 |
(All photos are recent and from Fort Pulaski National Monument) |
Fort Pulaski
National Monument near Savannah, Ga., this week completed a five-month project aimed at protecting the small but resilient Cockspur Island Lighthouse from moisture
and tides.
The 46-foot
structure, built in 1855, has
endured high tides, hurricanes, waves from ever-growing container ships, vandals
and – for a deafening 30 hours – the April 1862 bombardment of nearby Fort
Pulaski during the Civil War.
The Union’s strategy was to
put a chokehold on Southern commerce by controlling ports and coastal areas,
including this area next to the Atlantic Ocean. Federal soldiers landed at
Tybee Island and set about preparing for an attack on Pulaski, a brick guardian
to the west.
Remarkably, the lighthouse suffered little or no damage. Crews manning 36 guns on 11 batteries stretching
along the western end of Tybee likely used the lighthouse for sighting as they
pounded away at the fort. The Confederate garrison, worried that exploding
shells might reach munitions, surrendered within a day.
 |
Louvered transoms on door, windows allow ventilation |
The park over the years has undertaken work aimed at protecting the beacon. The Picket has communicated
with Emily Forlenza, exhibits specialist and
acting facility operations specialist at Fort Pulaski National Monument, about
the project. Here are her emailed responses to questions, edited for brevity.
Q. Would
you mind briefly summarizing all the work was done?
A. For
this project, the masonry tower, stairs, keel, window and door openings, and
interior of the Cockspur Island Lighthouse were cleaned, chiseled and
repointed. These efforts were undertaken due to the damage that this structure
sustained from tidal action. The mortar that was used was a match to what we
believe was used historically, based on lab testing, material sampling, and
test patches used in various areas. Most of the efforts for masonry repointing
took place on the exterior of the structure, as that is where the most wind and
water action is seen. The interior masonry also saw this repair work as well,
but it was not as extensive. Additionally, the door and windows on the
structure were replaced using materials and a configuration that are believed
to be the configuration and material of the original fixtures. The only update
to these new additions was to add a louvered transom instead of a fanlight
above the door and windows. This was done to allow for passive ventilation
through the structure, since it is closed most of the year due to its remote
location. In total, we replaced one entry door and transom, three 6-light
windows with transoms, and two porthole windows.

Q. In
October, you mentioned work “toward getting the light back on.” What do you
mean?
A. Since
this lighthouse is located in a major shipping channel, we want to make sure
that no vessel would confuse this with an active aid to navigation (ATON.) We
are planning to work closely with the Coast Guard to get the light back up in
the lighthouse, facing out in the direction where ships will not be able to
confuse their navigation. We are hoping this will come shortly, within the next
few months. (The lighthouse was last used as a lighted beacon in 1909)
Q. Did
anything require total or partial replacement?
A. The
door and windows all required total replacement. We did not have a functional
door at all, and what was in place for all of the openings was neither original
nor historic.
Q. What painting was done?
A. The cupola of the
lighthouse was painted with a rust reformer and black metal paint in order to
restore its appearance. The old cupola is located in front of the visitor
center of Fort Pulaski, having been removed due to its state of deterioration
in 1995. (See comments section below for why exterior of lighthouse was not painted)
Q. Will the lighthouse remain closed to the
public?
A. This
is a topic of discussion among Fort Pulaski staff, but for the foreseeable
future it will remain closed.
Q. How did the lighthouse fare during the
recent super high tides? I know higher water levels have been of concern for a
time.
A. The
lighthouse itself held up very well, as she always does. None of our new repair
work showed any sign of failure, and the new door and windows we put on look as
good as they did the day we put them on.
Q. How will you regulate or manage moisture
issues?
A. As stated above, the
passive ventilation that is offered by the louvered transoms is our main
mitigation against the stagnant damp air that would typically cause issues
inside the structure.
Q. You anticipated the project would cost
about $150,000. Did that prove to be true?
A. Yes, we came in right
around our anticipated budget. (Funding for the fabrication of the door and windows came from a grant
given to the Friends of Cockspur Island Lighthouse by the Tybee Island
Historical Society, which was matched by NPS Centennial Challenge
funding.)
Q. Can you tell me about the replacement
mortar being historically accurate? How so?
A. Historically,
the mortar used for the lighthouse would have had a heavy makeup of natural
cement due to its location being heavy impacted by the tides. During testing,
it was determined that this was true. The park then did test patches to make
sure that the mortar was going to hold up in this area. Even though the mortar
was historically accurate, we still wanted to make sure that this would be the
best fit for the structure.
Q. What work was done by NPS staff and what
was done by contractors?
A. The
National Park Service provided all of the day labor and craft skills required
to repoint the structure, paint the cupola, and install the door and windows.
The door and windows were fabricated by Savannah Millworks, a local company
here in Savannah. The scaffolding that was constructed around the structure was
also contracted out, by Sunbelt Rentals.
Q. Any hitches or pleasant surprises or finds
during the work?
A. The
most fascinating part of working with historic structures in these historic
settings is coming up with unique ways to start these projects off. The
planning process was the most interesting part initially, because we needed to
figure out how we were going to get sturdy enough scaffolding around a
structure that was surrounded by huge boulders (revetment, to protect the
island from erosion) while at the same time ensuring that the structure would
be protected during tidal surges from the scaffolding swaying or moving in any
way. We had to figure out how best to get a crew of 5-6 people out to the
lighthouse every day safety and efficiently, while factoring in tides that
would change where we could get the crew on and off the island.
And probably
the most unexpected hitch: the crew shared the lighthouse with a very
disgruntled barn owl for about a month, before the owl decided it was time to
find a new home. He did continue to torment the crew each day upon their
arrival until he moved out.
Q. Any other thoughts on the project?
A. This
project gave us an incredible amount of information that we are going to be
using to develop future projects for the preservation of this structure.
Projects like these are essential for future project development. It is such a
unique experience to be directly involved in work like this, and I am thankful
that my crew and I were able to take part in preserving this structure for
future generations.
Click here for previous Picket coverage on the lighthouse