HISTORIC ST. AUGUSTINE SEAWAM j
National Historic Preservation Anct
City of St. Augnstine
Cecile-Marie Sastre, Ph.
January 10, 2005
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The City of St. Augustine proposes to construct a new seawall on the west
bank of the Intracoastal Waterway that will run parallel to the existing
historic 19th century seawall, a distance of approximately three city blocks,
south of the Bridge of Lions. To protect the historic fabric of the seawall,
which has deteriorated and, in places, collapsed from battering by tropical
storms and hurricanes, the City will construct a new wall approximately twelve
feet east of the old one. In the space between the two, earthen fill will support
a promenade that will permit pedestrian traffic.
The City is undertaking this project in order to prevent recurrent flooding
of the street and properties along the waterfront. As an ancillary benefit, the
project will support and thus preserve the historic seawall constructed some 160
years ago to protect the same part of the City. Tropical storm Gabrielle, in
September 2001, resulted in the collapse of a segment of the disintegrating old
wall and the remainder threatens to topple eastward into the water.
This report has been prepared to satisfy the City's requirements in this
project pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(modified 1990). To that end, the City has conducted archaeological and
historical investigations to assess the present condition of the existing segment
of the historic sea wall. This report presents the findings of those
investigations, outlines the alternative solutions the City considered in
crafting a plan to resolve the flooding problem while preserving the historic
wall, and describes the option which the City settled upon. In determining its
course of action, the City took into account archaeological discoveries and
historical data in addition to the suggestions and opinions offered by the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in Tallahassee.
Although this report will cover the history of the entire 19th century,
American-era seawall, the proposed construction of a new seawall fronting the
existing structure will be limited to the segment of the historic wall stretching
from a point about 170 feet north of the Santa Maria Restaurant, south to the
northern boundary of the National Guard complex parking lot. This report will
specifically address the impact the construction of the new seawall will have on
the affected segment of the historic wall.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM
The historic seawall has exhibited signs of deterioration and failure for
over a half century. In the most recent decade, segments of the wall have begun
to lean seaward noticeably. Cavities within the wall, resulting from long-term
erosion of its coquina fabric, precipitated the collapse of one section of the
wall in 2001 during tropical storm Gabrielle. It should be noted here that
Hurricane Floyd (1999), which hovered offshore for several days, may have caused
considerable damage to the seawall, leading to the eventual collapse of portions
of the wall the following year in the wake of Gabrielle.
Throughout the past half century, the historic seawall has failed to
protect the buildings along the bayfront against even high tides, much less the
high water levels that accompany the storm surge of even a modest, level-one
hurricane. The threat to the buildings along the bayfront, including the Florida
National Guard military compound, requires construction of a higher and more
stable wall to provide them adequate protection. For reasons that will be
explained in this report, the historic seawall cannot be reinforced, much less
raised to a higher elevation.
The historic significance of the existing seawall nevertheless urge its
preservation. The challenge to the City in this project is to construct a new
seawall that will provide adequate protection against shoreline flooding while
preserving the historic wall.
SECTION 106 REVIEW
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires a review by
the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) of projects that meet the
definition of a "federal undertaking" to determine their impact on historic
resources. Pursuant to the October 1992 Amendments to the National Historic
Preservation Act, an "undertaking" means a project, activity, or program funded
in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal
agency, including (A) those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; (B)
those carried out with federal financial assistance; ) those requiring a federal
permit, license, or approval; and (D) those subject to state or local regulation
administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a federal agency.
The review is designed to ensure that historic properties are considered
in the planning and execution of "federal undertakings." The SHPO conducts the
initial review on behalf of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an
independent federal reviewing agency, which is permitted opportunity by the law
to comment on federal undertakings that may have an impact on historic
properties. Commonly known as the "Section 106 process," the procedure for
meeting Section 106 requirements is defined in regulations of the Advisory
Council, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800).
For purposes of Section 106, any property listed in or eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places is considered historic. The National
Register is this country's basic inventory of historic resources and is
maintained by the Department of the Interior. The list includes buildings,
structures, objects, sites, districts, and archaeological resources. The listed
properties are not just of nationwide importance; most are significant primarily
at the state and local level. The protections of Section 106 extend to properties
that possess significance but have not yet been listed or formally determined
eligible for listing.
Once an eligible historic property has been identified within the scope or
area of the undertaking, a determination must be made regarding the undertaking's
impact on the property. The criteria of effect and adverse effect are used to
determine potential effects on historic properties. The criterion of effect
states that "an undertaking has an effect on a historic property when the
undertaking may alter characteristics of the property that may qualify the
property for inclusion in the National Register."' The criteria of adverse effect
states that "an undertaking is considered to have an adverse effect when the
effect on a historic property may diminish the integrity of the property's
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association."2
When applying the criteria of effect and adverse effect, there are three
No Effect: There is no effect of any kind, neither harmful or beneficial,
on the historic property.
No Adverse Effect: There could be an effect, but the effect would not be
harmful to those characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the
Adverse Effect: There could be an effect, and that effect could harm
characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register.
If the project is determined to have no effect on historic properties, the
proposed undertaking may proceed. If the project will have no adverse effect on
historic properties, the agency must submit documentation to the Advisory Council
for concurrence. If the project will have an adverse effect, the agency must
begin consultation with the SHPO and the Advisory Council to minimize the adverse
The project described in this report, proposed by the City of St.
Augustine, which will result in the construction of a new seawall along a part
of its Intracoastal Waterway shoreline, will exert an impact on properties
included within a historic district that is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places. The most affected historic resource within that district will
be the historic seawall.
The St. Augustine Historic District, also called the St. Augustine Colonial
Town Plan Historic District, was listed in the National Register of Historic
Places in 1971. In 1986, the district was revised to expand its Period of
Significance. The revised nomination form contained a list of "contributing" and
"non-contributing" properties within the district, a section of the nomination
that did not appear in the 1971 form.
The historic seawall was not listed as a contributing property in either
nomination form. The Boundary Description in the 1986 revised nomination makes
it abundantly clear, however, that the seawall lies within the district. The
description reads as follows:
The boundary generally follows the plan of the
colonial city of St. Augustine. It follows the lines of
the colonial city on the north and west, as defined by
Orange Street and Cordova Street respectively. On the
east it is defined by the Matanzas Bay, a natural
barrier. The southern boundary marks the extent of the
concentrated development of the colonial city. The
overall boundary extends to the west, beyond the limits
of the colonial city, to include the Ponce de Leon Hotel
[Flagler College] and the Alcazar Hotel [St. Augustine
City Hall and the Lightner Museum], two of the landmark
buildings in St. Augustine.3
The southern boundary of the "concentrated development" of the colonial
city is recognized as San Salvador Street, which is two blocks south of the
seawall undertaking.4 The historic seawall was constructed within the Period of
Significance (1565-1935) ascribed to the St. Augustine Historic District. The
historic seawall's location, on the west bank of Matanzas Bay and within the
described land boundaries of the historic district, leave it clear that it is a
contributing element within that historic district.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SEAWALL
The structure in question is the seawall built by the United States War
Department between 1837 and 1846 to replace the coquina wall the Spanish built
in 1696 (the seawall begun by Lt. Stephen Tuttle in 1833 was torn down in 1837).s
The present report will refer to both the Spanish- and American Territorial-era
walls. Each will be designated as either Spanish or American when clarification
Originally, the American-era seawall spanned the City's waterfront from the
southern edge of the Water Battery of the Castillo de San Marcos National
Monument to the National Guard complex (look into exact extent). Although
engineers from the U.S. War Department rebuilt the Castillo's Water Battery
around the same time they built a new seawall (the battery functions also as a
seawall), the battery will be treated as a separate structure in this report.
As of this writing, those portions of the 19th century seawall still
visible run from the southern edge of the Castillo's Water Battery to the
southern edge of the grounds of the National Park, and from the municipal marina,
south of the Bridge of Lions, past the southern edge of the National Guard
complex parking lot.
North of the Bridge of Lions most of the 19th century seawall is not
visible; only the portion that lies within the grounds of the Castillo de San
Marcos National Monument is visible. The widening of Bay Street (now Avenida
Menendez) between 1957 and 1959 resulted in the removal of the top layers of the
old seawall between the Castillo and the Bridge of Lions. What remains of the
wall is buried beneath the avenue's median.6 The 1957-1959 seawall, which runs
from the southern edge of the National Park to the Bridge of Lions, is an
elevated, wide pedestrian promenade with a grassy swath running parallel to its
west side at ground level.
South of the Bridge of Lions the American seawall is visible again. The
portion of the seawall adjacent to the municipal marina does not front the water;
this segment, which runs parallel to the sidewalk, forms the western boundary of
the marina complex. Near the pier that leads to the Santa Maria Restaurant, the
19th century seawall once more fronts the water. From there, it stretches without
interruption past the southern edge of the National Guard parking lot.
Construction of the parking lot did not affect the segment of the seawall
fronting the National Guard Complex. Here, the wall is still visible from the
water and appears to be in fair to good condition.
Two boat basins were built into the 19th century seawall during the wall's
construction; one in front of the plaza, the other, slightly smaller, on the
northern edge of the St. Francis Barracks (National Guard complex) and the
eastern end of St. Francis Street. The boat basins are no longer visible, but the
southeastern corner of the barrack's basin, where the seawall makes a ninety
degree angle, is still in existence7 (see Figures 1 and 2). In 1895 the boat
basin fronting the plaza was filled in; this was done in anticipation of the
construction of a wooden bridge to connect St. Augustine with Anastasia Island.
The boat basin adjacent to the barracks was filled in at approximately the same
The American-era, 19th century, seawall was constructed of coquina laid in
ashlar courses and topped with a layer of granite coping stones. The wall, from
the Castillo to the St. Francis Barracks measured approximately three quarters
of a mile in length. Throughout its length the average height of the wall varied
from 6 to 7 feet. It measured approximately 6 feet wide at the base and tapered
to 3 feet in width at the granite coping stone. The seaward face lay in a
vertical plane while the leeward, or land, side of the wall widened from top to
bottom in a series of steps. Massive coquina foundation stones, in excess of 2
feet thick by 7 feet wide supported the wall at its base.9 When workers laid the
foundation in 1842, it sat on marsh sediments that occurred approximately 2 feet
above the average low water mark for that year. Lieutenant Henry W. Benham's 1842
drawing of the seawall's elevation placed the average high water mark
approximately 4.5 feet below the top of the wall; common gale-force winds blew
in at approximately 2 feet below the top of the wall. Only during severe storms
and hurricanes would tides overflow the seawall."0
Measurements taken during the 2003 archaeological excavations at the base
of the seawall verify Lts. Henry W. Benham and Jeremy F. Gilmer's calculations.
These show a wall height from the top of the granite coping stone to the top of
the foundation stone of 6 feet, 4 inches and 6 feet, 6 inches, respectively. The
coquina foundation block, upon which the wall rests, measures in excess of 1
foot, 8 inches in thickness. No attempt was made to determine the width of the
foundation stone to avoid adverse impact upon the historic fabric.1
Benham's 1842 drawing illustrates the major features of the seawall, the
curtain and its foundation stones. Absent from the drawing, however, are the
subsequent modifications made to the base of the wall to minimize tidal
In 1849, Lt. Jeremy F. Gilmer, a military engineer stationed in St.
Augustine in 1849-1850, repaired the damage caused by the 1846 hurricane. By the
end of the decade, two types of erosion-control features were added seaward,
parallel to the wall's foundation. The first, a course of coquina blocks extended
approximately 2.5 feet from the foundation. The archaeological excavations
uncovered the blocks at about 7 inches below the foundation.13 Their present
position, however, could be the result of subsidence rather than an indication
of their original placement. The archaeologist made no attempt to measure the
thickness of these blocks to avoid causing further damage to the stones.
The second erosion-control feature, seaward from, and parallel to the
first, formed a type of pavement composed of irregular-sized Coquina stones
referred to as pavers by the archaeologist. This structure extends about 5.5 feet
from the larger, more regular erosion-control blocks.14 The pavers, most likely
recycled building debris, are believed to protect the base of the seawall from
erosion, but a secondary function may be gleaned from a 19th century drawings
(see Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6).
At the time of construction, and for some decades after, the pavers were
visible at water level. The frontispiece drawing in Sidney Lanier's Florida: Its
Scenery, Climate, and History, published in 1875, clearly shows the pavers, at
water level, forming a walkway of sorts on the seaward side of the seawall (see
Figure 7).15 It is difficult to determine from the drawing if the pavers were
visible at high tide or only at low tide. In any event, in 1875 they were still
visible, even if only at low tide. Perhaps they served the dual purpose of
shielding the base of the seawall from direct water action as well as providing
a ledge from which to hitch small water crafts and provide access to the seaward
side of the wall. Such seaward features along seawalls are relatively common.
The pavers are no longer visible; only through archaeological excavation
has their existence been confirmed. Since 1875 they have subsided into the
shoreline's muck. In some segments of the seawall, the pavers are overlaid by
layers of oysters, further obscuring their presence.16
SETTING/LOCATION OF ST. AUGUSTINE'S SEAWALL
The American-era seawall, like the Spanish wall, was built on the town's
eastern shoreline, on a low-lying, marshy strip of land bounded further east by
the tidal flats and oyster beds of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). Ocean water
enters during high tides into this stretch of the ICW through St. Augustine's
inlet, which opens into Matanzas Bay, and through Matanzas Inlet, fourteen miles
to the south. Although daily tidal flows regularly flush this segment of the ICW,
giving a relatively clean appearance to the bay's waters, tidal flows regularly
deposit and erode sediments along the shoreline.
Over the centuries, tidal action constantly altered the shoreline on the
ocean side of St. Augustine, North Beach, Anastasia Island, and the configuration
of the shoals off-shore from the bay's inlet. The shorelines of the Intracoastal
Waterway, however, have remained relatively unchanged within the span of the
region's historic period. Therefore, the Spanish- and American-era seawalls
mostly protected the town from periodic flooding brought about by storm surges.
European settlement along the area's shores began with the founding of St.
Augustine in 1565. Development of the present waterfront began in earnest after
Governor Gonzalo Mendez de Canzo promulgated the establishment of the town plan
ca. 1596 as prescribed by the Ordenanzas in the Laws of the Indies. Further
development of the waterfront occurred one hundred years later, after the Spanish
completed the construction town's first coquina wall in the 1696. After Florida's
cession to the United States in 1821, property owners along the bayfront
petitioned the United States government for the repair or replacement of the
deteriorating Spanish-era seawall to protect their homes and businesses. City
officials joined the petitioners out of concern for the integrity of
public/municipal property along the waterfront.
THE GEOLOGY OF COQUINA
Coquina, the stone used in the construction of the Spanish- and American-
era seawalls, is a lithified sedimentary conglomerate deposited on a developing
beach.17 A soft, friable, stone, coquina is considered an immature limestone
which has not yet been subjected to sufficient geological changes (pressure,
compaction and chemical reactions) leading to its evolution into a true
limestone, a process that takes millions of years. The coarsely-grained stone,
found from Jacksonville to Palm Beach, is composed of sand and shell fragments,
including the local Donax, cemented together by the cycle of dissolution,
precipitation and deposition of calcium carbonate.
According to geologists Anthony F. Randazzo and Douglas S. Jones "The
development of barrier islands and beaches during the Pleistocene can be seen in
the stratigraphic record of the [Florida] peninsula. Deposits of coquina...occur
well inland from the present coastline. Along the present coastline and inland,
from near Jacksonville to West Palm Beach, lithified beach deposits of the
Anastasia Formation are sporadically exposed." The Anastasia Formation, which
forms the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, is "a multicyclic deposit formed during several
transgressions of the sea..." with at least two recognized disconformities within
the formation. The Anastasia Formation, which grades into the Miami Limestone
Formation in southern Palm Beach County, was probably formed by two separate
episodes as suggested by two distinct periods of accumulation."8
Coquina's friability and porosity, due to its lack of compaction, makes it
an easy stone to quarry and work. Once quarried and removed from its aquatic
environment it hardens as it dries. Coquina, however, is stronger when wet than
dry. A 1978 report by the National Bureau of Standards identified the need to
collect data on the properties of coquina. Subsequent tests investigated the
compressive strengths of the stone under wet and dry conditions, confirming
earlier assertions that coquina is stronger wet than dry.19
However, Coquina exhibits hydrological characteristics which, while it
allows for ease in quarrying, contributes to its rapid deterioration,
geologically speaking. C. Craig Frazier and Randall Copeland wrote in the
Castillo's Historic Structure Report (Vol. II) that
The presence of moisture aided by capillary
movement is believed to be beneficial to some extent
because it aids in the stone's cohesiveness and
compressive strength. However, extremes of moisture
intake should be avoided where possible because the
cementitious material in the rock [calcium carbonate] is
ultimately soluble in water.
When dry, the surface shell fragments become
isolated and brittle, and they easily break off and
flake away; when moist, the fragments bond themselves
together to form a dense and more cohesive material.
Rudimentary tests reveal that the stone, when oven-dry,
absorbs water up to 20 percent of its weight very
rapidly, indicating an extremely high capillary
Although Frazier and Copeland are correct in their assessment of the
stone's brittleness when dry, capillary potential when wet and solubility in
water, they incorrectly assert that "when moist, the fragments bond together..."
Yes, water dissolves the calcium carbonate in the shells, which, when it
precipitates out of solution into solid form, creates a bond that cements
together the fragments that make up the stone. But the process that creates a
solid bond takes a long time. The few hours in each dry and wet tidal cycle to
which the fabric of the seawall is exposed may not allow sufficient time for the
formation a strong calcium carbonate bond. Coquina would have to be submerged in
salt water for a continuous and extended period of time for strong cementation
to take place.
The regular wetting and drying cycle the seawall experiences on a daily
basis is actually more damaging to the coquina than if the stone remained wet or
dry for extended periods of time. The cyclical absorption of water and subsequent
drying causes expansion and contraction of the stone at a microscopic level.
Minute fractures develop within the stone's fabric with each expansion and
contraction, weakening the coquina over time until it deteriorates and crumbles.
In the case of the seawall, the hydrological forces exerted by daily tides and
occasional storms has accelerated the deterioration of the coquina even further.
Moreover, according to oceanographers Ken Caldeira and Michael E. Wickett
the oceanic absorption of high levels of carbon dioxide associated with global
warming may result in harmful pH changes in the salt water. This, the result of
rising carbon dioxide levels in the oceans, will threaten marine life. Caldiera
and Wickett point out that the atmospheric carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans
enters the oceans as carbonic acid, gradually altering the acidity (pH) of salt
water. Caldeira, of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, cautions that
marine plankton and other organisms whose skeletons or shells contain calcium
carbonate, which is dissolved by acid solutions, will be particularly vulnerable
to the rising acidity of the oceans.21 The prognosis of Caldeira and Wickett does
not bode well for St. Augustine's seawall or any other coquina (and tabby)
structure of historic significance exposed to acidic water, be it ocean water or
rain water. Already acid rain has caused irreparable damage to pyramids and other
Mayan structures fashioned out of limestone.
Coquina was the only stone accessible to St. Augustine's colonial settlers.
Although limestone forms the substrate of the Florida peninsula, it would have
been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Spanish to quarry it
effectively, that is, had they discovered deposits of this sedimentary rock in
the first place. Tabby, a poured mixture of sand, shell fragments, lime and
water, and coquina, remained the predominant materials used in masonry
construction until the cession of Florida to the United States in 1821.22 The
Spanish did not use bricks in construction until the beginning of the 18th
century; when they did employ bricks, they did so infrequently. The British in
Florida (1763-1784) used bricks more often, as did the Spanish during their
second occupation of the colony (1784-1821).23 The United States War Department
imported granite into St. Augustine for use as coping stones in the construction
of the new seawall. This was the first major use of granite in the town.
Although the Spanish first discovered the existence of coquina on Anastasia
Island in 1580, during the administration of Governor Pedro Men6ndez Mdrquez, it
appears the stone was not employed in construction until a masonry powder
magazine was built between 1596 and 1598 by order of Governor M6ndez de Canzo.24
During the colonial era, workers quarried Coquina in stratigraphic layers
from surface and near-surface deposits on Anastasia Island.25 From the quarries
the stone was transported in barges to St. Augustine, where the Coquina was
shaped into blocks prior to construction. A lime mortar made from water, sand and
calcined oyster shells was used to bond the blocks together.26
Throughout the colonial period, the predominant method of raising Coquina
walls consisted of laying the stone in ashlar courses with its laminae (layers)
aligned horizontally; both the Spanish- and American-era seawalls were
constructed using this technique.27
For thousands of years humans have constructed palisades and masonry
bulkheads to protect their settlements and fortifications from the ravages of
tides and floods. The military engineers who built St. Augustine's sea walls
employed techniques, taught in the military academies, with antecedents dating
to antiquity. The Persian, Greek and Roman empires rose to prominence, in great
part, as a result of their superior engineering capacity. Much of their
construction involved the control of water: to transport and channel water safely
into urban cisterns and agricultural fields, to carve out and shore up harbors
for merchant and war fleets, to protect urban centers from unwanted water
intrusion and to create moated and shoreline fortifications in which water played
a defensive role.
From the time of its founding in 1565 until the present, St. Augustine has
served as a military outpost; for Spanish and British colonial troops, for the
United States Army (and the Confederate Army briefly), and, presently, as the
headquarters of the Florida National Guard. Consequently, along with the
construction and maintenance of the town's defenses, it fell on the military to
build, repair and reconstruct its sea wall.28
The men who built St. Augustine's sea walls formed part of a cadre of
career officers formally trained in military academies in the art of
fortification and associated public works. For most of western civilization, it
has been the military engineers who have constructed the public works upon which
urban centers depended. It was no different in the case of St. Augustine, in the
Spanish and British colonial periods as well as in the century and a half
following the 1821 cession of Florida to the United States.29
Located on the western shore of Matanzas Bay, on low-lying land edged by
saltwater marshes, the City of St. Augustine has endured periodic flooding since
its founding. Although protected by the barrier islands that enclose the bay, the
City's waterfront has nevertheless been vulnerable to hydrological forces. Normal
tidal erosion and deposition, combined with rapid shoreline alterations caused
by storms and hurricanes coming off the Atlantic Ocean threatened to wash away
portions of the town's bayfront throughout the colonial period.
The first known attempt to protect the length St. Augustine's seaward flank
occurred after Sir Francis Drake sacked and burned St. Augustine in 1586. The
rebuilding of the town following the raid included the construction of a
palisaded wall along the waterfront. A map from the 1590s reveals a stockade
extending from the triangular wooden fort, across open fields, to the town,
located south of the fort. The map's detailed legend describes the stockade as
a structure composed of a palisade with a terreplein.30 The terreplein, an
earthen and/or wooden platform upon which soldiers stood to shoot over the
palisade, ran the length of the wall's backside. Normally, most terrepleins built
behind such palisades were wide enough to accommodate ordnance pieces. The 1590s
map does not provide sufficient information to determine if the stockade's
terreplein could, in fact, accommodate cannons. Given the map's description of
the stockade, it is clear, however, that it not only functioned as a sea wall,
it also functioned as a defensive bulwark.
Spanish engineers began construction of a masonry seawall in 1696, the year
after the completion of the Castillo de San Marcos. The wall extended south from
the south salient of the fort's water battery to the plaza. At its southern
extremity, the wall veered out into Matanzas Bay and terminated in a step-shape
breakwater. Wharves fronting the Castillo, and at various other points along the
seawall were built, demolished and rebuilt over the 140-year history of the
Although the Spanish in St. Augustine made every attempt to maintain the
town's defenses and public works, by the time of the cession of Florida to the
United States in 1821, the seawall showed signs of deterioration and in places,
threatened to collapse. To make matters worse, sometime after 1821 the U.S.
military had demolished portions of the seawall to use the coquina blocks in the
construction of a stone wharf in front of the St. Francis Barracks. The resulting
breach in the wall, which caused flooding along the waterfront, spurred residents
in 1832 to launch a campaign to secure federal funding for the reconstruction of
the seawall. In March 1833 President Andrew Jackson signed into law an act
establishing engineering and ordnance departments within the military stationed
in St. Augustine. The legislation included $20,000.00 for the repair of the fort
and the reconstruction of the seawall.32
In the fall of 1833 Lt. Stephen Tuttle began construction of the new
coquina seawall. By the time he was court martialed in 1834 for incompetence and
squandering most of the funds allocated, a third of the wall he was in the
process of erecting had been built on top of the Spanish wall. Lieutenant Francis
L. Dancy, stationed in St. Augustine at the time, and hoping to replace Tuttle,
reported that not only was Tuttle's wall badly constructed, but that building it
atop the old wall did not make good engineering sense.33
After Tuttle was found guilty, Chief Engineer, General Charles Gratiot,
Tuttle's superior, appointed Dancy to direct the repairs at the fort and the
reconstruction of the seawall. After much prodding Dancy succeeded in convincing
Washington, with the help of irate citizens, to allow him to demolish Tuttle's
870-foot wall and begin construction of a new one about 30 feet seaward from the
Spanish wall. Because the Spanish wall curved with the topography of the shore,
Dancy preferred to build the new wall with a straight alignment to widen the 15-
foot wide Bay Street.34
Lieutenant Henry W. Benham replaced Dancy in 1839 and remained in St.
Augustine until he completed the wall in 1846. Upon its completion, the new
American wall extended south from the south salient of the water battery of the
Castillo to a point about 500 past the St. Francis Barracks, a distance of
approximately 3,800 feet. The northern portion of the wall began near the point
where the Spanish wall met the water battery, but veered seaward, away from the
old wall, in a straight alignment as its course proceeded southward. A layer of
granite coping stones capped the wall. However, the top surface of the wall was
left uneven in some portions as workers hurried to place the granite coping
stones and neglected to level the wall first.35
In October 1846 a hurricane put the new seawall to the test. Although the
wall performed relatively well, the storm caused a segment of the wall to
collapse. Between 1849 and 1850 Lt. Jeremy F. Gilmer repaired the breach and
other damaged portions of the wall. To protect the seawall from tidal erosion he
laid, at the base of the wall, the coquina blocks and pavers uncovered during the
2003 archaeological excavations of the seawall.36
In the 1850s remains of the old Spanish wall could still be seen along the
center of Bay Street (present-day Avenida Menendez), where, according to George
Fairbanks, "it occasionally appears above the level of the street.""
St. Augustine's seawall not only served its intended purpose of protecting
the waterfront from innundation, for by the last quarter of the 19th century it
had become a popular promenade for lovers. To disregard the seawall's social and
cultural aspects would be to ignore quite an important part of St. Augustine's
Victorian-era history. The promenade was an important social institution of 19th
and early 20th century Euro-American culture. After dinner, weather permitting,
people ventured outdoors for an evening stroll to engage in what was known as a
"promenade," a walk around the local square to meet friends, lovers or
prospective spouses. In the case of St. Augustine, the evening promenade took
place along the seawall as well as the plaza (see Figures 8 and 9).
Sidney Lanier, in his 1875 work "Florida: Its Scenery, Climate, and
History," wrote that "There are many persons who have found occasion to carp at
this sea-wall, and to revile the United States Government for having gone to the
great expense involved in its construction, with no other result than that of
furnishing a promenade for lovers.""3
Lanier, who was hired to write the book by the Great Atlantic Coastline
Railroad Company to promote travel to Florida, enticed his readers by describing
the purpose of a promenade along St. Augustine's seawall thus:
Whatever may have been the motives of the federal
authorities in building it, its final cause...is
certainly love; and there is not a feature of its
construction which does not seem to have been calculated
solely with reference to some phase of that passion. It
is just wide enough for two to walk side by side with
the least trifle of pressure together; it is as smooth
as the course of true love is not, and yet there are
certain re-entering angles in it (where the stairways
come up) at which one is apt to break one's neck as one
is to be flirted with, and in which, therefore, every
man ought to perceive a reminder in stone of either
catastrophe; it has on one side the sea, exhaling
suggestions of foam-born Venus and fickleness, and on
the other the land, with the Bay Street residences
wholesomely whispering of settlements and housekeeping
bills; it runs at its very beginning in front of the
United States barracks, and so at once flouts War in the
face, and pursues its course, happy omen! towards
old Fort Marion, where strife long ago gave way to quiet
warmths of sunlight, and where the wheels of the cannon
have become trellises for peaceful vines; and finally it
ends How shall a man describe this spot where it ends?
With but a step the promenader passes the drawbridge,
the moat, the portcullis, edges along the left wall,
ascends a few steps, and emerges into the old Barbican.
...it is Love's own trysting place.39
The old seawall was never truly effective against hurricanes. A hurricane
in 1944 flooded Bay Street and the water reached houses along the waterfront.40
St. Augustine's waterfront lies at or near sea level and was prone to flooding
before the construction of the seawalls (see Figure 10).
In 1959 the waterfront north of the Bridge of Lions was considerably
altered when Avenida Menendez (A1A) was widened and its sharp corner in front of
the Castillo slightly straightened.41 A new, wider seawall was constructed to the
east of the old one, leaving the remains of its predecessor buried under the
newly widened road. The 1959 segment of the seawall forms a wide promenade
popular today with tourists and citizens alike. A grassy strip separates this
portion of the seawall from the road's curb, along which horse carriages park
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT TWO SITES ALONG THE SEAWALL SOUTH OF THE BRIDGE
The following account of the archaeological investigations conducted at two
separate sites along the segment of the seawall south of the Bridge of Lions has
been incorporated here verbatim from the report written by City Archaeologist
Carl D. Halbirt (Archaeological Investigations Along the Seaward Side of St.
Augustine's Historic 19th Century Sea Wall, Planning and Building Department,
City of St. Augustine, January 20, 2004, pp. 9-12). Halbirt's citations will be
included in the general bibliography. Text in brackets did not appear in
Halbirt's report and have been added for clarity.
Archaeological documentation at two locations
along the seaward side of the historic sea wall by the
City (Figure 2) provides information useful in assessing
the accuracy of the historical documents. Those
documents are the physical depiction provided by Lt.
Benham in his 1842 illustration and statements provided
by Lt. Gilmer pertaining to steps taken to ensure the
stability of the wall.
The two locations were selected based on
differences in the aquatic terrain adjacent to the wall.
Site A was placed in an area containing extensive oyster
beds and associated shell debris, which are exposed
during low tide. The oyster bed and shell debris enabled
sediment to accumulate along the seaward side of the
wall, thus forming an extensive tidal flat during low
tide. Site B was placed just south of a bend in the sea
wall. This location is outside the oyster bed area, but
is still within the tidal flat during low tide. The
extent of the tidal flat at Site B is less than half
that of Site A. In each location, a 10-foot long by 3-
foot wide test trench was excavated that exposed the
historic fabric of the sea wall along the shoreline
(Figure 3). No attempt was made at this time to
determine the physical characteristics of the sea wall
along the leeward side. Previous archaeological
monitoring in locations where the City installed new
storm basin backflow valves revealed that the upper
portion of the wall consisted of a vertical face to a
depth of 3 feet.
Historical documentation of the sea wall's
physical characteristics, as provided by Lts. Benham and
Gilmer, is supported by the City's archaeological
investigation. Measurements show that the wall height
from the top of the foundation stone to the top of the
granite coping stone is 6 feet 4 inches and 6 feet 6
inches, respectively (Figure 11); both are within the
estimates calculated from Benham's drawings. The
foundation stone on which the wall rests is in excess of
1 foot 8 inches, which also is in agreement with the
historical illustration. At this time, no attempt was
made to determine the thickness of the foundation stone
due to the potential impacts that such activity would
have on the existing sea wall. None of the foundation
stones or coquina-stone paving along the embankment was
disturbed at this time given the erosional uncertainties
that may have ensued from daily bimodal tidal
Two types of erosional support mechanisms are
found along the sea wall, neither of which is mutually
exclusive. The first is a series of large coquina blocks
placed directly adjacent and parallel to the foundation
stones [on the seaward side]. The blocks extended an
average of 2.5 feet from the foundation stones] and
were 7 inches lower than the foundation stoness. The
function of this alignment was probably similar to the
concrete-filled trench proposed by Lt. Gilmer to protect
the foundation. No attempt was made to determine the
thickness of this component of the sea wall, as per the
reason given for the foundation stoness. In front of
the blocks was a 5 & foot pavement of broken coquina
stones, which were intentionally laid flat along the
sloping edge of the Matanzas River. These stones are
assumed to represent recycled building debris used as a
rip-rap to limit the surface displacement of marsh
deposits in front of the sea wall. The paver stones vary
in size (Figure 9/4), but were on the average 6 inches
No in situ coquina stone was found beyond this
approximate 10-foot barrier. What was apparent was a
thick deposit of shell debris within a coarse-grain,
sandy clay matrix (Figure 11). Below this matrix were
the fine-grain marsh sediments over which the historic
sea wall had been constructed.
The preservation of these erosional support
mechanisms is more pronounced toward.the south end of
the existing historic sea wall and not at the north end,
where the stones have been either displaced or scoured
by tidal currents. This is clearly a function of the
relationship between the sea-wall and the tidal currents
of the Matanzas River. At Site A, sediment and shell
debris varies from 5 inches to 15 inches thick and
provides a cover protecting that portion of the sea wall
in the bay. At Site B, the amount of sediment and shell
debris is substantially less, and many of the paver
stones have been displaced or up-ended and the coquina
blocks in front of the foundation stone covered in algae
St. Augustine's historic nineteenth-century sea
wall is not limited to the visible component that
residents or tourists] view on any given day. Rather,
the historic fabric of the wall extends another 10 feet
east along the [sloping shoreline] of the Matanzas River
where a system of coquina-stone blocks and pavers were
placed to control the effects of tidal erosion. Although
this system was observed at Sites A and B, the historic
Fabric of the sea wall is better preserved at Site A -
the south end of the wall. At Site B, which is near the
bend in the wall, preservation is poorer.
During the City's investigation, numerous
locations within the coquina-stone wall contained
cavities where the stone had been removed and the
opening scoured through tidal action. Most of the
cavities occur toward the base of the wall, near the
foundation stones (Figures 3 and 5). In some areas,
these cavities are 3 feet deep approximately half the
thickness of the wall. Although these cavities were not
measured, the one near Site B is very large. This site
also happens to be near the location where the wall
collapsed into the Matanzas River (Lewis 2001). The
cause of this failure was attributed to tropical storm
Gabrielle . Although conjectural, another cause
for this failure may be attributed to the sloping nature
of the wall and the poorly preserved erosional control
system along this section of the wall.
Development of the City of St. Augustine's planned
construction of a new wall in front of the historic sea
wall will need to take into consideration those other
elements of the wall that are part of the erosional
control system. As such, the 10-foot distance, which was
originally proposed between the old sea wall and the new
sea wall in community workshops and to the city
commission, will need to be changed if these additional
elements are considered. An alternative distance one
that would protect the historic fabric of the sea wall
from adverse construction activities is 12 feet. This
is beyond the limits of the coquina stone pavers.
It is recommended that additional archaeological
investigations be carried out along the historic sea
wall in conjunction with construction activities,
especially after a coffer dam system has been
constructed. This system will enable archaeological
investigations to occur without impediment by daily
tidal fluctuations. Work is especially recommended for
those locations adjacent to known historic docks. The
information recovered has the potential for addressing
questions regarding maritime industry in St. Augustine.
The abovementioned recommendation for additional archaeological
investigations to monitor construction activities may delay the construction of
the new seawall, therefore adding to its cost. With proper planning,
archaeological monitoring can be done with minimal delays or added expense.
Monitoring, however, should be carried out to ensure the protection of the
historic wall and its foundation.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS OF A SEGMENT OF THE SEAWALL WITHIN THE GROUNDS OF THE
CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT
Between April 26 and 28, 2004, archaeologists from the Southeast
Archeological Center (SEAC) conducted excavations on a segment of the landward
side of the Castillo's seawall south of the water battery. The excavation was
undertaken to determine the extent to which erosion is undermining the integrity
of the historic seawall in that sector of the shoreline.
The excavation revealed "several possible causes for the erosional
problems. The primary cause of erosion is tidal action. Two daily high tides
allow water to collect behind the seawall through spaces in the coquina. When low
tide occurs the water trapped behind the seawall flows beneath the seawall
carrying with it small amounts of soil. This bi-daily action is the main cause
for the erosion. Secondly [,] rain that accumulates on the land side of the
seawall must percolate through the soil until it can escape beneath the seawall.
As with the tidal action the percolating rain water also carries minute amounts
of soil beneath the seawall. Lastly [,] storm surges which occur infrequently
would also have an adverse effect to the seawall in the same ways as described
above. SEAC recommends that a management plan be designed by the park that could
deal with alleviating the drainage problem along the seawall thus preventing
further erosion in the area."42
Mapping of the excavated portion of the seawall revealed a stepped
foundation, progressively thicker from top to bottom, on the landward side.43 The
shape of the Castillo's segment of the seawall uncovered by the SEAC excavation
is consistent with previous archaeological findings along the seawall south of
the Bridge of Lions.
ALTERNATIVES/OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SEAWALL
Since 2002 the City of St. Augustine has examined a number of alternatives
for the restoration and/or new construction of the seawall south of the Bridge
of Lions. After a period of public comment, consultation with historians,
archaeologists, architects and engineers, the City narrowed the proposed options
to four alternatives.44
Alternative #1, take no action. This alternative left the historic seawall
in its present condition. There are two major disadvantages to this option. One
is that the existing coquina seawall is not structurally sound and is in danger
of collapsing during a tropical storm or hurricane. The other disadvantage is
that the existing wall is not high enough to prevent flooding during Category 1
storms. The average mean sea level (MSL) top elevation of the historic wall is
6.4 feet and the average MSL water elevation of a Category 1 storm surge is 7.4
Alternative #2, rehabilitate existing seawall. Structural rehabilitation
of the historic seawall consisted of drilling vertical boreholes into the wall's
coquina fabric and inserting stainless steel rods along the entire wall and tie
the back of the seawall with stainless steel rods anchored to a concrete dead-man
constructed along the land side of the seawall as shown on Figure ####. This
alternative is not feasible for two reasons. Coquina is a very brittle stone,
therefore the historic wall could be seriously damaged during the drilling of the
boreholes. Moreover, the existing wall is not high enough to prevent flooding
during Category 1 storm surges.
Alternative #3, construct a new seawall four feet from the existing wall.
This alternative contemplated the construction of a new seawall four feet seaward
from the existing wall. The proposed new seawall will have a MSL top elevation
of 7.7 feet to prevent flooding during Category 1 storm surges. The new wall will
help preserve the historic seawall by shielding its fabric from damage from storm
surges. This alternative, however, is not feasible as it will have an adverse
effect on the pavers and foundation of the historic wall.
Alternative #4, construct a new seawall ten feet from existing wall. The
construction of a new seawall ten feet seaward from the existing wall is the most
feasible alternative for the preservation of the historic structure. The new wall
will have a MSL top elevation of 7.7 feet (see Figure 12).
Ultimately, City officials decided to build a new seawall east of, and
detached from, the historic wall in order to preserve its integrity.
Alternative number four was the preferred alternative before City
Archaeologist Carl Halbirt discovered, during excavations at the base of the
seawall, coquina pavers extending about ten feet seaward from the base of the
wall. The pavers, covered by silt and oyster beds, are not visible at low tide,
when portions of the base and shore are exposed. While the pavers were originally
laid at water level and formed a ledge or walkway, over the last century and a
half they have subsided and disappeared into the shoreline's muck. Upon the
discovery of the pavers, alternative number four, the final decision, was
modified. To preserve the pavers, an integral part of the historic wall, the new
seawall should be constructed about twelve feet from the existing wall rather
than the proposed ten.
After studied consideration, and consultation with Carl Halbirt, the City
Archaeologist, and the State Historic Preservation Office in Tallahassee, the
City of St. Augustine decided to build a new seawall and to encapsulate the
historic wall for its preservation. The new seawall will be constructed
approximately twelve feet distant from the historic wall in order to preserve a
course of rough coquina pavers that extend outward from the base of the old wall
for approximately twelve feet.
The pavers, discovered by Halbirt during excavation of two test trenches,
were laid out at sea level during the wall's construction and formed a kind of
ledge or walkway on the seaward side of the wall. A drawing dating to ca. 1875,
in Sidney Lanier's Florida: Its Scenery, Climate, and History, clearly shows the
pavers above water level (see Figure 7).45 Over time, the pavers subsided into
the silty bottom of the shore. Today these stones are no longer visible at low
tide; layers of silt and the ubiquitous oyster beds cover them.
City officials decided to leave the silt and oyster cover in place to
prevent additional disturbance of the coquina pavers. The construction of the new
wall will not affect the historic wall or most of the pavers. Only at four
locations will the pavers be disturbed: at the three existing sites of storm
outfall pipes where concrete Storm Water Pollutant Removal Vortex Boxes will be
installed as required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP), and where the southern terminus of the new seawall will tie into the
The space between the old and new walls will be filled in and paved to
create a pedestrian walkway similar to the one north of the Bridge of Lions. Rods
inserted to secure the new wall will be anchored to a "dead man" laid within the
new wall's fill horizontally and parallel to the old wall, but at a distance from
it to avoid any adverse impact on the historic structure.
A small segment of the historic seawall will be left exposed to facilitate
viewing by the public. An interpretive sign will be placed in this section to
explain the history of the old wall. Acrylic panels may be installed to protect
the visible section of the old wall from wear and tear.
ALTERNATIVES/OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF
The City of St. Augustine considered three design alternatives for the
southern terminus of the new seawall in consideration of the following: (1) to
preserve as much as possible the integrity of the historic wall; (2) to provide
a sound structural solution for the southern terminus; (3) to prevent pedestrian
traffic on the new seawall from inadvertently trespassing onto the National Guard
portion of the seawall; and (4) to minimize the impact of the new seawall upon
the National Guard segment of the historic wall.
The historic seawall generally parallels Avenida Menendez. At the southern
end of Avenida Menendez, the wall makes a right angle turn towards the west,
extends about 20 feet west, and then makes another right angle turn towards the
south. From that point, the historic seawall extends south along the waterfront
of the National Guard Complex. While the Florida National Guard retains ownership
of the seawall fronting its complex in St. Augustine, the City of St. Augustine
owns the submerged land fronting the entire length of the historic seawall, from
the Castillo de San Marcos to its southern terminus within the National Guard
complex. Although the historic seawall extends south to the National Guard
waterfront, the City of St. Augustine's proposed new seawall project ends at the
northern boundary of the National Guard complex, at the south end of Avenida
Although the proposed new seawall will be erected approximately twelve feet
from the historic wall to protect the pavers, construction of the southern
terminus will unavoidably disturb the pavers at the site where the new wall will
tie into the old one (see Figure 13). To ensure the stability of the southern
terminus of the wall, the engineers determined it would be necessary to tie the
new wall onto the old structure.
Alternative #1 would extend the new seawall somewhat south of Avenida
Menendez, tying in to the historic wall in front of the National Guard complex,
south of the two right angle turns of the wall. To minimize impact to the
historic wall, the new wall would abut, but not penetrate, the historic wall. The
end of the new wall will likely require a support piling (such as a king pile)
placed as closely as possible to the historic wall. Grout would fill the joint
between the old and new walls. Rock rip-rap would protect the seaward face of the
joint between the historic and new walls. Impacts to the new wall would be
restricted to the grout joint and any paver stones lying beneath the new seawall
as it turns to join the historic wall (see Figure 13).
Alternative #2 would extend the southern end of the new seawall westward,
penetrating the historic wall and terminating on the landward side of the
historic wall. This alternative would allow the southern end of the new wall to
have a continuous section anchored at its western terminus landward of the
historic wall. This alternative would require dismantling a few feet of the
historic wall. The joint between the historic and new seawalls would be filled
with grout and protected by rock rip-rap on the seaward side of the joint. Any
paver stones lying beneath the new seawall and rip-rap would be affected (see
Alternative #3 would end the new seawall at the southern end of Avenida
Menendez, abutting the new wall against the seaward corner of the historic wall.
To minimize the impact to the historic wall, the new seawall would abut, but not
penetrate, the historic wall. The end of the new wall will likely require a
support piling (king pile) placed as close as possible to the historic wall.
Grout would fill the joint between the old and new walls. Rock rip-rap would
protect the seaward face of the joint between the historic and new walls. Impacts
to the old wall would be restricted to the grout joint and any paver stones lying
beneath the new seawall as it turns to join the historic wall (see Figure 15).
Selection of one of these alternatives will depend upon engineering,
historic preservation and property ownership issues. Both the first and third
alternatives preserve intact the corners of the historic seawall at the end of
Avenida Menendez. The first of these provides greater protection but would
require construction abutting the historic wall fronting the National Guard
complex. Since the second alternative brings the terminus of the new wall inside,
and landward, of the historic wall, it offers the greatest protection to Avenida
Menendez should portions of the historic wall fail. Construction of this
alternative, however, would require dismantling a few feet of the historic wall.
STORM WATER OUTFALLS
The section of the Avenida Menendez seawall between the Santa Maria
Restaurant and the Florida National Guard complex presently contains three storm
water outfall pipes that penetrate the seawall and carry rain water from the City
to the Matanzas River (Intracoastal Waterway). Present FDEP rules require storm
water to be treated for sediment, oil and grease removal before it is discharged
into the Matanzas River. To meet this requirement, the City of St. Augustine will
install at each outfall location a concrete Storm Water Pollutant Removal Vortex
Box. Each box will be installed on the site of the existing outfall pipes between
the historic wall and the new wall. The installation of the vortex boxes will
affect the adjacent coquina pavers. Pavers on the sites where the vortex boxes
will be installed may have to be removed; if so, they will be placed elsewhere
along the historic wall in those areas where pavers are missing. Each box will
affect approximately 21 linear feet of pavers along the seaward toe of the
seawall for a total of 63 linear feet (see Figure 16).
Specific construction techniques will depend on the final design of the new
seawall. Nonetheless, construction of the new seawall will require that the
contractor take precautions to prevent disturbance of the historic seawall. The
new seawall's proximity to the historic wall suggests that the new seawall's
panels be installed by jetting rather than driving. Driving the panels into place
could induce vibrations that could damage the historic wall. Jetting the panels
into place would reduce risks of vibration damage. The engineers anticipate that
construction will occur with the contractor simultaneously placing the new
seawall panels and filling the space between the historic and new walls. The
construction of the seawall could occur with a combination of barge-based
equipment and long-reach equipment operated from Avenida Menendez. As the
construction proceeds, small equipment would operate in the filled area between
the historic and new seawalls.
1.Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR 800.9(b).
3.St. Augustine Historic District, Nomination Form, National
Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, United States
Department of the Interior, 1986 revision, copy on file at the
Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources,
4.Mariano de la Rocque, Plano Particular de la Ciudad de Sn.
Agustin de la Florida, 1788, copy on file at the St. Augustine
5.Edwin C. Bearss and John C. Paige, "Historic Structure Report
for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument St. Johns County,
Florida" (hereafter HSR) (Denver: Denver Service Center, National
Park Service, 1983), 53-55, 65-73, 93-96.
6.Carl D. Halbirt, "Archaeological Investigations Along the
Seaward Side of St. Augustine's Historic 19th Century Sea Wall"
(St. Augustine: City of St. Augustine Planning and Building
Department, 2004), 8.
7.Henry W. Benham, Survey of the Sea Wall of St. Augustine With
the City proper and the adjacent shore, September 30, 1842, copy
at the Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.
8.See the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps at the St. Augustine
9.Henry W. Benham, Survey of the Sea Wall of St. Augustine, 1842.
10.Halbirt, "Archaeological Investigations Along the Seaward Side
of St. Augustine's Historic 19th Century Sea Wall," 8.
12.Ibid., 9; Benham, Survey of the Sea Wall.
13.Ibid., 6-7, 10.
15.Sidney Lanier, Florida: Its Scenery, Climate, and History,
facsimile reproduction of 1875 edition (Gainesville: University
of Florida Press, 1973).
16.Carl D. Halbirt, "Archaeological Investigations Along the
Seaward Side of St. Augustine's Historic 19th Century Sea Wall,"
unpublished manuscript (City of St. Augustine: Planning and
Building Department, 2004).
17.Anthony F. Randazzo and Douglas S. Jones, eds., The Geology of
Florida, (Gainesville: The University Press of Florida, 1997),
19.C. Craig Frazier, Randall Copeland and Luis Arana, "Historic
Structure Report, Volume 2, Castillo de San Marcos National
Monument" (Denver: Denver Service Center, National Park Service,
1986 draft), 147 and 439.
21.Ken Caldeira and Michael E. Wickett, Nature, September 25,
22.See Albert Manucy, The Houses of St. Augustine 1565-1821 (St.
Augustine: The St. Augustine Historical Society, 1978) for a
thorough treatment of this topic.
23.Ibid., 62, 73, 98, 120, 124.
24.Manucy, The Houses of St. Augustine, 17.
25.Jean Parker Waterbury, Coquina (St. Augustine: St. Augustine
Historical Society, 1993), 6, 7 and 9.
26.Manucy, The Houses of St. Augustine, 17 and 67; Luis Rafael
Arana and Albert Manucy, The Building of Castillo de San Marcos
(St. Augustine: Eastern National Park and Monument Association,
1977), 17 and 18.
27.Manucy, The Houses of St. Augustine, 68 and 70.
28.See Luis Rafael Arana, "Castillo de San Marcos: First Spanish
Period, 1668-1763, Section I" (St. Augustine: Castillo de San
Marcos National Monument, National Park Service) and "Castillo de
San Marcos: Second Spanish Period, 1784-1821, Section II"(St.
Augustine: Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, National
Park Service); and Bearss and Paige, "HSR," Volumes I and II, for
a detail account of the construction and maintenance of the
Castillo de San Marcos and its outworks, and the seawall.
29.C6cile-Marie Sastre, "Defense-in-Depth: The Development of St.
Augustine's Defensive System, 1702-1763," El Escribano, 2002, 87-
30.Hernando de Mestas (attributed to), Mapa del Pueblo, Fuerte y
Cano de San Agustin, copy at the St. Augustine Historical Society
(hereafter SAHS), 1590s.
31.Arana, "Castillo de San Marcos, Section I," 88-89; Luis Rafael
Arana and Albert Manucy, The Building of Castillo de San Marcos
(St. Augustine: Eastern National Park and Monument Association,
1977), map inside back cover.
32.Bearss and Paige, "HSR," 46-47, 51-53, 59-62; C6cile-Marie
Sastre, "Castillo de San Marcos NM, History of the Cultural
Landscape for the Cultural Landscape Report" (hereafter CLR) (St.
Augustine: Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, National
Park Service, 2000), 85.
33.Sastre, "CLR," 85-89.
34.Bearss and Paige, "HSR," 93-94.
35.Bearss and Paige, "HSR," 107-238.
37.George Fairbanks, The History and Antiquities of the City of
St. Augustine, Florida, facsimile reproduction of 1858 edition,
(Gainesville: The University Presses of Florida, 1975), 130.
40.Karen Harvey, St. Augustine and St. Johns County, A Pictorial
History (Norfolk: The Donning Company, 1980), 177.
41.Albert C. Manucy, Seawall Changes at St. Augustine, plan,
1958, revised, 1960. Copy on file at the Government House
archives and library, St. Augustine. The plan shows, relative to
each other, St. Augustine's historic seawalls as drawn by Mariano
de la Rocque, 1784; Clements, survey map, 1834; Henry W. Benham,
map, 1842; and the outline of the concrete bulkhead built in
42.R. Steven Kidd, "Trip Report on Excavations Along the Southern
Seawall at Castillo de San Marcos, April 26-28, 2004"
(Tallahassee: Southeast Archeological Center, National Park
44.William G. Mendez, P.E., City of St. Augustine Engineering
Manager to C6cile-Marie Sastre, Ph.D., historian, correspondence,
March 22, 2004.