commissioner of lighthouses for about 25
years and Holland was supervisory research
historian and associate director for cultural
resources management for the National
Park Service. In recent years regional
lighthouse guides have become very
popular, but the histories they provide are
usually very brief and often inaccurate.
Historic photographs, postcards, and other
graphics should be researched to document
how a property has changed and/or retained
its original character over time. Often times
these sources are the only means of
determining what outbuildings looked like,
where they were located, or moved.
Historical research is time consuming and
often frustrating. It is not unusual to find
conflicting information. Rely on primary
sources; long-held local traditions and
popular publications are often inaccurate.
A good historian seeks the truth.
Professional historians can be contracted to
do this work for you. A thorough research
will almost always involve a trip to
Washington, D.C., with visits to the

1
Much of this resource information is from Francis
Ross Holland, Jr., Americas Lighthouses: An Illustrated
History, New York, Dover Publications, Inc., (1988), pp.
225-226.

Part VI, Page 15

National Archives and Coast Guard

Historians Office.

well as the crews who maintain it, is often

valuable.

Oral History

Documentation

If possible, interview surviving keepers,

Coast Guard individuals, or other Federal
agency managers who worked at the
lighthouse/light station, and other persons
such as neighbors and relatives. While
memories are not as dependable as primary
written records such as logs and diaries,
oral histories are often the only source of
what life was like at a station. Often,
during interviews, photographs, newspaper
clipping, mementoes, etc. will be brought
out, which may contribute to the history of
a property. A good place to begin oral
history research, especially if you are a
beginner, is to obtain Documenting
Maritime Folklife: An Introductory Guide2.

Black and white photographs as well as

color slides of the lighthouse/light station
should be taken from many angles both
inside and out. Each elevation of a
structure should be included, as well as
details of specific architectural features,
equipment, etc. Overall shots showing the
relationship of different buildings and the
surrounding landscape are also useful.
Each photograph should be identified with
subject, photographer, date, and source. A
sketch map showing the positions where
photographs were taken are also very
helpful. Historic photos, if available should
be included with the nomination.

Field Work
Remember that the property itself is a
primary source of information. Walk
through the property and gather information
that describes it, noting distinctive features
and obvious alterations and changes.
Examine all buildings and structures, inside
and out. Examine the grounds, noting any
signs of previous buildings or activities
(foundations, wells, etc.), and roadways,
paths, vegetation, fences, and other
features. Adequate field examination of a
lighthouse and/or light station may involve
more than one visit to acquire a thorough
understanding of its construction,
equipment, and layout. A guided tour by a
knowledgeable individual such as the aids
to navigation officer of the Coast Guard, as

Keep field notes, research notes, and

sketches. Reproduced reference material,
photographs, postcards, deeds, maps, plats,
etc. should be compiled. Chronologically
arrange the files to help understand the
progression and nature of change which
took place at the property over time. Color
slides and/or photographs are useful
references when preparing the National
Register nomination, especially if returning
to the site to check on a detail is difficult
and/or impossible. Footnote or endnote all
your sources of information. Try to use
primary sources; secondary sources are
notorious for being inaccurate. Nearly
every lighthouse in the south during the
Civil War is reputed to have been shot at,
the light lens buried in the sand to hide it
from the Yankees, and/or escape tunnels
dug; yet very few such claims are factual.

Determining Architectural
Significance
David Taylor, Documenting Maritime Folklife: An
Introductory Guide (Washington, D.C., Government
Printing Office, 1992).
2

Part VI, Page 16

A lighthouse may be significant because it

is: 1) a good representative of a specific
style of architecture, such as Eastlake or

RESOURCES

Eastern Stick Style; 2) a good representative

of specific construction type, such as a
screwpile, caisson, or crib foundation
lighthouse; and 3) a good example of the
work of a famous architect such as Cape
Henry (old) Lighthouse.

Archeological Documentation
Archeological documentation can add to or
revise the understanding of the history of
the lighthouse/light station by documenting
the poorly recorded or undocumented
archeological aspects of a lighthouse, such
as the layout and construction.
Archeological resources not associated with
the station, such as prehistoric sites, can
enhance the significance of a nomination.
When significant archeological resources
are known to exist at a site, the nomination
should clearly demonstrate that the
archeological information, if and when
obtained from the site, may significantly
supplement or revise current historic or
archeological knowledge or understanding.

In most cases archeological documentation

through excavation will not be required for
a National Register nomination. However,
if such excavation is contemplated, always
contact your SHPO first, and never
undertake such work without using
qualified, trained professionals. Once a site
is excavated the evidence it held cannot be
replaced. Your SHPO can assist you in
finding such professional assistance.
Documentation of foundations may not
require excavation and can be carried out
without professional assistance so long as
the site is not destroyed or altered.

When documenting the archeological

features of a lighthouse, the nomination
should stress how the site is known to
possess archeological remains, such as
through remote sensing or archeological
test excavation. The documentation of nolonger-extant lighthouses, including missing
or earlier buildings and structures at
existing lighthouses, should include
descriptions and characteristics determined
through archival research that are then
assessed, verified, or contrasted with the
actual physical, archeological resource.
Archeological documentation should
include a site plan showing where
excavation units were placed and drawings
of exposed features (such as a lighthouse
foundation or a deposit of material culture
in a trash pit). Include photographs of
archeological features or significant
artifacts.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part VI, Page 17

Choosing an Appropriate
Treatment for a Historic
Lighthouse Project
The Standards are neither technical nor
prescriptive, but are intended to promote
responsible preservation practices that help
protect our Nations irreplaceable cultural
resources. They cannot be used to make
essential decisions about which characterdefining features of a historic lighthouse
should be retained and which can be
changed. Once a specific treatment is
selected, the Standards can provide the
necessary philosophical framework for a
consistent and holistic approach to a
historic lighthouse project.
A treatment is a physical intervention
carried out to achieve a historic
preservation goal; it cannot be considered
in a vacuum. There are many practical and
philosophical variables that influence the
selection of a treatment for a lighthouse.
These include, but are not limited to,
determination of the ultimate treatment,
relative significance, integrity and existing
condition, use, context, archeological
resources, management and maintenance,
interpretation, and mandated code
requirements. Therefore, it is necessary to
consider a broad array of dynamic and
interrelated variables in selecting a
treatment for a historic lighthouse
preservation project.
Ultimate treatment: The ultimate treatment
of a historic structure is a general definition
of its development limits based on
considerations of use and the historic
character that should be preserved. It is
accomplished through one or more
construction projects, after which the
structure is preserved by preservation
maintenance. Subsequent rehabilitation or
restoration may be needed to update the
structures functional aspects and to repair
or replace damaged or deteriorated
Part VI, Page 18

features. The restoration of a lighthouse

may include partial dismantling and/or
reconstruction of missing or deteriorated
features to return it to its appearance at a
specific moment in history. Restoration, in
this case, would become the ultimate
treatment because after it is completed, all
future treatments would be considered
maintenance.
The Old Cape Henry Lighthouse (first
tower) is a good example of a historic
lighthouse that has reached its ultimate
treatment through restoration. The masonry
has been preserved and the lantern has
been reconstructed. Future activities such
as replacement of deteriorated masonry
blocks, work to enhance the lantern, or
installation of a reproduction lens would all
contribute to the restoration.
Pending ultimate treatment, a lighthouse
should be stabilized and protected in its
existing condition; it may also receive an
interim treatment compatible with its
planned appearance and use. Choosing the
most appropriate treatment for a building
requires careful decision-making about its
historical significance, as well as taking into
account a number of other considerations.
Interim treatmentMothballing: Whereas
a restoration or reconstruction, or even a
rehabilitation project, would usually be
considered an ultimate treatment, one must
also consider an interim treatment. For
historic lighthouses an interim treatment
may be the best way to achieve a
satisfactory level of maintenance and
security while a larger, more
comprehensive project is in the planning or
fund-raising stages. Both preservation and
mothballing can be considered interim
treatments. When a lighthouse needs to be
made weathertight and secure and is not
open to the public, mothballing is generally
considered. Mothballing addresses
immediate critical maintenance and
security needs such as severely leaking
RESOURCES

roofs, missing or broken windows, lack of

protection from vandalism, dangerously
deteriorated exterior elements, or possible
structural failure. Often, these types of
issues can be immediately addressed at a
cost less than preservation for a period of
three to five, or even ten years depending
on the quality of the repairs. In
mothballing, materials would likely be
repaired rather than replaced, and
temporary, reversible fixes would be used
rather than making permanent repairs
(windows may be outfitted with ventilation
louvres rather than replacement of missing
glazing, roofs might be patched rather than
replaced). Mothballing should be thought
of as a way to buy time for a longer term
project. While often thought of as a bandaid treatment mothballing is a legitimate
level of treatment when preservation is
forthcoming. Mothballing should not be
thought of as an ultimate treatment but
should be considered a safeguard against
the immediate threats of a coastal
environment and isolated locations.
While preservation can also be considered
an interim treatment if the ultimate goal is a
complete restoration or rehabilitation to
some other use, such as making a
lighthouse into an inn. Preservation would
address the same issues as mothballing but
would deal with them in a more permanent
manner (windows might be reglazed but
ventilation louvres would be incorporated
into the design, roofs might be partially
replaced or a new roof installed, rather than
patching).
Relative significance: Is the lighthouse a
nationally significant resourcea rare
survivor or the work of a master craftsman
or architect? Did an important event take
place in it? National Historic Landmarks,
designated for their exceptional
significance in American history, or many
structures individually listed in the National
Register of Historic Places are recognized as

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

warranting preservation or restoration.

Structures that contribute to the significance
of a historic district but are not individually
listed in the National Register more
frequently undergo rehabilitation for a
compatible new use.
Integrity and existing condition: Before
selecting a treatment, it is important to
understand and evaluate the difference
between integrity and existing conditions.
Integrity is the authenticity of a lighthouses
historic identity; it is the physical evidence
of its significance. Existing conditions can
be defined as the current physical state of
the lighthouses form, features, details, and
materials. For example, the integrity of an
abandoned lighthouse may be intact based
on its extant form, features, details, and
materials dating from the original
construction or period of historic
significance, but its existing condition may
be poor because of neglect or deferred
maintenance.
What is the existing conditionor degree of
material integrityof the structure before
treatment? Has the original form survived
largely intact or has it been altered over
time? Are the alterations an important part
of history? Preservation may be appropriate
if distinctive materials, features, and spaces
are essentially intact and convey the
structures historical significance. If the
structure requires more extensive repair and
replacement, or if alterations or additions
are necessary for a new use, then
rehabilitation is probably the most
appropriate treatment. These key questions
play major roles in determining what
treatment is selected.
Use: Historic, current, and proposed use of
a historic lighthouse must be considered
before treatment selection. Historic use is
linked to its significance, while current and
proposed use(s) can affect integrity and
existing conditions. Parameters may vary
from one lighthouse to another. For
Part VI, Page 19

example, in one lighthouse, continuation of

the historic use can lead to changes in the
physical form to accommodate new
technologies and equipment, i.e.,
replacement of historic lenses with newer
lighting apparatus, or the addition of radar
equipment on active aids to navigation. In
others, new uses may be adapted within the
existing form, features, and details, i.e.,
converting a historic lighthouse to an inn,
visitor contact facility, or museum.
An essential, practical question to ask: Will
the structure be used as it was historically
or will it be given a new use? Many
historic structures can be adapted for new
uses without seriously damaging their
historic character; special-use properties
such as grain silos, forts, windmills, or
lighthouses may be extremely difficult to
adapt to new uses without major
intervention and a resulting loss of historic
character and even integrity.
Many historic structures directly support
operational functions by serving as visitor
centers, administrative offices, housing or
lodgings. Some such uses follow historical
precedents; others are new adaptive uses.
The primary preservation issue in either
case is the compatibility of the use with the
structure. Considerations include location,
access, wear patterns, adequacy of space
and spatial configurations, the need for new
electrical, mechanical, or ventilation
systems, increases in fire risk, and changes
necessary to accommodate disabled
employees or visitors. Federal agencies are
required by law to consider the use of
historic structures before the construction of
comparable new facilities.
Context: The surroundings of a lighthouse,
whether in an urban area, remote coastal
location, on an island, or surrounded by
water contribute to its integrity and historic
character and should be considered before
treatment. The context may include other
features or structures which fall within the
Part VI, Page 20

propertys historic boundaries. Grounds

surrounding a historic lighthouses may bear
evidence of the existence and location of
earlier associated structures, gardens,
walkways, flagpoles, radio tower
foundations, etc., dating from the earliest
use of the site as a light station. Often these
features are removed in later years and
are lost, but by preserving the grounds and
treating the grounds as part of the light
station these clues will be saved for future
research needs (see Grounds section in
Part IV).
Archeological resources: Prehistoric and
historic archeological resources may be
found in the vicinity of historic lighthouses,
above and below the ground and even
under water. Examples of prehistoric
archeological resources include prehistoric
mounds built by Native Americans; these
are found quite often in coastal zones.
Examples of historic archeological resources
include foundations of associated
lighthouse structures, and other features
including fences, walkways, garden plots,
or the remains of a wharf, boat dock, or
pier. These resources not only have
historical value, but reveal significant
information about life at a historic
lighthouse or station. The appropriate
treatment of a historic lighthouse may
include the identification and preservation
of significant archeological resources.
Management and maintenance:
Management strategies are long-term and
comprehensive. They can be one of the
means for implementing a historic
lighthouse preservation plan. Maintenance
tasks can be day-to-day, seasonal, or
cyclical activities which are part of
management strategies. Although
maintenance activities, such as replacing
broken glass and reglazing window sash, or
general lighthouse maintenance, such as
upgrading electrical systems or reroofing,
may appear routine, such activities can

RESOURCES

have a cumulative effect on the lighthouse,

altering its character. Contrariwise, well
conceived management and maintenance
activities can sustain character and integrity
over an extended period. Therefore, both
the management and maintenance of
historic lighthouses should be considered
when selecting a treatment.
Interpretation: Interpretation can help in
understanding and reading the historic
lighthouse. The tools and techniques of
interpretation can include guided tours,
self-guided brochures, exhibits, and
wayside stations. When considered as a
management objective, interpretive goals
should compliment treatment selection,
reflecting the lighthouses significance and
historic character. A lighthouse/light station
may possess varying levels of integrity or
even different periods of significance, both
of which can result in a multifaceted
approach to interpretation.
Mandated code requirements: Regardless
of the treatment, code requirements should
be taken into consideration. If hastily or
poorly designed, a series of code-required
actions may jeopardize a structures
materials as well as its historic character.
Thus, if a lighthouse must be structurally
upgraded, modifications to the historic
appearance should be minimal. Abatement
of lead paint and asbestos within historic
buildings requires particular care if
important historic finishes are not to be
adversely affected. Finally, alterations and
new construction needed to meet
accessibility requirements under the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
should be designed to minimize material
loss and visual change to a historic
structure.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part VI, Page 21

Bibliography/References
Sources for the Handbook
Part I. Why Preserve Lighthouses?
Clifford, Candace, 1994 Inventory of Historic Light
Stations (National Maritime Initiative, National
Park Service, History Division, Washington, D.C.,
1994).
de Gast Robert, The Lighthouses of The Chesapeake
(Baltimore, Maryland, The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1973).
Davis, Deborah, Keeping the Light: A Handbook for
Adaptive Re-use of Island Lighthouse Stations
(Rockland, Maine, Island Institute, 1987).
Delgado, James and Kevin Foster, Guidelines for
Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aids to
Navigation, National Register Bulletin # 34
(Washington, D.C., National Park Service,
Interagency Resources Division).
United States Coast Guard Lighthouse Policy Review
(enclosure 7 to Chapter 6 of COMDTINST
M11011.9B, dated July 27, 1992).
United States Lighthouse Service 1915 (Washington,
D.C., Government Printing Office, 1916).

Part II. History of the Lighthouse Service

and Lighthouse Construction Types
Clifford, Candace, 1994 Inventory of Historic Light
Stations (National Maritime Initiative, National
Park Service, History Division, Washington, D.C.,
1994).
de Gast Robert, The Lighthouses of The Chesapeake
(Baltimore, Maryland, The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1973).
Eshelman, Ralph, American Lighthouse Construction
Types, part of the Maritime Heritage of the
United States National Historic Landmark Theme
Context Study for Lighthouses, unpublished
manuscript (National Maritime Initiative, National
Park Service, 1995).
Holland, Francis Ross Jr., Great American Lighthouses
(Preservation Press, National Trust for Historic
Preservation, Washington, D.C, 1994).
Taylor, David, Documenting Maritime Folklife: An
Introductory Guide (Washington, D.C.,
Government Printing Office, 1992).
United States Coast Guard Lighthouse Policy Review
(enclosure 7 to Chapter 6 of COMDTINST
M11011.9B, dated July 27, 1992).
Wheeler, Wayne C., Diamond Shoal Lighthouse: The
Lighthouse That Never Was, Volume 4, number
3, Keepers Log (1988).

Part VI, Page 22

Part III. Standards, Guidelines, and the

Preservation Process
Chambers, J. Henry, AIA, Cyclical Maintenance for
Historic Buildings (National Park Service,
Interagency Resources Division, 1976)
National Park Service, Americas Landscape Legacy,
brochure developed and written by the NPS
Preservation Assistance Division, n.d.
National Park Service, NPS-28 Cultural Resource
Management Guideline, Release No. 4, July 1994
National Park Service, Secretary of the Interiors
Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and
Engineering Documentation: HABS/HAER
Standards (Washington, DC: GPO Stock Number:
024-005-01068-8, 1990)
National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interiors
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural
Landscapes (Draft mss., February 1996)
Park, Sharon, AIA, Preservation Briefs 31: Mothballing
Historic Buildings (National Park Service, Cultural
Resources, Preservation Assistance Division,
September 1993)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction
Engineering and Research Laboratories, Historic
Preservation Plan for St. Johns River Lighthouse,
Naval Station Mayport, Florida (USACERL
Technical Report 96/15, December 1995)
Weeks, Kay D., Historic Preservation Treatment:
Toward a Common Language, CRM, Vol. 19,
No. 1 (Cultural Resources Branch, National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1996)
Weeks, Kay D., and Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary
of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating & Reconstructing Historic Buildings
(National Park Service, Cultural Resources
Preservation Assistance Division, 1995)

Part IV. Historic Lighthouse Preservation

General sources used throughout the text:
National Park Service, Guidelines for the
Rehabilitating the Buildings at the Presidio of San
Francisco, prepared by the Architectural
Resources Group, San Francisco CA, for the
Presidio Project Office, Golden Gate National
Recreation Area (Denver Service Center, National
Park Service, March 1995)
Park, Sharon, AIA, Preservation Briefs 31: Mothballing
Historic Buildings (National Park Service, Cultural
Resources, Preservation Assistance Division,
September 1993)

RESOURCES

Weeks, Kay D., and Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary

of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating , Restoring, & Reconstructing
Historic Buildings (U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, Cultural
Resources, Preservation Assistance Division,
1995)

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

CONCRETE

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

MASONRY

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

WINDOWS

Askins, James S., Robert C. Mack, AIA, de Teel

Paterson Tiller, Preservation Briefs 2: Repointing
Mortar Joints in Historic Brick Buildings (U. S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Preservation Assistance Division, 1980)

Fisher, Charles E., Editor, The Window Handbook:

Successful Strategies for Rehabilitating Windows
in Historic Buildings (U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, Preservation
Assistance Division and the Center for
Architectural Conservation, College of
Architecture, Georgia Institute for Technology,
1986)

Grimmer, Anne, Preservation Briefs 22: The

Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco (U.S.
Department of the Interior, Cultural Resources,
Preservation Assistance, 1990)
London, Mark, Masonry: How to Care for Old and
Historic Brick and Stone, Respectful
Rehabilitation series, National Trust for Historic
Preservation (Preservation Press, Washington,
D.C., 1988)

Historic Lighthouse Preservation: IRON

Gayle, Margot, David Look, AIA, and John G. Waite
Metals in Americas Historic Buildings (U. S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Cultural Resources, Preservation Assistance
Division, 1992)
Fixed Aids to Navigation Maintenance
CCGDNINEINT M16500.2. (U. S. Department of
Transportation, Ninth Coast Guard District, Civil
Engineering Unit, Cleveland, OH, May 1994)

Historic Lighthouse Preservation: WOOD

Look, David W., and Kay D. Weeks, Preservation
Briefs 10: Exterior Paint Problems on Historic
Woodwork (U. S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Preservation Assistance
Division, Technical Preservation Services,
September 1982)
OBright, Alan, Preservation Tech Notes: Exterior
Woodwork No. 2: Paint Removal from Wood
Siding (U. S. Department of the Interior, National
Park Service, Washington, D.C., September 1986)
Park, Sharon, AIA, Preservation Tech Notes: Exterior
Woodwork No. 1: Proper Painting and Surface
Preparation (U. S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Washington, D.C., May
1986)

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Coney, William B., AIA, Preservation Briefs 15:

Preservation of Historic Concrete: Problems and
General Approaches (U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, Preservation
Assistance Division, 1987)

Haynes, Wesley, Harry Hanson, and Mark Weber,

eds., Repairing Old and Historic Windows: A
Manual for Architects and Homeowners, prepared
by the Ehrenkrantz Group, Architects and
Planners for the New York Landmarks
Conservancy (The Preservation Press,
Washington, D. C., 1992)
Myers, John H., Preservation Briefs 9: The Repair of
Historic Wooden Windows (U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation
Assistance Division, Technical Preservation
Services, September 1981)
Park, Sharon, AIA., Preservation Briefs 31: Mothballing
Historic Buildings (U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, Cultural
Resources, Preservation Assistance, September
1993)

Historic Lighthouse Preservation: DOORS

BMC David Karpin, U.S. Coast Guard, Group Grand
Haven, MI, telephone interview with Michael
Seibert, National Park Service, Williamsport
Preservation Training Center, conversation on
watertight doors, January 1996.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

LANTERNS
Fixed Aids to Navigation Maintenance
CCGDNINEINT M16500.2 (U. S. Department of
Transportation, Ninth Coast Guard District, Civil
Engineering Unit, Cleveland, OH, May 1994)
Lens and Lantern Room Preservation Workshop,
notebook materials from the meeting at St.
Augustine Lighthouse Museum, January 21-23,
1993

Part VI, Page 23

Milton Hartig, U.S. Coast Guard, Group Baltimore,

MD, telephone interview with Michael Seibert,
National Park Service Williamsport Preservation
Training Center, conversation on lantern
treatments, February, 1996
Specifications for the Lighthouse Rehabilitation at
Point Conception Lighthouse, Lompac, CA, PSN1
1-05014 (Civil Engineering Unit, Oakland, CA,
1994)

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

INTERIORS
American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Engineers, Inc., ASHRAE
Fundamentals Handbook (Atlanta, Georgia)
Bevirt, W. David, Environmental Systems Technology
(Vienna, Virginia: National Environmental
Balancing Bureau, 1986)
Jandl, H. Ward, Preservation Briefs 18: Rehabilitating
Interiors in Historic Buildings (National Park
Service, Cultural Resources, Preservation
Assistance Division, 1988)
Park, Sharon, AIA, Preservation Briefs 31: Mothballing
Historic Buildings (National Park Service, Cultural
Resources, Preservation Assistance Division
September 1993)
Park, Sharon C., AIA, and Douglas C. Hicks,
Preservation Briefs 37: Appropriate Methods for
Reducing Lead Paint Hazards in Historic Housing
(National Park Service, Cultural Resources,
Preservation Assistance Division, 1995)

Historic Lighthouse Preservation:

GROUNDS
Birnbaum, Charles A., ASLA, with Christine CapellaPeters, Eds., The Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
with Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic
Properties (National Park Service, Heritage
Preservation Services, 1996)
National Park Service, NPS-28 Cultural Resource
Management Guideline, Release No. 4, July 1994

Part V: Beyond Preservation

Abbott, Geoffrey, Leasing and Privatization of U.S.
Lighthouses: Successes, Non-successes and
Recommendations, no date, copy in files of the
National Maritime Initiative, National Park
Service, Washington, D.C.
Alderson, William T. and Shirley Payne Low.
Interpretation of Historic Sites. Nashville.
American Association for State and Local History.
1976.

Part VI, Page 24

Blatti, Jo, Editor. Past Meets Present: Essays about

Historic Interpretation and Public Audiences.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
1987.
Davis, Deborah, Keeping the Light: A Handbook for
Adaptive Re-Use of Island Lighthouse Stations
(Rockland, Maine: Island Institute, 1987)
Fire Safety in Buildings, by the National Council of
Architectural Registration Boards, Washington,
D.C., August, 1996
Grinder, Alison L. and E. Sue McCoy. The Good
Guide: A Sourcebook for Interpreters, Docents
and Tour Guides. Scottsdale, AZ: Ironwood Press.
1985.
Minnesota Historical Society. Split Rock Lighthouse.
St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press.
Minnesota Historic Sites Pamphlet Series, No. 15.
1993.

Lighthouse-Related
Adamson, H.C., Keepers of the Lights (New York:
Greenburg, 1955)
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Lights of the
Apostles (Philadelphia: Eastern National Park and
Monument Association, 1988)
Bachand, Robert G., Northeast Lights: Lighthouses and
Lightships, Rhode Island to Cape May, New
Jersey (Norwalk, Connecticut: Sea Sports
Publications, 1989)
Baker, T. Lindsey, Lighthouses of Texas (1992)
Caldwell, Bill, Lighthouses of Maine (Portland, Maine:
Guy Gannett Books, 1986)
Carse, Robert, Keepers of the Lights (New York:
Charles Scribner Sons, 1969)
Cipra, David, Lighthouses, Lightships, and the Gulf of
Mexico (Alexandria, Virginia: Cypress
Communications, 1997)
Clark, Admont G., Lighthouses of Cape CodMarthas
VineyardNantucket: Their History and Lore
(1992)
Clifford, Mary Louise, and J. Candace Clifford, Women
Who Kept the Lights: An Illustrated History of
Female Lighthouse Keepers (Williamsburg,
Virginia: Cypress Communications, 1993)
Conklin, Irving, Guideposts of the Sea (New York:
MacMillan and Co., 1939)
De Wire, Elinor, Guardians of the Lights (Sarasota,
Florida: Pineapple Press, 1995)
_____________, Guide To Florida Lighthouses
(Englewood, Florida: Pineapple Press, 1987)
de Gast, Robert, The Lighthouses of the Chesapeake
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973)

RESOURCES

Dean, Love, The Lighthouses of Hawaii (Honolulu,

Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, 1991)
_______________, Reef Lights: Seaswept Lighthouses
of the Florida Keys (Key West, Florida: Historic
Key West Preservation Board, 1982)
Feller-Roth, Barbara, Lighthouses: A Guide to Many of
Maines Coastal and Offshore Guardians
(Freeport, Maine: De Lorne Publishing, 1985)
Gleason, Sarah C., Kindly Lights: A History of
Lighthouses of Southern New England (1991)

Lockwood, Elizabeth K., Searching for the Light:

Textural Record[s] Relating to Lighthouses in the
National Archives (April 25, 1990).
Kagerer, Rudy, A Guidebook to Lighthouses in South
Carolina, Georgia, and Floridas East Coast
(Athens, Georgia: Lighthouse Enterprises, 1985)
Kochel, Kenneth G., Americas Atlantic Coast
Lighthouses: A Travelers Guide (Clearwater,
Florida: Betken Publications, 1994)

Glunt Ruth R., Lighthouses and Legends of the Hudson

(Monroe, New York: Library Research Associates,
1975)

Lowry, Shannon, and Jeff Schultz, Northern Lights:

Tales of Alaskas Lighthouses and Their Keepers
(Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books,
1992)

Hamilton, Harlan, Lights and Legends: A Historical

Guide to Lighthouses of Long Island Sound,
Fishers Island Sound, and Block Island Sound
(Stamford, Connecticut: Westcott Cove Publishing
Company, 1987)

McCarthy, Kevin, Florida Lighthouses (1990)

National Park Service, Historic American Buildings
Survey/Historic American Engineering Survey,
Inventory and Recordation projects involving
lighthouses

Heynen, William J. , Elizabeth K. Lockwood, and

Margo Szabunia, Lighthouse Plans in the
National Archives: A Special List of Lighthouserelated Drawings in Record Group 26, Special
List 57, National Archives and Records
Administration (Washington, D.C. 1990).

__________________, National Register of Historic

Places, Nomination forms of individual
lighthouses

Historic Hostels Report (Washington, D.C., American

Youth Hostels, no date).

Noble, Dennis L., and Michael T. OBrien, Sentinels of

the Rocks (Marquette: Northern Michigan
University Press, 1979)

Holden, Thom, Above and Below: A History of

Lighthouses and Shipwrecks of Isle Royale
(Houghton, Michigan: Isle Royale Natural History
Association, 1985)
Holland, F. Ross, Jr., Americas Lighthouses: An
Illustrated History (New York: Dover
Publications, 1981 reprint)
________________, Great American Lighthouses
(Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1989)
_________________, Maryland Lighthouses of the
Chesapeake: An Illustrated History (Crownsville,
Maryland: Maryland Historical Trust Press, 1997)
Hudson River Valley Commission, The Hudson River
Lighthouses (Albany, New York: Author, 1967)
Hyde, Charles, The Northern Lights (Detroit,
Michigan: Wayne State University, 1995)
Jones, Ray, and Bruce Roberts, Great Lakes
Lighthouses (Old Saybrook, Connecticut: Globe
Pequot Press, 1994)
_______________________, Northern Lighthouses (Old
Saybrook, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press,
1990)
_______________________, Southern Lighthouses:
Chesapeake Bay to the Gulf of Mexico (Old
Saybrook, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press,
second edition, 1995)

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Nelson, Sharlene P. & Ted W., Umbrella Guide to

Washington Lighthouses (Friday Harbor,
Washington: Umbrella Books: 1990)

Nordorf, Charles, The Light-Houses of the United

States in 1874 (Golden, Colorado: Outbooks,
1981)
Official Gannett Maine Guide to Maine Lighthouses: A
Field Guide to Discover the Best of Outdoor
Maine (Portland, Maine: Guy Gannett Books,
1982)
Putnam, George R., Lighthouses and Lightships of the
United States (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1917 and 1933)
Scheina, Robert, Lighthouses, Then and Now
(Washington, DC: U.S. Coast Guard, 1989)
Shanks, Ralph, and Lisa Woo Shanks, ed., Guardians
of the Golden Gate: Lighthouses and Lifeboat
Stations of San Francisco Bay (Petaluma,
California: Costao Books, 1990)
Shanks, Ralph C, Jr., and Janetta Thompson Shanks,
Lighthouses and Lifeboats of the Redwood Coast
(San Anselmo, California: Costao Books, 1978)
Smith, Robert H., The Naval Institute Guide to
Maritime Museums of North America: With
Selected Lighthouse, Canal, and Canal Lock
Museums (Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute
Press, 1990)
Sterling, Robert Thayer, Lighthouses of the Maine
Coast and the Men Who Keep Them (Brattleboro,
Vermont: Stephen Daye Press, 1935)

Part VI, Page 25

Stick, David, North Carolina Lighthouses (Raleigh,

North Carolina: North Carolina Division of
Archives and History)
Turbyville, Linda, Bay Beacons: Lighthouses of the
Chesapeake Bay (Annapolis, Maryland: Eastwind
Publishing, 1995)
U.S. Bureau of Lighthouses Lighthouse Service Bulletin
(1917-??)
_______________, Light List, 7 volumes (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992)
U.S. Lighthouse Board, Annual Report of the U.S.
Lighthouse Board (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1852-1939)
U.S. Lighthouse Establishment, Instructions to Light
Keepers and Masters of Light-House Vessels, 1902
Reprint (Allen Park, Michigan: Great Lakes
Lighthouse Keepers Association, 1989)
U.S. Lighthouse Society, Keepers Log (San Francisco,
California: U.S. Lighthouse Society)

Preservation Guidance
Working with Section 106 and Federal
Preservation Regulations (The following
publications are available from the Advisory
Council)
Protection of Historic Properties [36 CFR Part 800]. 19
pp. October 1985. A typeset, easy-to-read copy of the
regulations for federal agency compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; includes
marginal notes.
Fact Sheet: A Five-Minute Look at Section 106 Review.
4 pp. April 1989. Briefly explains the five steps in the
review process: identification and evaluation of historic
properties, assessment of effects, consultation, Council
comment, and proceeding with action.
Section 106, Step-by-Step. 63 pp. October 1986. A
detailed document that walks the reader through each
step of the Section 106 review process in 36 CFR Part
800.
Preparing Agreement Documents. 88 pp. September
1989. For use in preparing memoranda of agreement,
programmatic agreements, and conditioned
determinations of no adverse effect.
Identification of Historic Properties: A Decisionmaking
Guide for Managers. 25 pp. September 1988. Sets out
basic principles and approaches that should be
considered when agency officials design an effort to
identify historic properties; discusses their application.
Public Participation in Section 106 Review: A Guide for
Agency Officials. 21 pp. February 1989. Presents
public participation principles, criteria for evaluating
existing public participation programs, methods of
public participation, and documentation of public
participation efforts.

Part VI, Page 26

The Section 110 Guidelines: Annotated Guidelines for

Federal Agency Responsibilities under Section 110 of
the National Historic Preservation Act. 56 pp.
November 1989. Guides implementation of Section
110, whereby federal agencies must carry out their
programs in accordance with national historic
preservation policy, designate historic preservation
officers, identify and preserve historic properties under
their ownership or control, and try to minimize harm to
national historic landmarks.
Fact Sheet: Programmatic Agreements under Section
106. 8 pp. August 1988. Provides background
information on programmatic approaches to project
review, explains when programmatic agreements are
appropriate, and discusses such matters as initiating PAs
and public participation in PA development.
Fact Sheet: Section 106 Participation by Applicants for
and Recipients of Federal Assistance, Permits, and
Licenses. 5 pp. October 1988. Defines which
individuals are to be considered recipients and
applicants, how federal agencies may delegate Section
106 responsibilities, and how these individuals may
participate in Section 106 review.
Fact Sheet: Section 106 Participation by Indian Tribes
and Other Native Americans. 7 pp. September 1988.
Outlines provisions specific to Indian lands in the review
process and discusses Section 106 participation by
tribes, other Native Americans, and traditional cultural
leaders.
Fact Sheet: Section 106 Participation by Local
Governments. 8 pp. November 1988. Identifies the role
of local governments in Section 106 review and explains
the responsibilities of Certified Local Governments.
Fact Sheet: Section 106 Participation by State Historic
Preservation Officers. 7 pp. October 1988. Outlines the
duties of the state historic preservation officer, how the
SHPO participates in Section 106 review, and the
SHPOs importance to the national historic preservation
program.
Fact Sheet: Consulting the Council Under Section 111
of the National Historic Preservation Act. 3 pp. October
1988. Explains how federal agencies may comply with
Section 111 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
which authorizes agencies to lease and exchange
historic properties following consultation with the
Council.
Fact Sheet: Consulting About Archeology Under Section
106. 14 pp. September 1990. Provides guidance on
how the Section 106 review process addresses a variety
of archeological issues.

Treatment of Archeological Properties: A

Handbook. 39 pp. May 1991. Presents basic
principles for designing a program to handle
archeological properties, interprets the Councils
regulations as they relate to archeological
concerns, provides detailed recommendations for
when a decision has been made to conduct data

RESOURCES

recovery or salvage excavations, and gives

examples of significant archeological research
questions.

National Register Bulletins (The following

publications are available from the National
Park Service National Register of Historic
Places)
Bulletin 2: Nomination of Deteriorated Buildings to the
National Register. Rev. 1982. Describes instances in
which the National Register will list vacant, abandoned,
and deteriorated buildings.
Bulletin 4: Contribution of Moved Buildings to Historic
Districts. Rev. 1987. Guidelines for determining when a
moved building can contribute to a National Register or
certified local district.
Bulletin 6: Nomination of Property Significant for
Association with Living Persons. Rev. 1982. Discusses
when it is appropriate to nominate properties whose
historical associations are with living persons.
Bulletin 12: Definition of National Register Boundaries
for Archeological Properties. 1985. Using case studies,
recommends approaches for delineating boundaries for
commonly encountered archeological properties.
Bulletin 14: Guidelines for Counting Contributing and
Noncontributing Resources for National Register
Documentation. Rev. 1986. Provides guidance for
distinguishing and counting contributing and
noncontributing resources composing a documented
property, regardless of size or complexity.
Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation. Rev. 1991. Explains how the
NPS applies the criteria used to determine the eligibility
of properties for listing in the National Register.
Bulletin 16: Guidelines for Completing National
Register of Historic Places Forms. Rev. 1990. Part A
provides information on completing the National
Register Registration Form; Part B provides information
on completing the Multiple Property Documentation
Form.
Bulletin 18: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed
Historic Landscapes. 1987. Explains the process by
which designed historic landscapes are documented,
evaluated, and nominated to the National Register.
Bulletin 19: Policies and Procedures for Processing
National Register Nominations. 1987. Explains
procedures for processing nominations; describes
common documentation problems and how they are
addressed.
Bulletin 20: Nominating Historic Vessels and
Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic Places.
1987. Guidelines for identifying, evaluating, and
documenting a variety of historic vessels as well as
shipwrecks.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Bulletin 21: How to Establish Boundaries for National

Register Properties. Guidelines and examples of how to
determine National Register boundaries.
Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating
Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the
Last Fifty Years. Rev. 1989. Guidance for evaluating the
exceptional importance required for listing properties
that have achieved significance within the last fifty years.
Bulletin 23: How to Improve the Quality of Photos for
National Register Nominations. 1979. Suggestions to
help photographers achieve better quality photographic
documentation of buildings and architectural details.
Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for
Preservation Planning. Rev. 1985. Guidance for
undertaking surveys of historic resources.
Bulletin 28: Using the UTM Grid System to Record
Historic Sites. Rev. 1977. Introduces the Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Grid System and its
application to mapping historic and archeological sites.
Bulletin 29: Guidelines for Restricting Information
About Historic and Prehistoric Resources. 1990.
Guidance on which historic resources should be
protected by restricting information about their location
and character.
Bulletin 30: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting
Rural Historic Landscapes. 1990. Includes definition of
rural landscape, description of characteristics, practical
methods for survey and research, application of National
Register criteria, and registration requirements.
Bulletin 32: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting
Properties Associated with Significant Persons. 1989.
Updated information on interpreting Criterion B.
Bulletin 33: National Register Information System
Manual for State and Federal Users. 1987. Designed
for users of the National Register Information System
(NRIS), the database of properties listed in, determined
eligible for, or pending listing in the National Register.
Bulletin 34: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting
Historic Aids to Navigation. 1990. Guidance on
evaluating the significance and integrity of historic
lighthouses, daymarks, and sound signals, as well as
preparing National Register and other preservation
planning documentation.
Bulletin 35: National Register Casebook: Examples of
Documentation. 1988-89. Examples of multiple
property case studies, maritime nominations, and
concise nominations.
Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting
Traditional Cultural Properties. 1990. Guidance in
determining whether properties of traditional and
religious cultural significance are eligible for inclusion in
the National Register.
Bulletin 39: Researching a Historic Property. 1990.
Provides basic information on methods of researching an
individual building for listing in the National Register.

Part VI, Page 27

Technical Guidance

Weaver, Martin E., Conserving Buildings (New York:

John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1993)

(See preceding Bibliography for sources of

information used in text)

Window Directory for Historic Buildings (Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Park Service, Cultural Resources, Preservation
Assistance, 1992)

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Fire Safety

Retrofitting in Historic Buildings (1989)
Bevil, Marianne, Meredith Fiske, Anne-Leslie Owens,
Painting Historic Buildings: Materials and
TechniquesAn Annotated Bibliography (United
States Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, Preservation Assistance Division,
Washington, D.C., 1993)
Bleekman, George M., Ann Girard, Karin Link, Donald
Peting, Ann Seaton, Jonathan Smith, Lisa TeresiBurcham, and Richa Wilson, compilers Twentieth
Century Building Materials: 1900-1950, An
Annotated Bibliography (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Preservation Assistance Division, 1993)
Cowden, Adrienne Beaudet, Historic Concrete, An
Annotated Bibliography (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Preservation Assistance Division, 1993)
Department of the Navy, Historic Structures
Preservation Manual, NAVFAC MO-913 (Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, 1991)
Department of the Navy, Inactivation, Caretaker
Maintenance, and Reactivation of Shore Facilities,
NAVFAC MO-300 (Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, 1980)
Department of Transportation, Guide for Restoring and
Preserving Old and Historic Properties (U.S. Coast
Guard Civil Engineering Technical Report, CGECV-2-82, 1982)
Department of Transportation, Lighthouse
Maintenance Management Manual (U.S. Coast
Guard, COMDTINST M16500.6A, 1993)
Fairel, Chandra, Residential Cooling Strategies for Hot
Humid Climates, manuscript at Technical
Information Branch, Florida Solar Energy Center,
Houston, April 1985
Olgyay, Victor, Design with Climate: Bioclimatic
Approach to Architectural Regionalism
(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1973)
Principles of Attic Ventilation (Peoria, Illinois: Airvent,
Inc., 1996)
Simonson, Kaye Ellen, Maintaining Historic Buildings,
An Annotated Bibliography (United States
Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Preservation Assistance Division, Washington,
D.C., 1990)
Stephen, George, Remodelling Old Houses without
Destroying their Character (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1908)

Part VI, Page 28

National Park Service Technical Guidance

Technical Preservation Services (TPS), Heritage
Preservation Services, National Park Service,
conducts a variety of activities to guide federal
agencies, states, and the general public in
planning and undertaking project work on
historic buildings, structures, sites, objects, and
districts listed in the National Register of
Historic Places. In addition to establishing
standards and guidelines, the Service develops,
publishes, and distributes technical information
on responsible approaches to treating significant
historic properties.
A listing of the popular Preservation Briefs is
provided below. Although one copy may be
requested free of charge, TPS books, handbooks,
technical leaflets and videos are generally
available from several sales outlets, including
the Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Office (phone orders: (202) 512-1800);
the National Technical Information Service,
(703) 487-4600; the Historic Preservation
Education Foundation; and a variety of other
partnership outlets. A Catalog of Historic
Preservation Publications, Caring for the Past,
with stock numbers, prices, and ordering
information may be obtained by contacting:
National Park Service, TPS, Heritage
Preservation Services Information Desk, P.O.
Box 37127, Washington, D.C. 20013-7127.
Telephone: (202) 343-9583; FAX (202) 3433803; e:mail: [email protected]
Preservation Briefs
Preservation Briefs assist owners and developers
of historic buildings in recognizing and
resolving common preservation and repair
problems prior to work. The briefs are
especially useful to preservation tax incentive
program applicants because they recommend
those methods and approaches for rehabilitating
historic buildings that are consistent with their
historic character.

RESOURCES

Preservation Briefs 1: The Cleaning and Waterproof

Coating of Masonry Buildings. Robert C. Mack, AIA.
1975.
Preservation Briefs 2: Repointing Mortar Joints in
Historic Brick Buildings. Robert C. Mack, AIA, de Teel
Paterson Tiller, and James S. Askins. Rev., 1980.
Preservation Briefs 3: Conserving Energy in Historic
Buildings. Baird M. Smith, AIA. 1978.
Preservation Briefs 4: Roofing for Historic Buildings.
Sarah M. Sweetser. 1978.
Preservation Briefs 5: The Preservation of Historic Adobe
Buildings. 1978.
Preservation Briefs 6: Dangers of Abrasive Cleaning to
Historic Buildings. Anne E. Grimmer. 1979.
Preservation Briefs 7: The Preservation of Historic
Glazed Architectural Terra-Cotta. de Teel Patterson
Tiller. 1979.
Preservation Briefs 8: Aluminum and Vinyl Siding on
Historic Buildings: The Appropriateness of Substitute
Materials for Resurfacing Historic Wood Frame
Buildings. John H. Myers. Revised by Gary Hume.
1984.
Preservation Briefs 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden
Windows. John H. Myers. 1981.
Preservation Briefs 10: Exterior Paint Problems on
Historic Woodwork. Kay D. Weeks and David W. Look,
AIA. 1982.
Preservation Briefs 11: Rehabilitating Historic
Storefronts. H. Ward Jandl. 1982.
Preservation Briefs 12: The Preservation of Historic
Pigmented Structural Glass (Vitrolite and Carrara Glass).
1984.
Preservation Briefs 13: The Repair and Thermal
Upgrading of Historic Steel Windows. Sharon C. Park,
AIA. 1984.
Preservation Briefs 14: New Exterior Additions to
Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns. Kay D.
Weeks. 1986.
Preservation Briefs 15: Preservation of Historic Concrete:
Problems and General Approaches. William B. Coney,
AIA. 1987.
Preservation Briefs 16: The Use of Substitute Materials
on Historic Building Exteriors. Sharon C. Park, AIA.
1988.
Preservation Briefs 17: Architectural Character:
Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an
Aid to Preserving Their Character. Lee H. Nelson, FAIA.
1988.
Preservation Briefs 18: Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic
Buildings: Identifying Character-Defining Elements. H.
Ward Jandl. 1988.
Preservation Briefs 19: The Repair and Replacement of
Historic Wooden Shingle Roofs. Sharon C. Park, AIA.
1989.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Preservation Briefs 20: The Preservation of Historic

Barns. Michael J. Auer. 1989.
Preservation Briefs 21: Repairing Historic Flat Plaster-Walls and Ceilings. Marylee MacDonald. 1989.
Preservation Briefs 22: The Preservation and Repair of
Historic Stucco. Anne E. Grimmer. 1990.
Preservation Briefs 23: Preserving Historic Ornamental
Plaster. David Flaharty. 1990.
Preservation Briefs 24: Heating, Ventilating, and Cooling
Historic Buildings: Problems and Recommended
Approaches. Sharon C. Park, AIA. 1991.
Preservation Briefs 25: The Preservation of Historic
Signs. Michael J. Auer. 1991.
Preservation Briefs 26: The Preservation and Repair of
Historic Log Buildings. Bruce D. Bomberger. 1991.
Preservation Briefs 27: The Maintenance and Repair of
Architectural Cast Iron. John G. Waite; Historical
Overview by Margot Gayle. 1991.
Preservation Briefs 28: Painting Historic Interiors. Sara
B. Chase. 1992.
Preservation Briefs 29: The Repair, Replacement, and
Maintenance of Slate Roofs. Jeffrey S. Levine. 1992.
Preservation Briefs 30: The Preservation and Repair of
Historic Clay Tile Roofs. Anne E. Grimmer and Paul K.
Williams. 1992.
Preservation Briefs 31: Mothballing Historic Buildings.
Sharon C. Park, AIA. 1993.
Preservation Briefs 32: Making Historic Properties
Accessible. Thomas C. Jester and Sharon C. Park, AIA.
1993.
Preservation Briefs 33: The Preservation and Repair of
Stained and Leaded Glass. Neal A. Vogel and Rolf
Achilles. 1993.
Preservation Briefs 34: Applied Decoration for Historic
Interiors: Preserving Historic Composition Ornament.
Jonathan Thornton and William Adair, FAAR. 1994.
Preservation Briefs 35: Understanding Old Buildings:
The Process of Architectural Investigation. Travis C.
McDonald, Jr. 1994.
Preservation Briefs 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes:
Planning, Treatment, and Management of Historic
Landscapes. Charles A. Birnbaum, ASLA. 1994.
Preservation Briefs 37: Appropriate Methods of
Reducing Lead-Paint Hazards in Historic Housing.
Sharon C. Park, AIA, and Douglas C. Hicks. 1995.
Preservation Briefs 38: Removing Graffiti from Historic
Masonry. Martin E. Weaver. 1995.
Preservation Briefs 39: Managing Moisture Problems in
Historic Buildings. Sharon C. Park, AIA. 1996.
Preservation Briefs 40: Preserving Historic Ceramic Tile
Floors. Kimberly A. Konrad and Anne E. Grimmer.
1996.

Part VI, Page 29

Curation
NPS Handbooks, Manuals, and Key
Documents
Automated National Catalog System (ANCS) User
Manual. April 1987. Developed to computerize
accessioning and cataloging, the ANCS has wide-ranging
application for both cultural objects and natural history
specimens.
Guidance for Meeting NPS Preservation and Protection
Standards for Museum Collections. Special Directive 801 (Revised), March 1990. This directive outlines the NPS
standards for museum collections storage, museum
environment, security, fire protection, housekeeping,
and museum planning.
Museum Handbook, Part I, Museum Collections.
September 1990. Part I provides guidance on scope of
collections; environmental monitoring and control; pest
management; museum collections storage; handling,
packing, and shipping objects; conservation treatment;
security and fire protection; emergency planning;
curatorial health and safety; planning and programming
for museum collections management; and museum
ethics. This part of the handbook also addresses
preventive conservation for various classes of museum
objects.
Museum Handbook, Part II, Museum Records.
September 1984. Part II provides guidance on
documentation and accountability for cultural
collections and natural history collections. The topics
addressed include accessioning, cataloging,
inventorying, marking, and record photography. An
updated Part II (draft in progress) will include guidance
on incoming and outgoing loans and deaccessioning.
Museum Handbook, Part III, Use of Museum
Collections. Draft in progress. Part III will provide
guidance on uses of collections in exhibits, interpretive
and educational activities, and research; motion pictures
and photography; reproductions; office art; publications;
and use of collections by Native American and other
ethnic groups.
Tools of the Trade: A Listing of Materials and Equipment
for Managing Museum Collections. April 1990. This
publication provides a description of and suggested
sources for recordkeeping supplies; storage containers;
specialty curatorial items, natural history supplies;
museum cabinetry, shelving, and shelving racks; and
environmental monitoring and control apparatus.

Technical Publications
Cumberland, Donald, Jr. Museum Collection Storage
in an Historic Building Using a Prefabricated
Structure. Preservation Tech Notes: Museum
Collections, No. 1. September 1985.

variety of timely information on specific

procedures and techniques for storage, exhibit
mounting, and preventive care and maintenance;
curatorial health and safety updates; and sources
of assistance and supplies. Revision of series (draft
in progress) will be available in 1993.
Sheetz, Ron, and Charles Fisher. Reducing Visible and
Ultraviolet Light Damage to Interior Wood
Finishes. Preservation Tech Notes: Museum
Collections, No. 2. September 1990.

Scholarly or Professional Publications

American Association of Museums. Museum Ethics.
Washington, DC: American Association of
Museums, 1991.
American Association for State and Local History.
History News (bimonthly journal) and History
News Dispatch (monthly newsletter).
American Institute for Conservation of Historic and
Artistic Works. Journal of the American Institute
for Conservation (biannual journal) and AIC
Newsletter (bimonthly newsletter).
Burke, Robert B., and Sam Adeloye. A Manual of Basic
Museum Security. Rome: International Council of
Museums, 1986.
Case, Mary, ed. Registrars on Record: Essays on
Museum Collections Management. Washington,
DC: American Association of Museums, 1988.
de Torres, Amparo R., ed. Collections Care: A Selected
Bibliography. Washington, DC: National Institute
for the Conservation of Cultural Property, 1990.
Jones, Barclay G., ed. Protecting Historic Architecture
and Museum Collections from Natural Disasters.
Boston: Butterworths, 1986.
Malaro, Marie C. A Legal Primer on Managing
Museum Collections. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1985.
National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 911
Standard: Protection of Museums and Museum
Collections. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection
Association, 1991.
Society for the Preservation of Natural History
Collections. Collection Forum (biannual journal)
and SPHNC Newsletter (quarterly newsletter).
Society of American Archivists. The American
Archivist (quarterly journal) and SAA Newsletter
(bimonthly newsletter).
Thompson, John M. A., ed. The Manual of
Curatorship. Stoneham, MA: Butterworths, 1992.
Ward, Phillip R. The Nature of Conservation: A Race
Against Time. Santa Monica, CA: J. Paul Getty
Institute, 1987.

NPS Conserve O Gram Series. This series consists of

brief, technical leaflets distributed periodically to
provide park and museum staff with a wide

Part VI, Page 30

RESOURCES

Interpretation
Benson, Susan Porter, Stephen Brier, and Roy
Rosenzweig, eds., Presenting the Past: Essays on
History and the Public (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1986)
Blatti, Jo, ed., Past Meets Present: Essays about
Historic Interpretation and Public Audiences.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press,
1987.
Fitch, James Marston, Historic Preservation: Curatorial
Management of the Built World (Charlottesville,
Virginia: University Press of Virginia, 1990)
Frisch, Michael, A Shared Authority: Essays on the
Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History.
Albany: State University of New York Press,
1990)

Willey, Gordon R. and Jeremy A. Sabloff, A History of

American Archaeology (W.H. Freeman, San
Francisco, 1980)

Archeological Assistance Program

Technical Briefs (Published several times a
year by the NPS Archeology and
Ethnography Program, these Briefs address
technical issues pertaining to archeology
and examine case studies demonstrating the
effectiveness of archeological programs.)
Technical Brief 1. Filter Fabric: A Technique for Shortterm Site Stabilization by Dr. Robert M. Thorne, Center
for Archaeological Research, University of Mississippi,
1988.

George, Gerald, Visiting History: Arguments Over

Museums and Historic Sites (Washington:
American Association of Museums, 1990)

Technical Brief 2. Arizona Archeology Week:

Promoting the Past to the Public by Teresa L. Hoffman
and Shereen Lerner, Arizona State Historic Preservation
Office, 1988.

Jackson, John Brinckerhoff, The Necessity for Ruins

and Other Topics (Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press, 1980)

Technical Brief 3. Archeology in the National Historic

Landmarks Program by Robert S. Grumet, Mid-Atlantic
Regional Office, National Park Service, 1988.

Karamanski, Theodore J., ed., Ethics and Public

History: An Anthology (Malabar, Florida: Robert
E. Krieger Publishing Company, 1990)

Technical Brief 4. Archeology in the Classroom: A Case

Study from Arizona by A. E. Rogge and Patti Bell,
Arizona Archaeological Council, Archaeology for the
Schools Committee, 1989.

Kammen, Michael, Mystic Chords of Memory: the

Transformation of Tradition in American Culture
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991)
Kyvig, David E., and Myron A. Marty, Nearby History:
Exploring the History Around You (Nashville,
Tennessee: American Association for State and
Local History, 1982)
Leon, Warren, and Roy Rosenzweig, eds., History
Museums in the United States: A Critical
Assessment (Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
1989)
Lowenthal, David, The Past is a Foreign Country
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)
Meinig, D.W., ed., The Interpretation of Ordinary
Landscapes: Geographical Essays (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1979)

Archeology
Hutt, Sherry, Elwood W. Jones and Martin E.
McAllister, Archeological Resource Protection
(National Trust for Historic Preservation, The
Preservation Press, Washington, D.C., 1992)
Sturtevant, William C., general editor, Handbook of
North American Indians, Vols. 1-20 (Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C., various dates)
Trigger, Bruce G., A History of Archaeological
Thought (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1989)

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Technical Brief 5. International Site Burial: A

Technique to Protect Against Natural or Mechanical
Loss by Robert M. Thorne, Center for Archaeological
Research, University of Mississippi, 1989.
Technical Brief 6. The Kentucky Archaeological
Registry: Landowner Participation in Site Preservation
by A. Gwynn Henderson, Kentucky Nature Preserves
Commission, 1989.
Technical Brief 7. Federal Archeological Contracting:
Utilizing the Competitive Procurement Process by John
H. Jameson, Jr., John E. Ehrenhard, and Wilfred M.
Husted, Interagency Archeological Service Division,
Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, 1990.
Technical Brief 8. Revegetation: The Soft Approach to
Archeological Site Stabilization by Robert M. Thorne,
Center for Archaeological Research, University of
Mississippi, 1990.
Technical Brief 9. Volunteers in Archeology by Hester
Davis, Arkansas Archaeological Survey, 1990.
Technical Brief 10. The National Historic Landmarks
Program Theme Study as a Preservation Planning Tool
by Robert S. Grumet, Mid-Atlantic Regional Office,
National Park Service, 1990.
Technical Brief 11. Legal Background of Archeological
Resources Protection by Carol Garnett, Legal Aid Bureau
of Maryland, Inc., 1991.

Part VI, Page 31

Technical Brief 12. Site Stabilization Information

Sources by Robert M. Thorne, National Clearinghouse
for Archaeological Site Stabilization, University
Museum, 1991.
Technical Brief 13. Managing Archeological Resources
from the Museum Perspective by Lynne Sullivan, New
York State Museum, 1992.

Cultural Landscapes
Ahern, Katherine, Cultural Landscapes Bibliography:
An Annotated Bibliography on Resources in the
National Park System (Washington, DC: National
Park Service, 1992)

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Technologies for the Preservation of Prehistoric
and Historic Landscapes, Background Paper,
OTA-BP-E-44 (Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office, July 1987)

Documentation
Borchers, Perry E., Photogrammetric Recording of
Cultural Resources (1977) Available from NTIS,
Order Number: PB85-180792.
Burns, John A., AIA, ed., Recording Historic
Structures (1989)

Cozen, Michael P., ed., The Making of the American

Landscape (London: Harper Collins Academic,
1990)

Chambers, J. Henry, FAIA, Rectified Photography and

Photo Drawings for Historic Preservation (1973)
Available from the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS), Order Number: PB85-180768

Good, Albert H., Park and Recreation Structures

(Boulder, CO: Graybooks, 1990, reprint of 1938
NPS edition)

Hart, David M., AIA, X-Ray Examination of Historic

Structures (1975) Available from NTIS, Order
Number: PB85-180800)

Jackson, John B., Discovering the Vernacular

Landscape (New Haven CT: Yale University Press,
1984)

National Park Service, Secretary of the Interiors

Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and
Engineering Documentation: HABS/HAER
Standards (Washington, DC: GPO Stock Number:
024-005-01068-8, 1990)

Lynch, Kevin, What Time is This Place? (Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press, 1972)
Meier, Lauren G. ed., Historic Landscape Directory
(Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1991)
Meier, Lauren G., and Betsy Chittenden, Preserving
Historic Landscapes: An Annotated Bibliography
(Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1990)
Meinig, Donald W., ed., The Interpretation of
Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1979)
Melnick, Robert Z., Daniel Sponn, and Emma J. Saxe,
Cultural Landscapes: Rural Historic Districts in
the National Park System (Washington, DC:
National Park Service, 1984)
National Park Service, Guidelines for the Treatment of
Historic Landscapes (Washington, DC: National
Park Service, 1993)
Newton, Norman T., Design on the Land: The
Development of Landscape Architecture
(Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of the University
of Massachusetts Press, 1971)
Stilgoe, John, The Common Landscape of America,
15801845 (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1982)
Stokes, Samuel N., Elizabeth Watson, Genevieve P.
Keller, and J. Timothy Keller, Saving Americas
Countryside: A Guide to Rural Conservation
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1989)
Tishler, William, ed., American Landscape
Architecture, Designers and Places (Washington,
DC: Preservation Press, 1989)

Part VI, Page 32

RESOURCES

National Archives Historical

Resources3
All of the records described below are unclassified
and available for research use. First a researchers
card, available at no cost, must be obtained at the
National Archives or any Archive Branch.
Archivists and findings aids are available to assist
you in your research. Most records must be
pulled from the stacks and delivered to you in
reading rooms. Records are usually not pulled
upon demand but by predetermined schedules
you may have to wait until the next scheduled pull
before you receive the records you requested.
There are typically four pulls per day. Before you
enter the reading room all personal belongings
such as brief cases, purses, pens, etc., must be
placed in lockers operated by a refundable quarter;
however, laptops are generally permitted. Paper
and pencils are provided. Research notes are
allowed only after inspection and are stamped.
These and other strict requirements are necessary
in order to ensure that documents are not harmed
or stolen. Debit cards can also be bought to be
used in copying machines.
Many of the U.S. lighthouses records are in the
National Archives, Record Group 26. These
records, dating from 1789 onward, consist of
ledgers, correspondence, journals, log books,
contracts, plans, plats, and other textural records.
These records are not complete because of failure
of agencies to deposit records as required and a
fire at the Commerce Department in 1921. Some
of the destroyed records were partially replaced by
field records kept at Coast Guard District
Headquarters. An inventory of Record Group 26
was prepared in 1963 and in the following year
field records brought to the National Archives
were also inventoried. Inspection reports,
containing information on building conditions,
etc., for lighthouse stations are sometimes available
from Districts.
The primary tenet of arranging archival records is
based on provenance. Because the government
entity responsible for overseeing lighthouses has
undergone eleven incarnations since its
establishment in 1789, and because records from
each agency are kept separate and not intermixed,
lighthouse archival information is located in

Taken largely from Elizabeth K. Lockwood,

Searching for the Light: Textural Record[s] Relating to
Lighthouses in the National Archives (April 25, 1990).
3

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

several different record groups, and at several

different locations within the National Archives.
Additionally, some specific activities of lighthouse
related activities, such as land purchasing, budget
preparation, territorial lighthouse governance, and
the nomination of lighthouse employees, often
involved outside agencies whose primary functions
were unrelated to lighthouse work. For example,
beginning in 1831, the Army Corps of Engineers
assisted the Lighthouse Establishment in the design
and construction of lighthouse buildings, light
vessels, and buoys. The correspondence files of the
Office of the Chief Engineer, 1789 to 1923,
include a large number of letters relating to
lighthouse construction, repairs, inspections, and
conditions of lighthouses. Many contracts for
lighthouse buildings are included in the records of
the General Accounting Office. Therefore, there
are many places to search for lighthouse-related
records. A through research of lighthouses will
require perseverance, creative thinking, and
familiarity with the administrative history of the
agencies which governed lighthouses throughout
their existence.
The Congressional Serial Set of government reports
such as American State Papers include primary
information on lighthouses and are available at
many larger libraries throughout the United States.
The annual reports of the Coast Survey often
contain information on the selection of lighthouse
sites. The annual reports of the Secretary of War
sometime contain information on army officers on
detached duty with the lighthouse service. During
times of war this was very common. During the
American Civil War, a Confederate Lighthouse
Bureau was established under the Confederate
Treasury Department. These records contain
information on southern lighthouses from 1860 to
1865. The Annual Reports of the Lighthouse
Board, beginning in 1852, contain information
such as requests by the Board to Congress for
appropriations to build, repair and improve
lighthouses.
The National Archives has Clipping Files from
1855 to 1932 for most lighthouses. The files are
arranged by District and thereafter alphabetically
by lighthouse. The entry from each (or nearly
each) annual report has been cut out and compiled
(clipped) together to give a summary history of
what was published in lighthouse agencies annual
reports. It is suggested you double check the
actual series as some entries are often missing,
especially for the later years. This aid is very useful

Part VI, Page 33

in tracing repairs and alterations to buildings, and

construction of new buildings over time.
Descriptive Lists of Lighthouses, 1858 to 1938,
give the most detailed physical information.
Arranged by District, information often includes
building materials and dimensions of structures,
size and type of illuminating apparatus, lanterns,
lamps, and fog signals.
Another useful aid is Form 60, a series of nearly
200 questions regarding the physical
characteristics, healthfulness, quality of drinking
water, etc. for each station. These forms were send
to all keepers around the turn of the century.
Most keepers answered the majority of the
questions. These forms are arranged alphabetically
by State, and thereafter by lighthouse.
The National Archives also maintains a Lighthouse
Site Files, 1790 to 1939. Arranged alphabetically
by State, and thereafter by lighthouse, each file
contains legal descriptions of lighthouse land sites,
land ownership changes through time, and often
land surveys, plats, site plans, letters, contracts,
and other miscellaneous information. Light Station
Log Books provide the most detailed information
on day to day life at a lighthouse, as the keepers
were required to keep a log recording notable
events, extreme weather conditions, personnel
issues, repairs, visitors, delivery of supplies, and
the comings and going of keepers. Some keepers
were more descriptive than others, so usefulness of
information varies.
The U.S. Lighthouse Board, Documents Relating to
Lighthouses, 1789-1871 is especially useful for pre1852 built lighthouses. Another useful serial is
Light List, which gives a yearly update on light
characteristics of lighthouses and lightships. The
first Light List was published in 1838, but annual
publication did not begin until 1910 with the
establishment of the Bureau of Lighthouses. The
American Coast Pilot, first published in 1796 and
revised periodically up until 1867 also gives good
descriptions of lighthouses, often accompanied
with shoreline sketches showing the lighthouse
and surrounding topography. Administrative
records of the Coast Guard after 1950 remain in
the custody of the Department of Transportation.
The Official Register of the United States,
published in odd-numbered years, from 1829 until
1919, lists employees of the central office of the
Lighthouse Establishment, as well as, employees
at large, including district inspectors and
engineers, lighthouse keepers, assistant keepers,

Part VI, Page 34

vessel crews, etc. The register includes the

employees name, duty location, place of birth,
date of appointment, and salary. Beginning in
1921 the register includes only administrative
personnel. The most complete information on
lighthouse keepers, is the Register of Lighthouse
Keepers, 1845-1912 (microfilm publication
number M1373), which consists of 19 volumes of
registers microfilmed in geographic order by five
regions: New England; New York through Virginia;
North Carolina through Texas; Great Lakes; and
West Coast, Alaska, and Hawaii. Each microfilm
roll has an alphabetical index by keeper sir name
and/or name of lighthouse. These registers provide
information regarding dates of appointments and
salary information. With this information other
fragmentary personnel records can be consulted
including correspondence regarding appointments
and dismissals, records of district inspectors and
engineers, records of delinquencies, and retirement
cards.
Photographs and plans are available from the
College Park, Maryland, branch of the National
Archives, referred to as Archives II. Some
lighthouse plans as well as other information are
housed at the National Archives Regional Offices.
For information on plans see Lighthouse Plans in
the National Archives: A Special List of Lighthouserelated Drawings in Record Group 26.4
Outline of Records in the National Archives
Relating to Lighthouses
Record Group 26: Records of the United States
Coast Guard
Finding Aid: Forrest Holdcamper, Preliminary
Inventory of the Records of the United States Coast
Guard, an unpublished finding aid in the National
Archives.
A. Records of the Lighthouse Service, 1790-1950
1. General Records: journals and meeting minutes
of the Light-House Board; annual reports;
correspondence between chairs of committees and
the Light-House Board; circulars of the Light-House
Service; bulletins of the Light-House Bureau;
newspaper clippings concerning activities of the
Board; correspondence to and from the LightHouse Service, Board, and Bureau, including
letters to and from district officials; and indexes
4
William J. Heynen, Elizabeth K. Lockwood, and
Margo Szabunia, Special List 57, National Archives and
Records Administration (Washington, D.C. 1990).

RESOURCES

and registers to incoming and outgoing

correspondence.
2. Records Relating to Legal Matters: reports
concerning lighthouse personnel, and records
relating to legal claims.
3. Records Relating to Operations: Light-House
Service publications descriptions of lighthouses;
abstracts of titles to sites; site files; journals and
reports of lighthouses; reports of physical condition
of lighthouses; reports of inspections of
lighthouses; reports relating to repairs; lighthouse
plans and specifications; drawings of illuminating
apparatus; reports of shipwrecks near lighthouses;
and lighthouse logs.
4. Personnel and Payroll Records: correspondence
concerning keeper and assistants; correspondence
concerning personnel of lighthouse vessels;
nominations for and ratings of employees of LightHouse Board; personnel records of engineers and
inspectors; records of engineers and crews of
lighthouse vessels; notices of removal; list of
appointments and transfers; record of salary of
lighthouse keepers; personnel charts; and
retirement record cards.

2. Audiovisual records maintained by the central

office of the U.S. Coast Guard include: prints and
negatives of lighthouses; oversized prints and
artworks of lighthouses; negatives and prints of
survey of lighthouses; photographs of light tenders;
stock film and newsreels of Coast Guard activities
relating to lighthouses; and plans and drawings of
lighthouses. Finding aids are available in the
National Archives Still Pictures Branch, the
Cartographic and Architectural Drawings Branch,
and the Motion Picture, Sound, and Video Branch.
Record Group 40: Records of the Department of
Commerce
The general correspondence files of the Secretary
of Commerce, 1903 to 1950 are arranged
numerically, and indexed in five-year increments
by alphabetically arranged index cards. Indexes
include names of individual lighthouses, in
addition to entries under Light-House Board, LightHouse Service, and Light Vessels. Finding aid:
Forrest Holdcamper, Preliminary Inventory of the
General Records of the Department of
Commerce, a listed finding aid in the National
Archives.

5. Field Records.

Record Group 49: Records of the Bureau of Land

Management

a. The records housed in the main National

Archives Building include: correspondence,
primarily between the Lighthouse Service and the
district engineers and district superintendent from
the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 12th
lighthouse districts. Finding aid: Forrest
Holdcamper, Preliminary Inventory of the Field
Records of the Light-House Service, an
unpublished finding aid in the National Archives.

Records of Division K of the Bureau include

registers of lighthouse reservations; and records
relating to non-military (1860-1940) and
abandoned military (1822-1937) reservations,
which include information relating to lighthouse
lands. Finding aid: The General Land Office:
Administrative Records of the General Land Office,
1785-1955, an unpublished finding aid in the
National Archives.

b. Records in the New England Region of the

National Archives include: general records;
records relating to the construction, repair, and
alternations of lighthouses; reports of lighthouses;
and correspondence relating to lighthouses.

Record Group 55: Records of the Government of

the Virgin Islands

c. Records in the Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes,

Southwest, Pacific Southwest, and Pacific Sierra
Regional Branches include some lighthouse log
books.
B. General Records of the U.S. Coast Guard
1. Textual records maintained by the central office
of the U.S. Coast Guard include: logs of vessels,
stations, or depots; and records relating to the
transfer of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and
Navigation and the Lighthouse Service to the Coast
Guard.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

The general files are arranged by subjectclassification numbers in periods, 1917-1927 and
1934-1943. In the first period, 79 is the
classification number for lighthouses and the
Lighthouse Service; the classification in the second
period is 52. Finding aid: J. Donn Hooker,
Records of the Government of the Virgin Islands
of the United States, finding aid in the National
Archives.
Record Group 77: Records of the Office of the
Chief of Engineers
The connection of engineer officers with the
construction of lighthouses dates from 1831 when

Part VI, Page 35

the Treasury Department allocated money

approved for lights on lakes to the Army Corps of
Engineers for disbursement. Several series of
correspondence of the Chief of Engineers from
1831 to 1923 contain information relating to
lighthouse construction, land, condition of
lighthouses, repairs, and inspections. Two main
subject indexes provide access to these
numerically-arranged records. Finding aid:
Elizabeth Bethel and Maizie H. Johnson,
Preliminary Inventory of the Textual Records of
the Office of the Chief of Engineers, an
unpublished finding aid in the National Archives.

paralleling the Union Government, which

included a Confederate Treasury Department and a
subordinate Lighthouse Bureau. The Treasury
Department Collection of Confederate records
includes: correspondence of the Lighthouse Bureau
from 1861 to 1864; and records relating to
Southern lighthouses from 1860 to 1865.

Record Group 217: Records of the Accounting

Officers of the Department of the Treasury
Finding aid: William F. Sherman, Inventory of the
Records of the Accounting Officers of the
Department of the Treasury, an inventory in the
National Archives.
A. Records of the Register of the Treasury include:
daybooks from 1789 to 1894; general Customs
ledgers from 1849 to 1908; Customs journals from
1849 to 1896; and ledgers of lighthouse engineers
and inspectors under the Department of
Commerce and Labor from 1903 to 1909.
B. Records of the Office of the First Comptroller
include: miscellaneous letters sent to Customs
offices relating to their activities as superintendents
and disbursing offices for lighthouses; contracts for
the construction and repair of lighthouses from
1800 to 1903; and contracts for the construction
and supplies for the Bureau of Lighthouse under
the Department of Commerce, 1919-1923.
C. Records of the Office of the Commissioner of
Customs include accounts; construction accounts;
correspondence; and oaths of office of lighthouse
keepers.
D. Records of the Office of the First Auditor
include: correspondence sent to collectors and
other Customs officers concerning settlement of
their accounts for Customs receipts and
expenditures and for disbursement accounts for
lighthouses; audit reports; and settled accounts.
Record Group 365: Records of the Treasury
Department Collection of Confederate Records
Finding aid: Carmelita Ryan, Treasury Department
Collection of Confederate Records, a finding aid
in the National Archives.
During the Civil War, the confederate States of
America established a Government structure

Part VI, Page 36

RESOURCES

Summary of Historic and

Cultural Preservation Laws,
Regulations, Orders, and
Procedures
For a more complete review and discussion
of many of these laws refer to Introduction
to Federal Projects and Historic
Preservation Law, Participantss Desk
Reference: Legislation, regulations,
guidelines, and related information about
historic preservation policies and
requirements under the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, issued January
1995 by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation and The GSA Interagency
Training Center.

Laws
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
Protection of Historic PropertiesAdvisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP),
Protection of Historic Properties, 36 C.F.R. Part
800 (1979) is the result of President Carter
requesting the Council issue its procedures in the
form of binding regulation. These procedures
where first issued in 1973 as non-binding
procedures to implement the Section 106 review
process. Published in the Code of Federal
Regulations as 36 C.F.R. Part 800, they were soon
interpreted by the courts as the standards against
which Section 106 compliance must be measured.
This was reinforced when reissued as a true
regulation in 1979.
American Folklife Preservation ActThe
American Folklife Preservation Act (AFPA) of 1974
expressed Congressional support for the
documentation, and enhancement and celebration
of folklife, and established national policy to
document and enhance folk culture.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of
1978 (P.L. 95-341, Stat. 469; 42 U.S.C. 1996)
established U.S. policy to protect and preserve for
American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and native
Hawaiians their inherent right of freedom to
believe, express, and exercise [their] traditional
religions... including but not limited to access to
sites... The courts have interpreted AIRFA to

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

require Federal agencies to consult with tribes

about effects of their actions on the exercise of
traditional religions. Many traditional religious
sites are historic properties, but AIRFA goes
beyond historic preservation, requiring attention to
religious practices as well as places. Rights
include: accessing sites; using and keeping sacred
objects; celebrating traditional rites; and consulting
tribal leadership concerning tribal human burial
sites which agency projects might disturb.
Americans with Disabilities ActThe Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 extends
comprehensive civil rights to individuals with
disabilities including elimination of barriers in new
facilities and alteration of existing facilities
(including historic buildings, sites and landscapes).
Provisions include alteration requirements for
buildings and facilities that cannot be made
physically accessible without threatening or
destroying their significance. For more information
on this subject see Preserving the Past and Making
it Accessible for People with Disabilities, October
1992, National Park Service.
Antiquities ActThe Antiquities Act of 1906 (P.L.
59-209, 39 Stat, 335; 16 U.S.C. 431-433)
authorizes the President to designate as National
Monuments historic and natural resources of
national significance located on federally owned or
controlled lands. The act further provides for the
protection of all historic and prehistoric ruins and
objects of antiquity located on Federal lands by
providing criminal sanctions against excavation,
injury, or destruction of such resources.
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
(AHPA) of 1974 (P.L. 93-291m 88 Stat. 174; 16
U.S.C. 469-469c) directs Federal agencies to
report to the Secretary of the Interior when their
actions may damage archeological sites, and to
conduct or assist in the recovery of data from such
sites. AHPA authorizes transfer of up to 1% of
project funds to the Department of the Interior to
help cover costs of such recovery.
Archeological Resources Protection ActThe
Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of
1979 (P.L. 96-95, 93 Stat. 712; 16 U.S.C.470 aa11) prohibits the disturbance of archeological sites
on Federal and Indian land without a permit from
the responsible land manager. The Act authorizes
agency permit procedures for investigations of
archeological resources on public lands under the
agencys control, and prescribes substantial
criminal and civil penalties for any violation. Only

Part VI, Page 37

scientific and educational institutions may obtain

permits and then only if the excavated material is
used to increase knowledge about archeological
resources. The Act also makes it a crime for the
removal, sale, receipt, and interstate transportation
of archeological resources obtained illegally
(without permits) from public or Native American
lands. Penalties for a criminal first offense is a
$10,000 fine, one year in jail, or both, however if
the cost of restoration or repair of the resource
exceeds $500 the fine is $20,000, two years in jail,
or both. Subsequent criminal offenses my bring
fines up to $100,000, 5 years in jail, or both. Civil
fines are based on the archeological or commercial
value of the resource and cost of restoration and
repair. Penalty also includes forfeiture of all
archeological resources, vehicles, and equipment.
Archeological resource exceptions are projectile
points (arrowheads) found on the surface of the
ground, coins, bullets, unworked minerals and
rocks, and paleontological remains. See Glossary
for definition of Archeological Resource.
Architectural Barriers ActThe Architectural
Barriers Act (P.L. 90-480; 42 U.S.C. 4151-4157)
establishes procedures and sets up a an
Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board which insure that alteration of
existing federal building or the construction of new
federal buildings take into consideration physically
handicapped persons. There are special
exceptions for alteration of historical,
architectural, or cultural significance buildings
including, but not limited to, buildings listed or
eligible to be listed on the National Register.
Curation of Federally Owned and Administered
Archeological Collectionssee 36 CFR 79 below.
Department of Transportation ActThe
Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89670, 80 Stat. 931; Section 4(f) 49 U.S.C.303)
specifies that the Secretary of Transportation may
approve any program or project that requires the
use of land from a historic site of national, State,
or local significance, as determined by Federal,
State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof,
only if (1) there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such
program includes all possible planning to
minimize harm to such historic property. The term
historic site in not limited to resources listed in
or eligible for the National Register, it must also
include locally significant properties which, for
one reason or another, might not meet the
National Register criteria. This act applies to the

Part VI, Page 38

Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation

Administration, the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
Executive Order No. 11593, Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural Environment
Executive Order No. 11593, May 13, 1971,
Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment (36 Fed. Reg. 8921, reprinted in 16
U.S.C. 470 note) was issued by President Nixon.
It elaborated on Federal agency responsibilities
under NHPA and NEPA and included direction for
agencies to identify historic properties under their
jurisdiction or control, extended Section 106
review to effects on eligible properties, and gave
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
independent agency status. Many of these
responsibilities were folded into NHPA by
amendment in 1980.
Federal Property and Administrative Services
ActThe Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 as amended in 1972 (40
U.S.C. 484(k)(3)) authorizes the General Services
Administration to convey approved surplus Federal
property to any State agency or municipality free of
charge, provided that the property is used as a
historic monument for the benefit of the public.
The act is also applicable to revenue-producing
properties if the income in excess of rehabilitation
or maintenance cost is used for public historic
preservation, park, or recreation purposes and the
proposed income-producing use of the structure is
compatible with historic monument purposes, as
approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The act
includes provisions under which the property
would revert to the Federal Government should it
be used for purposes incompatible with the
objective of preserving historic monuments.
Federal Records ActFederal Records Act (FRA)
(16 U.S.C. Chapters 21, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33)
requires agencies to preserve Federal records of
potential historical value, which may include the
administrative records of a Coast Guard
installation, following procedures promulgated by
the National Archives and Records Administration.
These procedures include:
Authorizing Federal agencies to retain records
beyond congressional-approved disposal
schedules. Withdraws disposal authorizations
covering records listed in congressional disposal
schedules. This requirement needs to be kept in
mind during implementation of an adaptive re-use,
realignment, and decommissioning plans, during
which there is a high potential for discarding of

RESOURCES

records. Destruction or removal of Federal records

may result in a violation of FRA and carries a fine
of $2,000 or three years in jail, or both (18 U.S.C.
2071).
General Authorities ActThe General Authorities
Act of 1979 (P.L. 94-458. Stat. 1939) authorizes the
secretary of the Interior to withhold from
disclosure to the public, information relating to the
location of sites or objects listed on the National
Register whenever he determines that disclosure of
specific information would create a risk of
destruction or harm to such sites or objects.
Historic Sites ActThe Historic Sites Act (HSA) of
1935 (P.L. 74-292, 49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461467) established as national policy to preserve for
public use historic sites, buildings and objects of
national significance for the inspiration and benefit
of the people of the United States. The Act
authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior
to make a survey of historic and archeological
sites, buildings, and objects for the purpose of
determining which possess exceptional value as
commemorating or illustrating the history of the
United States. This program has become known
as the National Historic Landmark Program and
properties so designated are referred to as National
Historic Landmarks (NHLs). NHLs are usually
designated as part of theme studies such as War
in the Pacific, Man in Space, and a current theme
study on American Lighthouses. NHLs are
automatically listed on the National Register.
Establishes a maximum fine of $500 for violation
of the Act.
Unlike National Register properties, the Coast
Guard is not mandated to inventory and
recommend NHL properties. However, Section
110(f) of NHPA requires that prior to the approval
of any Federal undertaking which may directly and
adversely affect any National Historic Landmark,
the head of the responsible Federal agency shall, to
the maximum extent possible, undertake such
planning and actions as may be necessary to
minimize harm to such landmark, and shall afford
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a
reasonable opportunity to comment on the
undertaking.
36 CFR 800.10 of the Advisory Councils Section
106 regulations specify how agencies are to
comply with Section 110(f) of NHPA. Essentially it
is the same for any other consultation under
Section 106 except that:

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

the Council must be included in any consultation

regarding the resolution of adverse effect on an
NHL;
the Council may ask the Secretary of the Interior
to provide a report about the significance of the
property, the effects of the undertaking, and
what might be done to mitigate such effects;
and
the Council reports its comments to the
President, Congress, and the Secretary of the
Interior, as well as to the agency head.
National Archives and Records Administration
National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA), Disposition of Federal Records law of
1984 (36 C.F.R. Part 1228) came about when
NARA became an independent agency and
through which official agency records must be
appraised through agency record schedule
procedures administered by the agency records
officer. See Appendix 1 for definition of Federal
Records. NARAs Disposition of Federal Records
(1992) is a manual which fully covers this issue. It
is available from National Archives and Records
Administration, Office of Records Administration,
Washington, D.C.
National Environmental Policy ActThe National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(P.L. 91190, 31 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370) created
a new context in which the management of all
kinds of cultural resources could be addressed. It
was only after NEPAs passage that Federal
agencies began to address community lifeway
resources in any explicit way, and NEPA remains
the primary legal authority for considering such
resources. NEPA also caused agencies to develop
the infrastructure of the positions, offices,
regulations, and guidelines needed to manage
other kinds of cultural resources, notably historic
real property. The Council on Environmental
Quality (40 CFR 1500-08) regulate the policy. The
Council encourages combining NEPA documents
and procedures with other necessary agency
documentation (40 CFR 1506.4).
Federal Agency ResponsibilitiesAssure for all
Americans safe, healthful, productive, and
aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
preserve important historic, cultural, and natural
aspects of our national heritage; and agencies are
directed to utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary
approach which will insure the integrated use of
the natural and social sciences and the

Part VI, Page 39

environmental design arts in planning and in

decision making . . .

require Federal agencies to have preservation

programs with specially defined elements;

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966The

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(NHPA), as amended in 1980 (P.L. 89-655, 80 Stat.
915; as amended by P.L. 91-243, 84 Stat. 204; P.L.
93-54; P.L. 94-422, 90 Stat. 1313; P.L. 94-458; P.L.
96-199; P.L. 96-244; P.L. 96-515, 94 Stat. 2987;
P.L. 98-483; P. L. 99-514; P.L. 100-127, 106 Stat.
4753; 16 U.S.C. 470) is the nations central historic
preservation law. The Act sets forth policy of the
U.S. Government regarding historic preservation
and promotes conditions in which historic
properties can be preserved in harmony with
modern society, and fulfill societys needs.

require Federal agencies to have Section 106

procedures meeting specific standard; and

Federal Agency ResponsibilitiesThe Act directs

Federal agencies to name Agency Preservation
Officers to coordinate their historic preservation
activities, to seek ways to carry out their activities
in accordance with the purposes of the Act, to
identify historic properties under their jurisdiction,
to consider such properties when planning actions
might affect them, to give the Advisory Council an
opportunity to comment on such actions, and to
document historic properties that cannot be saved.
The Agency Preservation Officer for the Coast
Guard is located at the Department of
Transportation Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
The Act also established the National Register of
Historic Places and the State Historic Preservation
Officers, which are described below.
The 1980 amendments included the addition of
Section of 110, which articulated broad,
affirmative responsibilities in historic preservation
for Federal agencies. These amendments also
directed the National Park Service to issue
regulations governing how Federal agencies would
manage, or curate, their collections of artifacts
recovered from archaeological excavations. These
regulations, 36 CFR Part 79, were published in
1990. They provide the basic standards that
Federal agencies must meet in managing their
artifact collections. In addition, the amendments
specified State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) responsibilities and established a special
program for participation by local governments. 36
CFR Part 800 was revised and reissued in 1986.
NHPA was amended again in 1992. This
amendment strengthened Section 106 review and
increased, among several items, the historic
preservation responsibilities of Federal agencies
including:

Part VI, Page 40

discourage anticipatory demolition of historic

properties.
Native American Grave Protection and
Repatriation ActThe Native American Grave
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1987
(P.L. 101-601, 104 Stat. 3049; 43 U.S.C. 2101 et
seq.) prohibits the intentional removal of Native
American cultural items from Federal or tribal
lands, except under an ARPA permit and in
consultation with the appropriate Native American
groups. The Act requires Federal agencies and
museums to inventory their holdings of Native
American culture items and return of such items
including human remains, associated funerary
objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural
patrimony to the appropriate Indian tribes and
other Native American groups. It establishes
Native American ownership of human remains and
associated artifacts discovered on Federal lands
after the date of enactment. It also provides for a
minimum 30-day delay when a project on Federal
or Indian land encounters such an item.
In 1988, a Supreme Court ruling Lyng, Secretary of
Agriculture v. Northwest Indian Cemetery
Protective Association seriously undercut the
power of Indian tribes to protect their religious
sites and practices using AIRFA. A new, beefed-up
law now called the Native American Free Exercise
of Religion Act (NAFERA), is under consideration
by Congress. The form and content of NAFERA is
being negotiated, and remain to be fully defined.
Public Buildings Cooperative Use ActThe Public
Buildings Cooperative Use Act of 1976 (P.L. 94541; Stat. 2505) requires the General Services
Administration to acquire space for federal
agencies in buildings of architectural or cultural
significance where feasible; and amended the
Architectural Barriers Act of August 12, 1968,
relating to the accessibility of certain buildings to
the physically handicapped.
Theft of Government PropertySection 641,
Public money, property or records (18 U.S.C. 641)
states whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or
knowingly converts to his use or the use of
another, or without authority, sells, conveys or
disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing
of value of the United States or of any department
or agency thereof, or any property made or being

RESOURCES

made under contract for the United States or any

department or agency thereof; or whoever
receives, conceals or retains the same with intent
to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have
been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted
shall be fined not more than $10,000 or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if
the value of such property does not exceed the
sum of $100, he shall be fined not more than
$1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or
both. Archeological objects, historical records,
and pieces of historic buildings taken from federal
lands and structures constitute theft of government
property.
World Heritage ConventionThe World Heritage
Convention of 1980 (P.L. 96-515, Stat. 3000)
under Title IV of the NHPA Amendments directs
the secretary of the Interior to nominate properties
of international significance to the World Heritage
List; and requires federal agencies to consider the
effects of their undertakings on properties outside
of the United States on the World Heritage List or
on the applicable countries equivalent of the
National Register. Presently the Coast Guard has
no known properties on the World Heritage List or
no known properties outside of the United States
on applicable countries National Register
equivalent. However, the Coast Guard operates
facilities in Argentina, Norway, Liberia, La Reunion
Island (France), Japan, and Australia.

Regulations
Regulations are promulgated and published
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to
direct the implementation of laws. The
following CFR citations are most pertinent
to cultural resource management.
32 CFR 229, Archeological Resources Protection
Act of 1979; Final Uniform Regulations.
36 CFR 18 (National Historic Preservation Act of
1966), Leases and Exchanges of Historic
Property, governs the historic property leasing and
exchange provisions of this law.

Preservation Programs, establishes standards for

the approval of state historic preservation
programs; requires state historic preservation
officers to conduct statewide surveys of cultural
properties, prepare and implement state
preservation plans, and cooperate with federal
agencies in Section 106 compliance; sets
qualification standards for preservation
professionals.
36 CFR 63 (NHPA and EO 11593),
Determinations of Eligibility for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places, establishes
process for federal agencies to obtain
determinations of eligibility on properties.
36 CFR 65 (Historic Sites Act of 1935), National
Historic Landmarks Program, establishes criteria
and procedures for identifying properties of
national significance, designating them as national
historic landmarks, revising landmark boundaries,
and removing landmark designations.
36 CFR 66 Recovery of Scientific, Prehistoric,
Historic and Archeological Data.
36 CFR 68 (NHPA) contains the secretary of the
interiors standards for historic preservation
projects, including acquisition, protection,
stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation,
restoration, and reconstruction.
36 CFR 78 (NHPA), waiver of Federal Agency
Responsibilities Under Section 110 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
36 CFR 79 (NHPA and ARPA), Curation of
Federally Owned and Administered Archeological
Collections, provides standards, procedures and
guidelines to be followed by Federal agencies in
preserving and providing adequate long-term
curatorial services for archeological collections of
prehistoric and historic artifacts and associated
records that are recovered under Section 110 of
the NHPA, the Reservoir Salvage Act, ARPA and
the Antiquities Act. The National Park Service has
published a reader-friendly version of this
regulation under the same title (1991).

36 CFR 60 (NHPA and EO 11593), National

Register of Historic Places, addresses concurrent
state and federal nominations, nominations by
federal agencies, revision of nominations, and
removal of properties from the National Register.

36 CFR 800 (NHPA and EO 11593), Protection of

Historic and Cultural Properties, includes
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation to implement Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act as amended and
presidential directives issued pursuant thereto.

36 CFR 61 (NHPA and EO 11593), Procedures for

Approved State and Local Government Historic

36 CFR 1222-1238 (Federal Records Act), Records

Management

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part VI, Page 41

43 CFR 3 (Antiquities Act) establishes procedures

to be followed for permitting the excavation or
collection of prehistoric and historic objects on
federal lands.
43 CFR 7, Subparts A and B (Archaeological
Resources Protection Act, as amended), Protection
of Archeological Resources, Uniform Regulations
and Department of the Interior Supplemental
Regulations, provides definitions, standards, and
procedures for federal land managers to protect
archeological resources and provides further
guidance for Interior bureaus on definitions,
permitting procedures, and civil penalty hearings.
43 CFR 10 (Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act)

Directives
Department of Transportation Order 5610.1C,
Procedures for Considering Environmental
ImpactsSection 2.E.1.a. on historical properties
responsibilities states the Coast Guard: (1) has the
final responsibility in accordance with 36 CFR
800.4(a) to identify historical and cultural
resources in the vicinity of a proposed project.
These resources include districts, sites, building,
structures, and objects significant in American
history, architecture, archeology, or culture. (2)
All Coast Guard actions require compliance with
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. Part 470, et seq.), as
amended; Executive Order 11593, Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural Environment; 40 CFR
Section 1502.25(a); 36 CFR Part 800 (Protection of
Historic and Cultural Properties) which
implements Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and Executive Order 11593; 36
CFR Parts 60 and 63; and any other appropriate
implementing regulations. (3) In order to comply
with the above, the responsible Coast Gaud official
shall review the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP), and its supplements, to determine
if any Coast Guard actions will effect properties
listed or proposed for listing. In addition, the Cost
Guard official is responsible for investigating the
project area to determine if any resources meet the
criteria for evaluation given in 36 CFR Section 60.4
(In brief, 36 CFR Section 60.4 states that properties
of historical, architectural, or archaeological
significance should be considered for national
Register evaluation if they are associated with
events and persons significant in our past, or that
have distinctive character, artistic values or the
work of a master, or have yielded or are likely to

Part VI, Page 42

yield important information in pre-history or

history. 36 CFR Section 60.4 provides specific
criteria and should be referenced.) (4) The
responsible official shall coordinate with the State
Historic Preservation Officer and the Department
of the Interior (National Register) to determine
eligibility or the need to nominate the property, if
owned by the Coast Guard. (5) The responsible
Coast Guard official shall document all
investigations concerning historic and cultural
properties. If no properties are found, or if
properties are found near the project area, it
should be so documented and supported in the
case file.
Section 2.E.1.b. on Advisory Council on Historical
Preservation states (1) The responsible Coast
Guard official shall forward adequate
documentation of a finding of no adverse effect to
the Executive Director of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation in accordance with 36 CFR
Section 800.4(c). (2) For Coast Guard actions
where it is determined that there is an adverse
effect on the protected property, the responsible
Coast Guard official shall prepare the Preliminary
Case Report (36 CFR Section 800.13(b)) and
submit it to the Advisory Council for Historic
Preservation in accordance with 36 CFR Section
800.4(d). When the Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) is prepared (36 CFR Section 800.6(c)), the
Coast Guard official responsible for final agency
action (issuance or detail of the permit) shall sign
for the Coast Guard.
Section 2.E.1.c. on Public and Agency Involvement
states, The District Commander shall send a copy
of the public notice to the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), the National Park
Service and other known agencies having expertise
with regard to possible historic resources. In
addition, individuals or groups having special
interest or expertise, such as county or city
historical preservation groups, should receive the
public notice.
COMDTINST M16475.1B, National
Environmental Policy Actestablishes policy and
prescribes responsibilities and procedures for Coast
Guard implementation of NEPA Environmental
Impact Statements. Appropriate sections on
historical and cultural resources are included.
COMDTINST M4500.5, Property Management
Manualrequires that all artifacts owned by the
Coast Guard are to be recorded, and identified as,
in the Personal Property Accountability (PPA)
System along with the value of each item. The

RESOURCES

Public Affairs Manual assigns the History Branch

responsibility to maintain ... a service wide
inventory of ... artifacts, ensuing that they are
identified, appraised and recorded into the ... PPA
System.
COMDTINST M5212.12, Paperwork Management
Manualprescribes policies and outlines
procedures for administering the Coast Guard
paperwork management program as it relates to
the management of records, filing systems, reports,
and forms.
Special Directive 82-12, Historic Property Leases
and Exchangeselaborates on the leasing and
exchange of historic properties under Section 111
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
as amended.

Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook

Part VI, Page 43