GCHPC Survey Plan - ERO

Consultants in

Natural

Resources and

the Environment

DENVER • DURANGO • HOTCHKISS • IDAHO

ERO Resources Corp.

1015 ½ Main Ave.

Durango, CO 81301

970.422.2136

www.eroresources.com

HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY PLAN GUNNISON COUNTY, COLORADO

Prepared for

Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission 221 N. Wisconsin Street, Suite G

Gunnison, Colorado 81230

Submitted to—

History Colorado 1200 Broadway

Denver, Colorado 80203

Prepared by

ERO Resources Corporation 1842 Clarkson Street

Denver, Colorado 80218 (303) 830-1188

Written by

Abigail Sanocki Jonathan Hedlund

Prepared under the supervision of

Sean Larmore, Principal Investigator

History Colorado Project #CO-15-018 ERO Project No. 6503

August 2016

ABSTRACT

The Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) contracted ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to prepare a county-wide historic resource survey plan. ERO developed the plan using funds from the Certified Local Government Subgrant Program administered by History Colorado (Project #CO-15-08). The survey plan provides prioritization recommendations for future intensive or reconnaissance survey efforts to identify and document cultural resources in Gunnison County. The purpose of a survey plan is to identify areas where survey may help the HPC establish priorities for future preservation, nominations, and public outreach as derived through the information gained during a survey.

The survey plan includes recommendations for future reconnaissance or intensive surveys of buildings, structures, and archaeological resources on county-, city-, and privately-owned land. The survey recommendations provided are prioritized based on public input, the extent of previously conducted work in the county, the current condition of resources that reflect important themes in the county’s past, and the goals and powers of the HPC. In addition to providing guidance for planning future cultural resource surveys, this document includes an overview of the previously conducted survey and documentation work in Gunnison County and a thematic historical overview of the county’s history. The historical overview provides general guidance for interpreting the history and determining the significance of historic properties associated with the identified themes.

ERO Project #6503 i

FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The activity that is the subject of this material has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Historic Preservation Act, administered by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior for History Colorado and in part by History Colorado State Historical Fund. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of the Interior or History Colorado, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute an endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or History Colorado.

This program receives Federal funds from the National Park Service. Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental Federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age or handicap. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240.

ERO Project #6503 ii

CONTENTS Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... iv Project Description.............................................................................................................. 1

Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission ...................................................2 Purpose of the Survey Plan ............................................................................................5

Project Area ........................................................................................................................ 7

Methodology and Data Collection ...................................................................................... 9 Public Outreach ..............................................................................................................9 File and Literature Review ...........................................................................................15 Field Reconnaissance ...................................................................................................18

Cultural Overview ............................................................................................................. 22 Protohistoric Contact and Early Exploration ...............................................................22 Early Settlement of Gunnison County, ca. 1860s to ca. 1915 .....................................25

Early Settlement of the County’s Population Centers ...........................................28 Transportation ..............................................................................................................33 Early Development of Mining, ca. 1870 to ca. 1914 ...................................................38 Early Ranching, 1869 to ca. 1914 ................................................................................43 Recreation, 1879 to ca. 1965........................................................................................46

Recommendations for Future Survey ............................................................................... 50 High-Priority Surveys ..................................................................................................51 Medium-Priority Surveys.............................................................................................56 Low-Priority Surveys ...................................................................................................61 Opportunities for Implementing Future Surveys .........................................................64

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 66

References Cited ............................................................................................................... 67

TABLE Table 1. Prioritized survey recommendations. ....................................................................2

FIGURE Figure 1. Project location. ...................................................................................................8

APPENDICES

Appendix A Meeting Notes and Public Response Appendix B Previous Surveys and Previously Documented Sites Appendix C Table of Cultural Resources Identified During Windshield Survey Appendix D Information and Contacts for Funding Sources

ERO Project #6503 iii

ABBREVIATIONS

BCC Gunnison County Board of County Commissioners

CLG Certified Local Government

CR County Road

ERO ERO Resources Corporation

D&RG Denver & Rio Grande Railroad

DSP&P Denver South Park & Pacific Railroad

HPC Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission

landmark Resource on Gunnison County Register of Historic Landmarks

Legacy Ranchland Conservation Legacy

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OAHP Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation

SHF State Historical Fund

SRHP Colorado State Register of Historic Properties

Western Western State Colorado University

ERO Project #6503 iv


AUGUST 2016

Project Description The Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) contracted ERO

Resources Corporation (ERO) to prepare a county-wide historic resource survey plan. The

plan was developed using funds from the Certified Local Government (CLG) Subgrant

Program (Project #CO-15-08). It provides prioritization recommendations for future

intensive or reconnaissance survey efforts to identify and document historic resources (i.e.,

sites or properties containing archaeological resources, structures, and/or buildings that are

related to significant events, themes or people from the past, significant methods of

construction or architectural design, or have the potential to yield additional information

about the history of the region); survey types are defined in the Field Reconnaissance

section of this report. The purpose of a survey plan is to identify areas where survey may

help the HPC establish priorities for future preservation, nominations, and public outreach

as derived through information gained during a survey. The surveys could also assist the

HPC’s efforts to work proactively with the other county commissions and landowners for

preservation and during planning review for new developments in Gunnison County.

The survey plan includes recommendations for future reconnaissance or intensive

surveys of buildings, structures, and archaeological resources on Gunnison County,

municipal, and privately owned land. Survey recommendations are prioritized based on

public input, the extent of previously conducted work in the region, the current condition

of resources that represent important themes in the county’s past, and the goals and powers

of the HPC. In addition to providing guidance for planning future cultural resource

surveys, this document also includes an overview of the previously conducted survey and

documentation work in the county and a selective historical overview that identifies

important themes and periods of significance. The historical overview provides a basis for

interpreting the history and significance of historic properties.

ERO’s survey recommendations are prioritized in three categories from high to low.

High priority surveys are surveys most likely to help the HPC meet their goals for

ERO Project #6503 1


preservation, collaboration, and public education, and could be completed without right-of-

entry to privately owned lands. Medium priority surveys are focused on areas where there

is a high concentration of cultural resources and opportunities for the HPC to collaborate

with local community organizations in small population centers across the county. Low

priority survey recommendations are provided for places which the HPC and public show

interest in researching but do not have high concentrations of cultural resources and are

under little threat of loss. The recommendations are summarized in Table 1, below, and

explained in detail in the Recommendations for Future Survey section near the end of this

document.

Table 1. Prioritized survey recommendations. Priority Survey Recommendation

High Comprehensive reconnaissance/selective intensive survey to identify architectural and structural resources on all properties owned by Gunnison County or a municipality Comprehensive intensive archaeological survey of select county-owned lands Selective intensive/selective reconnaissance survey of East and West Downtown Gunnison Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of abandoned railroad grades Selective intensive survey of historic agricultural complexes along recreational and transportation corridors

Medium Comprehensive intensive architectural survey of Ohio City Comprehensive intensive architectural survey of Pitkin Comprehensive intensive architectural survey of Marble Comprehensive intensive architectural survey of Crystal Townsite Comprehensive reconnaissance/intensive architectural survey of Somerset Comprehensive intensive archaeological survey of the Baldwin/Castleton townsites

Low Selective intensive architectural survey of Tin Cup Selective intensive architectural survey of Whitepine Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of historic recreation–related resources Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of post–World War II resources in and around the City of Gunnison

Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission The Gunnison County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) established the HPC in

1993 (BCC 1993 and 1999). The purpose of the HPC is to promote public education,

health, and welfare through the preservation of historic places. The HPC maintains the

Gunnison County Register of Historic Landmarks (landmarks) and provides educational

ERO Project #6503 2


and technical and funding assistance to the community relevant to the interpretation,

nomination, and maintenance of cultural resources (City of Gunnison 2007; HPC 2007).

Through the landmarks program, the HPC can implement funds and initiatives to meet the

following goals:

Protect and preserve historic resources. Stabilize and enhance the value of historic resources. Educate the public about local history and provide opportunities to participate

in commemorating the region’s heritage. Foster the enhancement and diversification of the economy through historic

preservation and interpretation. Ensure a balance between the rights of private landowners and the public’s

interest in preservation.

The HPC comprises a volunteer board of county residents. The HPC board

collectively developed the criteria for the landmarks register and provides landowners,

towns, and the BCC with technical information about the financial and physical aspects of

preservation and maintaining a landmark property. The HPC defined the following criteria

to qualify a resource as a local landmark:

50 years old or older work of an important builder or architect high artistic value represents significant type, period, or method of construction associated with a significant person or cultural group associated with significant event or patterns in history contributes to a historic district may possess information important to history or prehistory

The HPC reviews landmark nominations and recommends nominations to the BCC

(BCC 1993; HPC 2007). The HPC also accepts dedicated or deeded easements or

properties containing cultural resources and can expend money to maintain those resources

(BCC 1999). In addition to expending county funds, the HPC can actively pursue financial

assistance for preservation, education, and survey programs to identify and document

significant resources. Through intergovernmental agreements with the City of Gunnison

and the Town of Crested Butte, the HPC’s ability to review landmark nominations is

shared with the historic preservation boards in those cities, and the HPC maintains the

authority to accept or deny a board’s recommendations for nominations or alterations to

ERO Project #6503 3


landmarks (BCC 1997 and 1998). Currently, however, the City of Gunnison does not have

a design review board, so the HPC is responsible for monitoring the use and maintenance

of landmarks within that city. Further, because the HPC was listed as a review agency in

the 2016 Gunnison County Land Use Resolution, the HPC can also provide

recommendations for development projects when land use changes may affect areas of

concern to the HPC; the Community Development Department, Planning Department, or

the BCC initiate reviews in response to an HPC request for an assessment of development

impacts on cultural resources. The HPC does not review all planning and development

requests but only those deemed by the BCC to warrant review by the HPC.

The HPC’s greatest authority is derived from Gunnison County Resolution No. 93-32,

which not only established the HPC but also provides stipulations for the nomination of

local landmarks and the protections that are afforded to landmarks. Under Resolution No.

93-32 (III)(1), members of the HPC and the general public can recommend cultural

resources for designation as landmarks. After obtaining consent from the property owner,

the HPC approves properties for landmark listing when the property qualifies under any of

the HPC landmark criterion/criteria defined above, and have consent from the property

owner. Landmarks are protected from “any new construction, alteration, removal or

demolition” without first obtaining a landmark alteration certificate through the HPC. The

HPC can provide recommendations for in-kind alterations, impose a timeline for

completing alterations, or request that the BCC or other county commissions deny

construction permits. Resources listed on the Colorado State Register of Historic

Properties (SRHP) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are not afforded

the same protections under Gunnison County regulations unless a state agency or a federal

nexus is present.

The HPC can impose a moratorium on issuing permits to a property owner who does

not adhere to its recommendations on alterations (BCC 1993; HPC 2007) –– although the

county’s private landowners, characterized as diverse and independent (City of Gunnison

2007; Mike Pelletier, personal communication 2016), do not consistently request

permission from the county to make alterations. A property owner who can demonstrate

that his or her property no longer retains integrity (i.e., integrity of historic location,

ERO Project #6503 4


setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling) or that the HPC’s

recommendations create an economic hardship can remove their property from landmark

status. Because of the independent nature of private landowners in the county and ongoing

public perceptions about the expense and limitations imposed by historic preservation

initiatives that could restrict a property owner’s options when developing or maintaining

their buildings, the BCC and municipalities are hesitant to strictly enforce the

recommendations of the HPC or local preservation boards, let alone create more strict

criteria for a design-review process. According to the City of Gunnison, city and county

“policy makers have been reluctant to create such [historic preservation design standards

and] regulations, as they may interfere with economic development,” and the city council

recommends “it may be appropriate to experiment with simple design standards to select

neighborhoods” instead of imposing more strict and broad-reaching guidelines for

preservation (City of Gunnison 2007:10).

Purpose of the Survey Plan The purpose of this survey plan is to define and prioritize future cultural resource

surveys in Gunnison County. The plan includes recommendations for intensive or

reconnaissance-level surveys of places or select resources based on historical themes.

Recommendations are focused on the built, historic environment of the county because

archaeological sites, especially prehistoric, are not easily recognized by the public and the

best means to preserve these sites is to keep their locations confidential; however, the plan

does include recommendations to consider archaeological resources in rural areas with

high potential to contain historic or prehistoric resources. Factors for prioritizing

recommendations in the plan include the HPC’s needs, goals, and limitations; public input

on the historic preservation process and historic places important to residents; significant

resource types and historical themes in the county; threats to potentially significant

resources; and the extent of previously conducted survey and documentation work in the

county. Of the greatest benefit to the HPC, future survey work will result in the inventory

and documentation of the county’s resources and the completion of additional interpretive

research into their history. Documentation serves as the easiest form of preservation and

can provide the foundation for future physical preservation (i.e., stabilization and/or

restoration) efforts.

ERO Project #6503 5


The information and prioritization recommendations in this document will help the

HPC to meet its goals for preservation and public outreach by providing updated

information on previously documented resources, and by identifying what is significant

based on public input and the HPC’s criteria for landmark nomination. The surveys ERO

recommends will result in the collection of data that will provide the foundation for the

HPC to work proactively with other county commissions during the planning process for

new open space initiatives or any land use changes; to create new opportunities for public

education and collaboration; to research and preserve resources through documentation;

and to complete the initial steps needed to nominate a significant property or site as a

landmark or for listing in the SRHP or NRHP. Lastly, the survey plan recommendations

will help the HPC plan how to best use future funding for the identification and

documentation of cultural resources.

The completion of a cultural resource survey is beneficial to the HPC and general

public because the inventory and documentation activities that occur during the survey are

the principal steps in preservation as well as for developing local programs for physical

preservation and education. Information collected during an intensive or reconnaissance

survey helps the HPC and public to understand both the significance and density of the

county’s resources and define impending threats to significant resources. Information

about the location and density of cultural resources provides a foundation for the HPC to

work proactively with other county stakeholders during the planning stages of new

developments. Research completed in association with a survey and property

documentation can be used in educational materials for community benefit and

disseminated to the public through a variety of methods: public presentations, signage,

short publications at local museums, websites, school education curriculum, and tourism

centers.

Finally, survey results provide an understanding of the significance, geographical

extent, and density of the county’s resources and can be beneficial to guide future

decisions on how to financially invest funds into preservation, research, or community

commemoration activities. The identification, documentation, and evaluation work that

ERO Project #6503 6


results from a survey provides the foundation for future preservation activities and

initiatives to raise public awareness and community pride in the region’s shared heritage.

Project Area The survey plan provides background information and considerations for built

resources and archaeological resources in the entirety of Gunnison County. At the request

of the HPC, ERO provided a more detailed review and focused recommendations on these

population centers: City of Gunnison, Pitkin, Ohio City, Tin Cup, Somerset, Marble, and

Whitepine (Figure 1). Although Crested Butte was originally included in the list of

population centers, the HPC ultimately excluded Crested Butte from this survey plan

because it has been extensively surveyed and documented and has a well-established Board

of Zoning and Architectural Review (a CLG), which reviews and accepts building permit

applications for alterations to historic resources in the Crested Butte Historic District

independent of the HPC. Within these selected localities are greater concentrations of

cultural resources and some community members with a collective vested interest in the

preservation or interpretation of those resources. With the exception of the City of

Gunnison, all of the selected towns lack formal, fully funded and staffed community

organizations to fulfill such purposes. Although the City of Gunnison has a local

preservation board, the board is not staffed and is not recognized as a CLG, and, therefore,

does not have the same level of access to funding or technical information available to the

HPC or Crested Butte Board of Zoning and Architectural Review.

ERO completed a selective review of rural private properties and federally managed

lands based on accessibility, public input, and the interests of the HPC. The selective

review involved the identification of historic properties using historic maps, assessor

records, the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) database, and a

windshield survey (i.e., preliminary visual survey of the county from public roads). The

review was focused on properties of interest to the public and HPC located in proximity to

frequently traveled public roads and recreational trails with high visibility to motorists and

recreationists; such properties were given greater consideration in the survey plan

recommendations because the HPC is more likely to meet its goal for public outreach and

education at places easily accessible to the public. Feasibility of obtaining owner

ERO Project #6503 7

I£

SH 135

CR 730

SH133

CR 742

C R 727

NorthFork Gunnison Rive r

Ohio Creek

Tay lor River

Quartz Creek

Tomich i Creek

Gunnison River

GUNNISON

CRESTED BUTTE

MARBLE

PITKIN

TINCUP

OHIO CITY WHITE PINE

SOMERSET

Prepared for: Gunnison County HistoricPreservation CommissionFile: 6503 Figure 1.mxd (GS)June 12, 2016 ±

Figure 1Project LocationHistoric Resource Survey Plan - Gunnison County, Colorado

Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2015 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved.

0 115.5 Miles

COLORADO

Location

1:696,960

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re 1.m

xd

Federally-Managed Land (not included in plan)Gunnison County BoundaryAbandoned Denver South Park and Pacific RailroadAbandoned Denver and Rio Grande Railroad


permission for access to private land was also considered.

ERO made no recommendations for surveys on lands managed by the Forest Service,

Bureau of Land Management, or National Park Service within Gunnison County at the

request of the HPC. The HPC’s request recognizes the limited scope and timeline of this

project and that the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) affords some protection of

cultural resources through the Act’s mandate that federal agencies take account of the

effects of undertakings on historic properties.

Methodology and Data Collection This section provides a summary of how ERO collected, organized, and analyzed

information to develop survey priority recommendations. In the context of previously

conducted research and the distribution of known cultural resources across the county,

ERO weighed the values and interests of county residents and the HPC against the

limitations of the HPC to develop the plan recommendations. ERO’s methods for

formulating the survey plan included public outreach; extensive reviews of previously

conducted surveys, documentation, and research; ERO also completed a windshield survey

of select towns and the county’s main transportation corridors. This information was

organized with the goal of providing survey recommendations that will help the HPC meet

its goals and efficiently use funds and time during future surveys.

Public Outreach Important to ERO’s survey plan recommendations are Gunnison County residents’

perceptions about preservation and the types of cultural resources they consider significant.

HPC goals, historic places the public identified as important, and the limitations of private

land access provided ERO with a foundation for strategic prioritization of survey

recommendations. Members of the HPC, other county commissions, and the general

public provided input to ERO about resources of particular importance to their interests

and their understanding the history of the region; HPC meeting minutes and written

correspondence on these topics are included in Appendix A.

ERO participated in two meetings with the HPC at the beginning of the project on

March 16th and April 20th, 2016. The March 16th HPC meeting served as the kick-off

meeting for the survey plan project; ERO cultural resource specialists Abigail Sanocki and

ERO Project #6503 9


Jonathan Hedlund introduced themselves to the HPC, briefly discussed the goals,

geographic extent, and scope of the survey plan project, and defined the population centers

in which the survey plan should focus: City of Gunnison, Pitkin, Ohio City, Tin Cup,

Somerset, Marble, and Whitepine.

The April 20th HPC meeting served as the public meeting. The intent of the meeting

was to gather public and HPC input on resources related to important events in Gunnison

County history. The HPC published a notice inviting the public to the April meeting in the

Gunnison Country Times newspaper on April 13th; however, there were no attendees

besides the HPC board. Therefore, the HPC and ERO discussed significant or endangered

resources the HPC is interested in identifying and documenting through survey. The

resources the HPC defined are:

stage- and rail-related transportation resources homesteads and agricultural complexes mining resources related to coal and metal mining in the county schools cemeteries recreational resources abandoned or nearly abandoned historic population centers with no local

historic preservation boards, such as Castleton, Gothic, and Crystal.

ERO considered these resource types with the population centers in the file search review

and when making survey recommendations. Because nearly all of the extant historic

schools and cemeteries ERO could identify using historic maps, aerial photographs, and

public records has been either previously documented as an HPC landmark and/or

evaluated and documented with the OAHP, ERO assumes that no additional survey of

schools or cemeteries is necessary and, therefore, did not include these resources in the

survey plan recommendations (see the File and Literature Review section and Appendix

B). Additionally, unmarked graves, should they be encountered, are protected under

Colorado Statute (CRS) 24-80-1305(1-2), and Colorado law protects all cemeteries and

marked graves from willful damage; local governments must follow complex procedures

to move graves or to prosecute vandals, enforced by law.

ERO Project #6503 10


ERO and HPC also discussed how intensive or reconnaissance surveys would help the

HPC meet the following goals:

Make the HPC and BCC a model for championing historic preservation by documenting each Gunnison County–owned property as the first step to nominating significant buildings and protecting them from demolition or neglect.

Identify significant resources related to early settlement and transportation that may be under threat of loss.

Collaborate with local organizations and the general public on efforts for future survey, documentation, and public education.

Additionally, ERO historian Abigail Sanocki conducted one day of windshield survey

with HPC board member David Primus on April 19th; Primus identified numerous historic

properties within and around the City of Gunnison (discussed below in the Field

Reconnaissance section and in Appendix C).

Besides inviting the public to the April meeting, the April 13th Gunnison Country

Times newspaper notice included a weblink to an interactive map. The link,

http://tiny.cc/HistoricBuildings, provided the public with access to a Google map of the

county showing previously documented historic resources in the select population centers

across the county (City of Gunnison, Pitkin, Ohio City, Tin Cup, Somerset, Marble,

Whitepine), plus Crested Butte, and allowed users to place a point or draw a polygon with

descriptive information on any location deemed significant. Although the link was easily

accessible to anyone with access to a computer with an Internet connection, and no special

computer skills or instruction were needed to use the map, no members of general public

utilized the link. Lack of public involvement in this data collection method suggests that

either the link was not widely disseminated or the method was not appropriate for

collecting the interests and values of the community. When the negative results of the

newspaper notice and weblink method are compared against the results of direct email and

face-to-face outreach to individuals, it becomes clear that the latter method is much more

productive for garnering the opinions of local residents.

ERO conducted written and oral public outreach over the course of the project. ERO

emailed written invitations for input to history professors at Western State Colorado


http://tiny.cc/HistoricBuildings


University (Western), Gunnison County Substance Abuse Prevention Project, Crested

Butte Board of Zoning and Architectural Review, and to county commissions with goals

similar to the HPC’s for preservation and public outreach. The county commissions

included the Ranchland Conservation Legacy (Legacy), Trails Commission, and the

Gunnison Valley Land Preservation Fund. Written responses are compiled in Appendix A.

Positive responses were garnered from faculty at Western, Substance Abuse Prevention

Project, the Legacy, and Crested Butte Board of Zoning and Architectural Review.

Western faculty and staff affiliated with the Gunnison County Substance Abuse Prevention

Project provided feedback on opportunities for the HPC to incorporate student interns and

volunteers for HPC survey, research, and documentation efforts. Western faculty also

provided feedback on opportunities to integrate coursework related to the school’s new

Public History program into HPC surveys, research, and documentation efforts (Jordan

Cooper, personal communication 2016; Dr. Heather Thiessen-Reily, personal

communication 2016; Duane Vanderbusche, personal communication 2016).

The Legacy provided feedback on specific agricultural properties in Gunnison County

owned by people with a vested interest in commemorating and sharing their heritage with

the public. Legacy also recommended that the HPC develop educational literature about

the landmark and other preservation programs for the Legacy to share with the ranchers

involved in the Legacy’s programs (Stacy McPhail, personal communication 2016).

Additionally, staff at the Legacy offered to contact landowners who may be interested in

participating in documentation and research to improve the public’s interest and

knowledge about the landmarks program and educational opportunities with the HPC. All

of the properties identified by the Legacy have owners with a vested interest in the place’s

history and have already been documented at the OAHP:

Ralph R. Allen & Sons Ranch (Centennial Farm previously evaluated as eligible for listing in the NRHP in 1979; Smithsonian number 5GN1166)

Vevarelle Esty Farm (designated a Centennial Farm in 1991; Smithsonian number 5GN2181)

McLain Ranch (designated a Centennial Farm in 2011; Smithsonian number 5GN6072)

Spann Ranch (previously evaluated as needs data for listing in the NRHP in 1979; Smithsonian number 5GN1518)



Trampe Ranch (previously evaluated as eligible for listing in the NRHP in

1979; Smithsonian number 5GN347)

ERO conducted a phone interview with Molly Minneman, the Crested Butte Board of

Zoning and Architectural Review, Historic Preservation Coordinator on June 13, 2016

(Molly Minneman, personal communication, 2016). The conversation focused on the

successes and challenges the Crested Butte municipal government experienced in

managing the Crested Butte Historic District and as a CLG. Minneman explained the

nomination history of the historic district in the 1970s and later organization of the town’s

historic preservation program in 1993. From the perspective of the Board of Zoning and

Architectural Review, the town’s historic preservation program has been successful

because of strong ordinances and the town manager and planner’s continuous work with

the public on a common goal for preservation. Minneman recommended that the HPC

work to increase public education and participation in historic preservation as a means to

diminish ongoing “urban legends” about disagreements between landowners and local

governments when enforcing preservation regulations. Important topics for public

education about preservation include discussions about a landowner’s rights to opt into

preservation programs and the economic and educational benefits of the CLG program,

physical preservation, and heritage tourism. Opportunities to distribute educational

information and materials include publishing more information and constructing signs to

advertise new landmark designations; restoration work on properties that are highly visible

and easily accessible to the public while also informing them about funding sources and

the local economic benefits of preservation; and advertise opportunities for heritage

tourism and the economic benefits of heritage tourism.

The Trails Commission acknowledged ERO’s request but did not offer any input on

collaborating with the HPC (David Wiens, personal communication 2016). Lastly, the

Gunnison Valley Land Preservation Fund declined to engage in any efforts to collaborate

with the HPC. The Gunnison Valley Land Preservation Fund provided an honest portrayal

of the private nature of landowners in Gunnison County, demonstrating the HPC’s

challenges in working with private landowners. According to Gunnison Valley Land

Preservation Fund member Mike Pelletier (personal communication 2016), private

landowners that work with the Fund generally have no interest in historic preservation or



interpretation, given that “the Land Trusts work very hard to minimize their intrusion into

the lives of these owners, since they are generally very private people… [The Land

Preservation Fund] would not likely even want to mention historical documenting let alone

interpretive signage or landmarking to their clients [as] they have to be very careful not to

give the wrong impression as to what [the Fund is] trying to achieve.”

During the week of April 18th, ERO historian Abigail Sanocki conducted a windshield

survey of Gunnison County and impromptu interviews with residents. These interviews

occurred when residents of the City of Gunnison, Somerset, and Marble approached

Sanocki while on foot in the respective places. Two Gunnison residents who inquired

about the project showed little interest in the region’s heritage or preservation but referred

Sanocki to the Gunnison Pioneer Museum for reference sources. A resident of Somerset

echoed Gunnison Valley Land Preservation Fund’s concerns for privacy and

apprehensions about additional government oversight over how a landowner manages their

property. In Marble, the Marble–Crystal River Chambers of Commerce Chairman Connie

Hendrix and Operations Manager Alex Menard were eager to discuss the town’s history,

needs for funding to preserve and maintain buildings that are currently landmarked or

listed in the SRHP or NRHP, and community efforts to preserve and interpret their shared

history. Hendrix and Menard identified multiple buildings of significance in the area:

residential and commercial buildings in the Marble and Crystal townsites, the Marble mill

site, and the old Marble jail; many of these buildings have not been previously

documented. Hendrix and Menard also provided multiple recommendations for

collaborating with the HPC on educational and interpretive activities. These

recommendations included a request for the HPC to provide advertising for walking tours

Menard and other residents conduct for tourists during the summer; technical literature

about historic preservation and the landmarks program for Marble residents to distribute at

the visitor center and weekend farmers’ market; and a book loan program with a small

circulating collection of historic monographs and technical literature for people to read

while in the visitor center.



File and Literature Review

ERO conducted a file and literature review of Gunnison County using OAHP records,

historic maps, and Gunnison County tax assessor records (Appendix B). The review

included structures, buildings, and archaeological sites, and was focused on geographical

areas and historical themes the HPC and public identified as significant during public

outreach. Information gleaned from the file and literature review about the extent of

previously conducted surveys and documentation efforts in the county provided

information about the types of resources or geographical areas neglected in past studies,

and the age and completeness of previously conducted surveys; this information allowed

ERO to identify areas that do- or do not warrant further survey. After public input, ERO’s

understanding of the extent of previously conducted work in the county was paramount

towards prioritizing recommendations for future surveys.

ERO requested a formal file search of the OAHP database for all lands owned by

Gunnison County and lands located within the corporate limits of the select population

centers identified by the HPC (City of Gunnison, Pitkin, Ohio City, Tin Cup, Somerset,

Marble, Crested Butte, and Whitepine). The OAHP returned the file search results on

March 22, 2016 (File Search No. 19321); the 62 previously conducted surveys are listed in

Table B1 of Appendix B, the nearly 600 previously documented resources are listed in

Table B2, and their locations are depicted in Figures B1-B23 of Appendix B. The file and

literature review results indicate that approximately 20 percent of rural county-owned

properties have been previously surveyed and that some selective surveys in all but three of

the population centers have been completed since 1977; no surveys have ever been

conducted in the corporate limits of Somerset, Ohio City, or Whitepine.

ERO also conducted several selective reviews of the entire county using the OAHP’s

online Compass database to identify gaps in previously conducted research and to provide

the HPC with an up-to-date list of documentation completed on Gunnison County

landmarks and resources discussed during public outreach. Of the 26 resources currently

listed as landmarks, 8 resources have not been assigned a Smithsonian number or

evaluated for eligibility to be listed in the NRHP or SRHP, 2 are listed in the NRHP

(Chance Gulch Site (5GN817) and Johnson Building (5GN30)), 3 are listed in the SRHP

(the Bon Ton Hotel (5GN2370), Spencer School (5GN3752), and Star Mine (5GN3900)),



and 12 have been previously evaluated as eligible for listing in the NRHP (Appendix B,

Table B3); resources that are eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically considered

as eligible for listing in the SRHP.

Based on input from the HPC on areas or resource types that are significant to the

history of the county, ERO conducted a thematic review of previously recorded resources

in the entire county using the OAHP’s online Compass database, tax assessor records, and

historic maps (U.S. Federal Census 1940; U.S. Geological Survey 1930-1983b) (Appendix

B). The review indicates that railroad and stage transportation resources have been

inconsistently documented across the county, with most railroad-related resources

documented during the late 1970s (Appendix B, Table B4 and Table B5). In addition to all

of the farm properties the Legacy identified during public outreach, nearly 100 homesteads

or agricultural complexes have been previously documented in the county; most are

considered as eligible for listing in the NRHP. The majority of the agricultural properties

were documented in the late 1970s (Appendix B, Table B6). The Colorado OAHP

requires that if the original resource documentation forms are older than 10 years, a new

standard OAHP form should be completed.

The OAHP Compass online database indicates that nearly all of the schools and

cemeteries illustrated on historic maps and modern aerial photographs have been

previously documented. The majority of the previously documented schools are either

listed as landmarks, in the SRHP, or are considered eligible for listing in the NRHP. All of

the schools identified in the file and literature review are listed in Table B7 of Appendix B.

Most of the cemeteries or graves previously documented in Gunnison County are not

considered eligible for listing in the SRHP or NRHP (Appendix B, Table B8). Because the

level of previous documentation on the majority of schools and cemeteries ERO identified

on historic maps and in OAHP records is complete and sufficient for the HPC to

implement these resources into its goals for collaboration, outreach, and education, ERO

did not include these resources in the survey plan recommendations.

ERO did not identify any mines and processing sites in the file and literature results in

Appendix B because little survey and documentation of mining resources has been

previously completed on privately owned lands. Review of historic US Geological Survey



topographical maps which often include the locations of claims, prospects, tunnels, adits,

and shafts suggests that mining-related resources are present in low numbers on county and

private property. Additionally, because more than 80 percent of Gunnison County land is

federally managed, most of the county’s historic gold and silver mines with extant

structures are located on federally managed land. Although many significant metal mining

resources are located on federally managed lands, ERO is not providing survey

recommendations for federal lands in this plan. Small portions of historic coal mining

resources on private or county-owned lands in the vicinity of Somerset and the upper

reaches of Ohio Creek have been previously surveyed, but no mine-related resources have

been previously documented. Considerations for coal mining and recreational resources on

county-owned or privately owned lands are, however, included in plan recommendations

below.

Although ERO’s review of OAHP records included the mining towns of Somerset and

Whitepine, the records indicate that no previously conducted survey or documentation has

been completed for resources in the corporate limits of Somerset or Whitepine. Therefore,

ERO completed a review of all buildings in Somerset and Whitepine using county tax

assessor records to determine the density and general physical condition of potential

historic resources in those locations. The tax assessor records and field reconnaissance

demonstrate that all of the residential dwellings in the town of Somerset maintain historical

integrity of design, setting, location, feeling, and association, and would likely contribute

to a potential historic district. However, tax assessor records demonstrate that nearly half

of the buildings in Whitepine have been replaced with modern, seasonal residences and the

town’s built environment has little historic continuity or integrity. Lastly, the HPC

requested that ERO include Gothic, Crystal, and Castleton in the survey plan

recommendations during the April 20th public meeting; because Castleton and Crystal have

not been inventoried, both are considered in the survey plan recommendations below.

Because Gothic was extensively documented in 1979 and 2008 (Horn 2009) and Google

Earth aerial photographs from 1999 to 2015 indicate no significant changes to historic

buildings or the setting of the town have occurred since the previous surveys, ERO

recommends it is unnecessary to include the townsite in the survey plan; resources in

Gothic are listed in Table B9 of Appendix B.



Information gathered during ERO’s literature review was incorporated with historical

narratives drafted by other researchers to develop the historical context provided in the

Cultural Overview section. ERO’s context provides a selective overview of the history of

Gunnison County with a brief background, period(s) of early significance, and examples of

resources related to the themes the HPC identified as important to understanding the

history of the county. Because of the limited scope and timeframe of this project, the

context provides only a brief summary of the county’s earliest period of significance

relevant to select themes in the plan recommendations. ERO gleaned information in the

overview from secondary sources and did not delve into any archival sources of

information. The context identifies important patterns of development and provides a

starting point for future research related to survey efforts and landmark, SRHP, and/or

NRHP evaluations. The context identifies important patterns of development represented

by the population centers and resource types highlighted in the survey plan

recommendations. However, the context does not provide enough information to inform

official determinations of eligibility nor a complete picture of the historic development of

the county.

Field Reconnaissance ERO cultural resource specialist Abigail Sanocki conducted a preliminary physical

inspection of the historic built environment of Gunnison County April 19th through April

22nd, 2016. The windshield survey was conducted with the purpose of gathering

information regarding common historic property types in the region, collective physical

integrity, and the distribution or concentration of resources in the county. The windshield

survey also served to identify threats to resources and to identify places not yet surveyed

that may possess resources that minimally meet criteria for listing as a landmark or in the

SRHP or NRHP. Individual resources ERO identified as potentially contributing to a

historic district or as potentially eligible for inclusion as a landmark or in the SRHP or

NRHP are listed in Appendix C. Places ERO identified as retaining integrity to clearly

represent the themes the HPC identified as important to the region’s history and/or under

threat of loss were given higher prioritization in ERO’s recommendations for future

surveys.



ERO’s windshield survey establishes baseline data from which historical and

architectural reconnaissance and intensive surveys can be planned. The data derived from

the windshield survey is insufficient to assess cultural resources for significance and

integrity. Detailed definitions for reconnaissance and intensive surveys, their purpose, and

associated OAHP forms can be found here:

OAHP Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Manual http://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/files/OAHP/crforms_edumat/pdfs/1527.pdf

State Historical Fund (SHF) Grants Application Handbook http://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/files/OAHP/Programs/SHF_Contracts_GrantManual.pdf

Reconnaissance and intensive surveys differ in the intensity and inclusiveness in which

cultural resources are documented. Intensity refers to the level of detail in which a

resource is documented and inclusiveness refers to the frequency in which resources are

documented. Reconnaissance surveys typically are less inclusive and less comprehensive

than intensive surveys. Intensive surveys, on the other hand, typically result in greater

amounts of gathered information and a greater frequency of resources documented. Both

reconnaissance and intensive surveys can be applied as comprehensive surveys or selective

surveys. Comprehensive surveys result in the documentation of all resources in a

geographic area regardless of age, theme, or type or alternatively, all resources of a

particular age, theme, or type. Selective surveys are geared to targeted resources (or a

select number) of a geographic area, particular age, type or theme. For instance, if there

are 10 schools in a particular jurisdiction, a comprehensive survey would include all 10

where a selective survey would include a smaller number.

Different OAHP forms may be required depending on the type of survey.

Reconnaissance surveys may at a minimum require a survey report discussing the general

results of the survey. Otherwise individual forms (Historical and Reconnaissance Form

1417) may be used for each documented resource. Recommendations for listing in the

SRHP or the NRHP or nomination for landmark status cannot be made using

reconnaissance forms. The Architectural Inventory Form (1403) is commonly used for

intensive surveys and allows for eligibility recommendations and can provide the basis for

nominating individual resources.



A third type of survey, Archaeological Survey, may include buildings and structures

typically documented in historical and architectural surveys along with archaeological sites

that may be prehistoric or historic. A broad range of resource documentation forms and

methods are used in archaeological surveys. However, because this survey plan focuses

primarily on structural and architectural resources, discussion of archaeological surveys is

not warranted. The aforementioned OAHP and SHF documents listed above provide

additional information regarding archaeological surveys.

Based on the file and literature review results and public input, the windshield survey

included county roads that are frequently trafficked by recreationists, state highways, and

U.S. Route 50. Additionally, the windshield survey included a block-by-block survey of

the City of Gunnison, Ohio City, Pitkin, Somerset, and Marble; because the HPC excluded

Crested Butte from the plan and the towns of Tin Cup and Whitepine are accessible only

seasonally, ERO did not include Crested Butte, Tin Cup, and Whitepine in the windshield

survey.

On April 19th, HPC member David Primus provided Sanocki a guided tour of the City

of Gunnison, the Western campus, Parlin, Ohio City, Pitkin, U.S. Route 50 on the east side

of the City of Gunnison, and county roads that are frequently traveled by bicyclists and

other recreationists: County Road (CR) 76 along Quartz Creek, and CR 727 and CR 730

along Ohio Creek and the abandoned grade of the Denver South Park & Pacific (DSP&P)

Railroad. Primus identified individual and collective resources and themes important to

the history of the region, popular transportation and recreational corridors, threatened

resources, and provided additional discussion about the powers, goals, and limitations of

the HPC. On April 20th, Sanocki completed the block-by-block windshield survey of the

City of Gunnison and all county-owned lands surrounding the corporate limits of the city;

Sanocki hoped to find access to Whitepine and Tin Cup on this day, but recent snowfall

made road conditions too wet or icy to reach these towns. On April 21st, Sanocki

completed a windshield survey of State Highway 135 along the abandoned grade of the

Denver & Rio Grande Railroad (D&RG) and CR 742 along Taylor River. On April 22nd,

Sanocki completed a block-by-block survey of Somerset and Marble, and a windshield



survey of U.S. Route 50 west of Gunnison and the entire extent of State Highway 133

within Gunnison County.

Aside from identifying individual or collective resources potentially eligible for listing

as a landmark and/or in the SRHP or NRHP, the windshield survey resulted in the

identification of threats to resources in the county. A “threat” is any activity or inactivity

that results in the loss of a resource’s physical and/or associative historic integrity. ERO

observed that neglect and abandonment are the most significant threats to the historic built

environment in the county in both rural and populated areas. Although scattered

development and the subdivision of land for mining or new housing construction is a threat

to the cultural landscape and archaeological resources, population growth in the county

averages approximately 1 to 2 percent annually as a result of migration and is primarily

driven by ski area expansion and second-home construction in mountainous areas of the

county (City of Gunnison 2007). Because mining is isolated in mountainous areas under

the management of federal agencies, federal agencies review impacts from mining

development on historic resources under Section 106 of the NHPA. While active mining

in the region is in decline and does not pose a significant threat to cultural resources, the

potential closure of coal mines near Somerset would impact the character and historic

association of the town (Finley 2016). Closure of the mines could result in residents’

selling or abandoning their property, and, like the historic mining towns of Tin Cup and

Whitepine, new residents may significantly modify the town’s buildings, only use

dwellings on a seasonal basis, and neglect maintaining Somerset’s infrastructure.

Therefore, closure of the mines could result in changes to Somerset’s historic integrity of

materials, design, feeling, and association.



Cultural Overview

The following contexts provide a cursory, thematic summary of the early history of

Gunnison County. Each section briefly explores themes the HPC identified as significant

to the history of the county. Each of the following overviews includes language defining

the earliest periods of significance for each theme and examples of resources associated

with each theme. The purpose of the context is to provide the HPC with a baseline for

interpreting the history and significance of cultural resources in Gunnison County. The

baseline context also provides an example for how periods of significance are established

and how cultural resources may be evaluated for significance with a particular context.

Because of the size of Gunnison County, breadth of its history, and limited budget and

schedule for the completion of this report under this CLG Subgrant, the following context

does not provide enough information to inform official determinations of eligibility nor a

complete picture of the historic development of the county. Information in the context is

gleaned from historical contexts provided in monographs and previously conducted

surveys and focused on the earliest periods of significance for each theme. Therefore,

additional research and detailed information relevant to the specific location, historical

theme, and continuous use of a resource would be needed to inform official determinations

of eligibility. ERO recommends that preparation of in-depth contexts to be included

within survey reports as a component of future survey projects; an in depth context should

provide detailed information about periods of significance that span the entire history of a

resource’s use. When undertaking nomination or preservation activities, other themes the

HPC should explore include settlement and mining activities during the 20th century, and,

of specific importance to the heritage of many landowners in rural Gunnison County, post–

open range agriculture and ranching.

Protohistoric Contact and Early Exploration The period of significance for protohistoric contact and early exploration in Gunnison

County ranges from the mid-1600s to 1881. The beginning of this period is generally

defined as the mid–17th century, based on the availability of early written and

archaeological evidence of European contact with the Utes in the region. Important themes

include the interactions between Native Americans, Europeans, and Americans, and

commercial- and government-funded surveys to locate minerals and document



transportation corridors. The period of significance ends with the removal of the Utes

from Gunnison County in 1881.

Although thousands of prehistoric archaeological sites have been previously

documented in Gunnison County, this report does not include an overview of the

prehistory of Gunnison County because prehistoric sites are not easily recognized by the

public and the best means to preserve these sites is to keep their locations confidential.

Additionally, most previously recorded prehistoric sites in the region have unknown

cultural or temporal affiliations, and, based on public response, Gunnison County residents

do not ascribe the same depth of meaning to prehistoric resources as they do to historical

resources. In-depth reviews of the Paleoindian, Archaic, and Formative eras of prehistory

in the region are available in the Colorado Mountains Prehistoric Context (Guthrie et al.

1984), Late Paleoindian Occupation of the Southern Rocky Mountains: Early Holocene

Projectile Points and Land Use in the High Country (Pitblado 2003), and Colorado

Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin (Lipe et al. 1999).

Archaeological evidence and written records demonstrate that the Spanish first came

into contact with the Utes in the region now known as the Colorado Rocky Mountains in

the mid-1600s. Trade with the Spanish and the introduction of the horse changed the Ute’s

material cultural. The earliest-known written records from the mid-1700s are by European

explorers, more specifically, Spanish explorers, who came into contact with the Utes. The

goal of early expeditions was to locate trade routes and areas with valuable mineral

deposits. Significant to the earliest documentation of the Utes and landscape in the area

today known as Gunnison County was the expedition of Fathers Francisco V. Dominguez

and Silvestre Velez de Escalante from 1775 to 1829 (Eskew 1994; Greubel et al. 2010).

Fathers Dominguez and Escalante were tasked with locating a transportation route to

California from Santa Fe that avoided Hopi territory. Dominguez and Escalante did not

find a route to California but did write the earliest known accounts of the geography

around the Gunnison River, and identified the Utes as the primary aboriginal occupants of

what is today West-Central Colorado (Eskew 1994; Greubel et al. 2010). Traders from

New Mexico and later explorers followed the same trail Dominguez and Escalante used to

access the region; the trail became known as the North Fork of the Old Spanish Trail. The



trail crossed the Continental Divide at Cochetopa Pass and followed Cochetopa Creek to

Tomichi Creek, and Tomichi Creek to the Gunnison River (Eskew 1994; Greubel et al.

2010; Gunnison County 2015a).

After the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Spain began to encourage trade with the Utes in

hopes of forming an alliance that would prevent increased American encroachment.

However, after Mexico overthrew Spain and gained independence in 1821, more and more

American traders and fur trappers began to infiltrate the region using the North Fork of the

Old Spanish Trail and Jedediah Smith Trace; the Jedediah Smith Trace used the same route

as the Old Spanish Trail along Tomichi Creek and the Gunnison River (Eskew 1994;

Greubel et al. 2010). After the American victory in the Mexican-American War in 1848,

land west of the Continental Divide became part of the Utah Territory, and private railroad

interests and the U.S. Army began chartering several expeditions for transcontinental

railroad routes and to locate valuable minerals.

Significant to the Gunnison River Valley was John Fremont’s fifth expedition in the

Rocky Mountains in 1853 and Captain John Gunnison’s 1853 expedition. Missouri

Senator Thomas Hart funded Fremont’s expedition, and Gunnison was funded by Congress

and approved by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis. Both followed the same path of the

North Branch of the Old Spanish Trail from Cochetopa Pass to the Gunnison River Valley

in search of a route for a transcontinental railroad. Gunnison was the first U.S.

Government–funded explorer in the region and also the first known person to map and

survey the North Fork of Old Spanish Trail. Both the Fremont and Gunnison exploration

parties traveled during winter months and camped alongside the Utes in the lower parts of

the Gunnison Valley (Eskew 1994; Greubel et al. 2010; Gunnison County 2015a). In 1873

the U.S. Geological Survey funded Ferdinand Vandeveer Hayden’s surveys of the territory

with scientists and photographers to substantiate rumors about minerals in the region;

however, Hayden did not publish any useful information about agricultural or mining

potential in the Gunnison Valley region (Eskew 1994).

Independent of the expeditions listed above, traders, farmers, and prospectors began to

permeate the Utah Territory in greater numbers after the 1858 discovery of gold in the

Rocky Mountains, resulting in increased tensions between the Utes and Euro-Americans.



To prevent increased violence between frontiersmen and Native Americans, the federal

government and Utes collaborated on the Treaty of 1868 to reserve land west of the

Continental Divide for the Utes. Because the treaty did not stop prospectors from crossing

into Ute territory, the federal government renegotiated the Brunot Treaty of 1874, ceding

the San Juan and La Plata Mountains from the Utes. Continuing Euro-American

infringement on the Ute territory and efforts to forcefully assimilate the Utes into an

agricultural-pastoral lifestyle culminated in the 1879 Meeker Massacre at the White River

Agency. The U.S. Army and federal government responded in 1880 and enacted a treaty

to remove the Utes from the newly formed State of Colorado to Utah, opening Gunnison

County for Euro-American miners and farmers to settle (Eskew 1994; Greubel et al. 2010).

Examples of resources in project area related to the protohistoric and early

exploration period: Archaeological evidence of Ute occupation of the region during this

period includes stone tools and Brown Ware ceramics. The Ute lived in temporary

dwellings such as wickiups and sometimes teepees; wickiups have been well documented

in forested areas, and there is very little evidence of the use of teepees in lower elevations

(Greubel et al. 2010). Evidence of early Spanish and American exploration and trade in

the region includes trail markers, caches, or small artifact scatters containing metal,

ceramic, and glass fragments. No confirmed archaeological evidence of camps or cabins

from this period is known (Eskew 1994).

Significance: Sites associated with the protohistoric and early exploration period are

rare and important for understanding trends in human activities and cultural interactions in

the region. Trails used by the Ute, explorers, and fur traders were the foundation of later

wagon, railroad, and highway transportation routes that are in use today. Documents

written by early explorers and traders identified natural resources in the region and

prompted miners and agriculturalists to settle the population centers known today in

Gunnison County.

Early Settlement of Gunnison County, ca. 1860s to ca. 1915 This section is a general overview of settlement patterns in Gunnison County

beginning in the 1860s. The beginning of this period of significance is defined by the

establishment of early mining towns in the Sawach Mountain range and Bureau of Indian



Affairs ranches. The end of this period of significance is roughly defined as the beginning

of WW I because the war resulted in temporary changes to the ranching and mining

economy of Gunnison County and permanent changes to residents’ material culture,

architecture, and technology. Included in this section is a brief history and periods of

significance for the early establishment of permanent settlements that are included in the

survey plan recommendations: City of Gunnison, Pitkin, Ohio City, Tin Cup, Somerset,

Marble, and Whitepine. Later periods of significance for settlement during and after WWI,

the Great Depression, WWII, and the Cold War are not documented as part of this report.

Following the 1858 discovery of gold in Cherry Creek near the future site of Denver

large numbers of European and American prospectors and agriculturalists quickly began

moving into the Kansas and Utah Territories and organizing settlements on the plains and

in the mountains. Because of the fast growth in the territories’ populations, settlers and

industrialists defined the boundaries of the Colorado Territory in 1861. As the permanence

of the early mining and agricultural settlements was solidified with the growing population

and economy, and the completion of wagon roads and railroad connections to the East

Coast, Congress admitted the State of Colorado to the Union in 1876. In 1877 Gunnison

County was created with the City of Gunnison as the county seat (City of Gunnison 2007).

The county boundaries were drawn within the Ute Territory as it was defined by the

federal government in the Brunot Treaty of 1874. The county and city were both named

after Captain John Gunnison, the first U.S. Government–funded explorer in the region and

the first known person to map and survey the North Fork of the Old Spanish Trail along

the Gunnison River Valley (Eskew 1994; Gunnison County 2015a).

The original boundaries of Gunnison County included mining districts that became

active during the 1860s and prime farmlands along the bottom of the Gunnison River

Valley. Increased interactions between Euro-Americans and the Utes established the

precedent for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to allow ranchers into the region to provide food

to Indian agents and Utes, and to teach the Utes how to farm and herd cattle. The

government established the first cow camp in the region in 1869 near the present day

location of the City of Gunnison (City of Gunnison 2007; O’Rourke 1992). American

infringement on the Ute territory and efforts to assimilate the Utes into an agricultural-



pastoral lifestyle culminated in the 1879 Meeker Massacre at the White River Agency.

The U.S. Army and federal government responded to conflicts between the Utes and Euro-

American settlers by forcefully removing the Utes from Colorado to Utah in 1881 (Eskew

1994; Greubel et al. 2010).

The 1881 removal of the Utes from Gunnison County made lands available to Euro-

Americans for legal settlement. Within the year, the General Land Office conducted land

surveys of the river basins to plat and divide land along township and range lines so

farmers could legally claim homesteads under the provisions of the Homestead Act of

1862 (Mehls 1984). Farmers and ranchers who grazed cattle and farmed along creek

valleys in lower elevations provided produce to mountain mining camps and growing

towns. Although gold and coal mining was important to the initial settlement of Gunnison

County, ranching has been the longest-lived and most resilient industry in the region.

Immediately following the removal of the Utes in 1881, the Denver & Rio Grande

(D&RG) and Denver South Park & Pacific (DSP&P) railroad companies began efforts to

extend their mountain rail lines further west. It was the goal of both railroads to continue

westward to complete a route to the Pacific Coast and to profit from servicing gold, silver,

and coal mines in Gunnison County. The D&RG completed its narrow-gauge line across

the east-west extent of Gunnison County and to Crested Butte in 1882. The D&RG

followed a similar route as the North Fork of the Old Spanish Trail into Gunnison County

from Cochetopa Pass to Tomichi Creek. The DSP&P, however, opted for a more

mountainous route that required tunneling through the Continental Divide from Buena

Vista and descending down Quartz Creek to Tomichi Creek and into the Gunnison River

Valley; the narrow gauge DSP&P line was completed to the City of Gunnison in 1882 and

to the coal mines in the upper drainages of Ohio Creek in 1883 (Fraser and Strand 1997;

Gunnison County 2015b). Railroads and improved wagon routes, and later automobile

routes, provided Gunnison County settlers with supplies to build sturdier, more permanent

buildings and a link to commercial centers where they could buy and sell goods, thereby

solidifying the permanence of new settlements and the agricultural and mining industries

in the region.



Beginning in the 1890s the federal government started defining forest reserves, which

restricted settlement and industrial expansion in higher elevations of Gunnison County.

The purpose of the reserves was to curb deforestation as a result of overgrazing and

excessive logging to protect water drainages to agricultural lands (Gunnison County

2015b; Mehls 1984). In 1892 Congress defined the boundaries of the Battlement Mesa

Forest Reserve; in 1905 the Gunnison and Uncompahgre National Forests were defined

from the 1892 reserve, and Congress renamed the remaining land of the Battlement Mesa

Forest Reserve “Grand Mesa National Forest” (Greubel et al. 2010). Water and game

resources within and surrounding the reserves allowed settlers and railroad companies to

expand the region’s economy to include catering to recreationists.

During the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration

hosted camps of youth men along the Gunnison and Taylor Rivers; the men developed

recreational amenities in the Gunnison National Monument and Gunnison National Forest

in addition to completing road and public building improvement projects in select

population centers of the county. Additional research is needed to define 20th century

periods of significance for Gunnison County.

Early Settlement of the County’s Population Centers Below is a brief history for the early settlement of each of the population centers

included in the survey plan recommendations of this report. The period of significance for

each town is defined as the earliest known date settlers constructed permanent wood, stone,

or brick commercial and residential buildings in each population center. The end of the

period of significance for early settlement is different for each population center, and

roughly defined based on patterns of building construction, economic changes, and

declining population. Periods of significance for settlement during the 20th century varies

throughout Gunnison County, and additional research is needed to define those periods for

different regions of Gunnison County.

City of Gunnison: The period of significance for early settlement of the City of

Gunnison is ca. 1869 to 1915. U.S. Army surveyor Captain John W. Gunnison camped on

the land that would become the City of Gunnison during his survey of the region, then the

Utah Territory, in 1853. In 1869 the site was used as a pioneer stock-share town and



government cow camp for the Bureau of Indian Affairs; the camp was consistently

occupied throughout the 1870s and increased in size in 1878 and 1879 when an influx of

miners entered the region. The City of Gunnison became the county seat and was legally

incorporated in 1880. Despite the decline of the mining industry after the 1893 repeal of

the Sherman Silver Act, and the resulting impacts on agriculture and rail transportation, the

population of the city continued to increase and economy diversified during the early

1900s with the growth of the tourist economy and establishment of the Colorado State

Normal School in 1911; the school continues to operate today as Western State Colorado

University (City of Gunnison 2007; Greubel et al. 2010; Gunnison County 2015b). The

period of significance for early settlement of the City of Gunnison ends around 1915 with

the beginning of U.S. involvement in WWI when the war called many residents and

students from the Normal School out of the city. The war created favorable economic

conditions for the county’s farmers and ranchers and improved residents’ access to

automobiles and mechanized farm equipment. Changes to Gunnison County residents’

material cultural and the built environment, as a result of the need for automobile and

equipment storage and the availability of new buildings materials, during and after WWI

should be addressed as a separate period of significance for settlement and is not discussed

in this report.

Pitkin: The period of significance for the early settlement of Pitkin is ca. 1879 to

ca. 1900. Originally named Quartzville, Pitkin was one of Colorado’s first mining camps

to be settled on the west side of the Continental Divide. Located at the junction of Quartz

Creek and the North, South, and Middle Fox Creeks, the town served as a small

commercial center and jumping-off point for over 30 different mines in 1880; these mines

tapped gold and silver ore as well as deposits of iron, lead, and copper. In 1880 the town

was accessible by two stage routes and boasted an assay office, a school house, a

newspaper, hotels, and an Episcopal church. In 1881 construction of the DSP&P railroad

and a telegraph connected the town to other mines and commercial and smelting centers in

Colorado. The town reached a peak population of over 1,000 residents and had nearly 400

homes in 1881; however, by 1882 easily accessible mineral veins had played out and

mining became less and less profitable. The population decreased in the latter half of the

1880s as a result of disease epidemics and three fires. The town experienced a small silver



mining boom in 1890; however, the mining boom was short-lived as a result of Congress’

1893 repeal of the Sherman Silver Act, which caused a nationwide economic crises and

ended mining commerce in Pitkin (Brown 1981). A large number of miners and their

families continued to occupy the town during the 1890s while they continued to mine

small deposits of copper and prospect for gold; however, no new buildings were known to

be constructed during this decade. The period of significance for the early settlement of

Pitkin ends around 1900 when large scale mining activities ended and the town’s

population decreased to less than a few hundred people. Later periods of significance for

small mining booms and the continued occupancy of Pitkin are not discussed in this report.

Ohio City: The period of significance for early settlement in Ohio City is 1879 to

1915. The town, originally called Eagle City, was settled at the site of a silver placer in

Quartz Creek Valley. Gold and silver mining booms in the 1870s, 1890, and 1907 fueled

settlement and construction of businesses, residences, and a hotel; however, the population

of the town stagnated and declined after miners exhausted deposits of easily accessible

metal ores. The period of significance for the early settlement of Ohio City ended around

1915 when the town’s population began to decline because miners exhausted easily

accessible mineral deposits and the federal government limited the mining of minerals that

were not advantageous to the WWI effort. Ohio City experienced short-lived mining

booms during the 20th century but there are no extant buildings of significance from later

periods of settlement in the town. Additional research is needed to define later periods of

significance for Ohio City. The State of Colorado declared the town to be abandoned in

1974 (Gunnison County 2015c).

Tin Cup: The period of significance for early settlement of Tin Cup is 1879 to

ca. 1905. Originally called Virginia City, Tin Cup was settled during the Colorado silver

boom in 1879 and boasted a population of nearly 2,000 residents until 1900 (Gunnison

County 2015d; McLeod 2014). The population slowly declined after 1900 because miners

extracted all of the easily accessible ore and mining became unprofitable because of the

increased cost of labor and materials to excavate to mineral veins deep underground and

the 1893 repeal of the Sherman Silver Act significantly decreased the value of silver. The

period of significance for the early settlement of Tin Cup ends around 1905 when its



population decreased to less than a few hundred people. Tin Cup experienced short-lived

mining booms during the 20th century but there are no extant buildings of significance

from later periods of settlement in the town. Additional research is needed to define later

periods of significance.

Somerset: The period of significance for the early settlement of Somerset is 1896 to

1914. All of the extant buildings in the town are associated with the D&RG’s construction

of a rail line up the North Fork of the Gunnison River in 1902. Utah Fuel, a subsidiary of

D&RG, constructed the company town of Somerset to house coal miners working at the

Elk Creek mine; nearly all of the extant buildings in the town were constructed between

1905 and 1913 in association with Utah Fuel’s operation of local mines. The town retains

the character and design of a company town – a population center in which all

infrastructure was constructed and owned by a company to enable workers to live close to

an industrial site – and many of its residents continue to work as coal miners (Gunnison

County Tax Assessor 2016; Strack 2013). The period of significance for the early

settlement of Somerset ends with the onset of WWI and when Utah Fuel stopped

constructing new dwellings for its employees. The town of Somerset has been

continuously occupied by coal miners and their families during the 20th century, but there

are no extant buildings of significance from later periods of settlement in the town.

Additional research is needed to define later periods of significance for Somerset.

Marble: The period of significance for the settlement of Marble is 1881 to 1917. The

town of Marble started out as two towns, one on either side of the confluence of Carbonate

and Yule Creeks. The settlements, called Clarence and Marble, provided services and

supplies for miners and prospectors. Clarence and Marble merged and incorporated as the

single Town of Marble in 1892. The town expanded rapidly after 1906 in association with

the growth of the Colorado Yule Marble Company’s stone quarry operation and the arrival

of the Crystal River and San Juan Railroad. In 1910 the town had a population of nearly

2,000 people and boasted a church, several businesses and roughly 200 or more residences;

most of the dwellings were company cottages and were destroyed in a fire in 1916. The

period of significance for early settlement in Marble ends when the mining economy began



to decline due to government mining restrictions during WWI and 1917 closure of the

quarry (Whitacre and Simmons 1989).

Whitepine: The period of significance for the early settlement of Whitepine is 1878 to

1893. The town began as a mining camp around a silver claim in the upper drainage of

Tomichi Creek. The camp was difficult to reach and was accessible only by stage via

Tomichi Creek or Monarch, on the east side of the Continental Divide. The townsite is

located on a steep mountain ridge at an elevation of over 10,000 feet and therefore has only

a single road (i.e., no street grid system or centralized downtown community organization).

At its peak in 1884, the town had less than 100 buildings, including residences, three

hotels, five stores, and two livery stables constructed along either side of a mile-long

stretch of the road. Town growth slowed after 1885 when easily accessible ores began to

play out. The period of significance for the early settlement of Whitepine ends when most

residents left Whitepine in 1893 after Congress repealed the Sherman Silver Act and the

value of silver dropped dramatically. A small number of residents occupied the town

throughout the 20th century and were employed at short-lived coal and zinc mine

operations (Vandenbusche 2011). Today, only a few seasonal residents occupy the town

during summer months (Gunnison County Tax Assessor 2016; Vandenbusche 2011).

Whitepine experienced short-lived mining booms during the 20th century, but there are no

extant buildings of significance from later periods of settlement in the town. Additional

research is needed to define later periods of significance of Whitepine.

Examples of resources related to the early settlement of Gunnison County: Log

cabins and Victorian style brick, stone, and wood-frame buildings constructed during the

early settlement period of significance are located throughout the county. Examples of

early residences, businesses, and even some of the original post offices and schools are

extant in population centers and along rail and stage transportation routes.

Significance: Resources constructed during the early settlement period of significance

represent important events in early Gunnison County history and the original formation of

the communities and the population centers known in the county today. Many extant

buildings from this period of significance are also significant because they are constructed

of locally available materials, represent early methods of construction with local materials,



and embody significant architectural styles and construction techniques such as the pioneer

log type and late-19th and early 20th century revival styles.

Transportation Transportation and recreational corridors in use today are rooted in the trails

established by the Utes prior to European exploration in the region. The following

transportation context includes a cursory discussion of the charting and early historic use

of foot and wagon trails and the subsequent construction of railroad and motorized

highway networks in the county. The period of significance for early exploration and stage

transportation in the county spans the early protohistoric contact and early settlement

periods of significance from the mid- to late 1700s to ca. 1915; the period is defined by the

existence of the earliest known written records describing transportation routes and ends

when motorized transportation became popular in Gunnison County. Important to the

settlement of the county is the expansion and operation of railroads into the county; the

period of significance for railroad transportation in the county is 1880, the first year a

railroad was operating in the County, to 1950, the year D&RG ceased rail operation in

Gunnison County and began removing their tracks. Lastly the period of significance for

modern highway construction ranges from the first governmental efforts to improve roads

in Gunnison County in 1916 until ca. 1965, when the county and state finished paving

most Gunnison County roads and designated the modern state highway and county road

numbering system we know today. Detailed information about the use of individual

transportation routes would be needed in addition to the context information provided in

the following context to inform an official determination of eligibility for an individual

resource.

Ute routes along creek valleys and over mountain passes became the foundation of

trade routes and road development for exploration and settlement. In 1775 the Spanish

government was the first to organize European expeditions into the region and document

the setting of trails used by the Utes. The goal of Spain’s expedition, led by Fathers

Francisco V. Dominguez and Silvestre Velez de Escalante, was to find a trade route from

Santa Fe to California that avoided Hopi territory. Fathers Dominguez and Escalante did

not find a route to California but did establish a route for traders from New Mexico and

later explorers to access the region. The route became known as the northern branch of the



Old Spanish Trail and was the prelude route for future exploratory and migratory trails into

the region (Eskew 1994; Greubel et al. 2010).

After Mexico overthrew Spain and gained independence in 1821, more and more Euro-

American traders and fur trappers began to infiltrate the region using the northern fork of

the Old Spanish Trail and Jedediah Smith Trace to access the Gunnison River Valley

(Eskew 1994; Greubel et al. 2010). The Jedediah Smith Trace followed the same route as

the Old Spanish Trail and was named and used by trappers and traders who worked along

the Gunnison River. Both trails used Cochetopa Pass and followed Cochetopa Creek to

Tomochi Creek to access the south side of what is today Gunnison County. The trails had

northern spurs to mountain passes and the Colorado River Valley that utilized many of the

same paths and trails originally used by the Utes (Gunnison County 2015a).

After the American victory in the Mexican-American War in 1848, land west of the

Continental Divide became part of the Utah Territory and private railroad interests and the

U.S. Army began chartering expeditions to locate potential transcontinental railroad routes

and valuable minerals. Significant to the Gunnison River Valley was John Fremont’s fifth

expedition in the Rocky Mountains in 1853, funded by Missouri Senator Thomas Hart, and

Captain John Gunnison’s 1853 expedition, funded by Congress and approved by Secretary

of War Jefferson Davis. Both followed the same path of the North Branch of the Old

Spanish Trail along Tomichi Creek and the Gunnison River. Gunnison was the first

government-funded explorer in the region and also the first-known person to map and

survey the North Fork of the Old Spanish Trail.

Euro-Americans quickly began to populate the region after the 1858 discovery of gold

on the Front Range. Early wagon roads followed the same paths worn by the Utes along

river and creek drainages throughout the county. More organized efforts were needed to

construct roads for wagons to reach mining camps located at higher elevations, and

investors constructed toll roads and operated stage companies to finance construction and

maintenance of steep, mountain roads. The earliest known and named toll roads into the

county were constructed during the mid- to late 1870s and only reached into the southern

and eastern peripheries of the county from Lake City, Poncha Springs, and Buena Vista

(Gunnison County 2015e).



American infringement on the Ute territory culminated in the 1879 Meeker Massacre at

the White River Agency and the U.S. Government’s 1881 removal the Utes from Colorado

to Utah. Immediately following the removal of the Utes, the D&RG and DSP&P railroad

companies began efforts to lengthen their mountain rail lines further west (Eskew 1994;

Greubel et al. 2010). Both lines started construction from Leadville and had two goals:

reach silver and coal mines in Gunnison County and extend their lines further west towards

the Pacific Coast to establish a new transcontinental route (Fraser and Strand 1997).

The D&RG acquired existing toll road and stage companies in order to follow nearly

the same path of the North Fork of the Old Spanish Trail from Cochetopa Pass to Tomichi

Creek and the Gunnison River. Within the year, the D&RG completed its line to Gunnison

and a spur line north to the silver and coal mining town of Crested Butte, and by 1882 the

D&RG completed its narrow-gauge line across the east-west extent of Gunnison County.

D&RG’s expansion west of Gunnison County continued into the 1890s and early 1900s.

The last line the D&RG constructed in the region was east from Hotchkiss along the North

Fork of the Gunnison River. It was constructed in 1902 to provide freight transportation to

and from coal mines near Somerset (Strack 2013). The D&RG maintained ownership and

operation of its tracks in Gunnison County until 1949. After the D&RG ceased operation,

most of its railroad tracks in the county were removed (Fraser and Strand 1997; Gunnison

County 2015b).

The DSP&P opted for a more mountainous route from the Arkansas River Valley on

the east side of the Continental Divide up Chalk Creek. The route required tunneling

through the Continental Divide from Buena Vista, between Mount Helmers and Mount

Poor, and then descending down Quartz Creek to Tomichi Creek into the Gunnison River

Valley. Construction of the Alpine Tunnel through the Continental Divide was difficult

and prolonged completion of the narrow-gauge DSP&P line to the city of Gunnison (Fraser

and Strand 1997; Gunnison County 2015b). After reaching the city in 1882, the DSP&P

completed a line up Ohio Creek to coal mines in the vicinity of Castleton and Baldwin in

1883. The same year the DSP&P completed the coal line, it came under the ownership of

the Union Pacific and in 1887 declared bankruptcy. The DSP&P tracks in Gunnison

County, under Union Pacific ownership, were inoperable between 1883 and 1894 because



heavy snowfall kept the Alpine Tunnel closed and made the mountainous track too

dangerous to navigate. Union Pacific operated the DSP&P line under the name “Denver,

Leadville, and Gunnison” intermittently in the 1890s, but in 1898 the Union Pacific

Railroad Company went into receivership and the Colorado & Southern Railroad Company

organized and took over ownership and operation of the Union Pacific holdings in

Colorado. The Colorado & Southern operated the tracks DSP&P built in Gunnison County

during the first decade of the 1900s but was unable to afford the cost of maintaining the

Alpine Tunnel and closed the tunnel permanently after it collapsed in 1910. Colorado &

Southern leased its tracks from Quartz Creek to Gunnison and the Ohio Creek coal mines

to the D&RG, and the D&RG maintained and operated all railroad tracks in the county

from 1910 until 1949 (Fraser and Strand 1997; Gunnison County 2015b, 2015e).

Railroads and improved wagon routes provided Gunnison County settlers with a link to

commercial centers where they could buy and sell goods, further solidifying the

permanence of new settlements and the agricultural and mining industries in the region.

Despite construction of railroads in Gunnison County, residents of mining towns in higher

elevations where a railroad did not reach were still dependent on wagon roads for

transportation and supplies, and continued to maintain stage routes across the county

throughout railroad construction and operation (Greubel et al. 2010; Associated Cultural

Resource Experts 2002).

In more populated areas of Colorado, bicyclists and automobile owners began

soliciting the State to build and maintain improved roads beginning in the early 1900s. In

1909, the Colorado legislature established the Colorado Highway Commission and began

designating heavily travelled roads as part of the state highway system. In 1916 the

commission was reorganized into the Colorado Highway Department and began receiving

federal funding to improve roads. One of the department’s first investments in Gunnison

County during this period was to designate and improve the Rainbow Route; the

automotive route was named for the various colors of geological formations visible in the

mountain ranges the route passed through when crossing Colorado and western Utah. In

Gunnison County, it was also known as State Highway 12 and included portions of what is

today U.S. Route 50. In 1916 the department also designated State Highway 46, today



State Highways 92 and 133, and improved existing wagon roads through Sapinero,

Hotchkiss, and into Somerset; construction of the automobile route to Somerset was not

completed until 1919. In 1923, the State Highway Department renumbered all of its

highways to the existing nomenclature used today (Greubel et al. 2010; Associated

Cultural Resource Experts 2002).

After 1940, the state and county began to focus efforts on paving roads with hard

surfaces such as clay or asphalt. The county experienced an automobile road construction

boom after the D&RG ceased operation in 1949, and the State and County both began

large road construction and paving efforts along the highways that superseded the

railroads. By 1964 most state highways and heavily trafficked county roads were paved

with the exception of many mountain passes and single-lane roads to small population

centers isolated at higher elevations (Greubel et al. 2010; Associated Cultural Resource

Experts 2002).

Examples of resources associated with historic transportation in Gunnison

County: Evidence of early Spanish and American exploration and trade in the region

includes trail markers, caches, or small artifact scatters containing metal, ceramic, and

glass fragments. However, there is very little evidence of early exploration in the region

because railroads and modern highways have superseded most of the early trails. Features

associated with railroad transportation in the county are evident along the abandoned

grades of D&RG and DSP&P, especially along portions of the grades that have not been

integrated into the modern highway system. When D&RG abandoned and removed their

tracks in Gunnison County, D&RG relinquished their right-of-way to adjacent property

owners; although predominantly located on privately owned land, landscape and built

features of the railroads and early wagon or automobile roads are extant across the county

and include evidence of the grades themselves, culverts, bridges, retaining walls, tunnels,

stock loading ramps, water tanks, mining tipples, and buildings such as depots and

boarding houses.

Significance: Trails used by the Ute, explorers, and fur traders were the foundation of

later wagon, railroad, and highway transportation routes that are in use today. Railroads

and improved wagon and automobile roads eased the movement of both people and



supplies in and out of the county and provided residents with access to materials to

establish permanent settlements in the region. In addition to the importance of improved

transportation to trends in settlement of the region, some features along the narrow gauge

railroads are also significant for unique adaptations in road and landscape engineering in

consideration for terrain and the availability of local stone and wood materials.

Early Development of Mining, ca. 1870 to ca. 1914 This context focuses on the period of significance for early mining in Gunnison

County, which ranges from ca. 1870 to ca. 1914, relevant to the settlement of population

centers that are the focus of this context and survey plan. This theme includes a brief

history of early mining ventures in the county to extract gold, silver, coal, and marble. The

beginning of the period of significance is defined as the late 1860s and early 1870s, when

gold miners first began prospecting west of the Continental Divide and filing legal mining

claims. The end of the period of significance for early mining in Gunnison County is

generally defined as the start of WWI, when the federal government instituted legislation

that restricted the mining and use of minerals beneficial and non-beneficial to the war

effort; therefore, the end of the period of significance varies for each type of mining from

the 1890s to 1910s, based on political and economic trends from the 1890s and WWI era

that caused an end to early, large-scale mining efforts, the migration of people out of

mining districts, and closure of mines. More detailed information about the history of

mining and how to interpret archaeological sites related to mining is available in

Archaeological Mining Context for the Grand Mesa, Uncompaghre, and Gunnison

National Forests, Colorado (Twitty 2015).

Because of the variety and breadth of Gunnison County’s mining history and the

limited schedule for the completion of this report, later periods of significance related to

changes in the economy, scale, and technology used for mining during WWI and

throughout the 20th century are not included in this report. Information about the

extraction of molybdenum, radioactive metals, feldspar, oil and gas or other minerals later

in the 20th century can be found in The Mining Industry in Colorado historic context (Fell

and Twitty 2006), Frontier in Transition: A History of Southwestern Colorado (O’Rourke

1992), and Guide to Assessing Historic Radium, Uranium, and Vanadium Mining

Resources in Montrose and San Miguel Counties (Twitty 2008).



European and American prospectors began exploring the Rocky Mountains in

increasing numbers following the 1858 discovery of gold in Cherry Creek near the future

site of Denver. As early as 1861, miners established districts along Taylor River, near Tin

Cup, and in Washington Gulch in the northern extent of Gunnison County. Throughout

the 1860s an unknown number of gold prospectors reached into the south and east extents

of the future boundaries of Gunnison County but were unable to establish large operations

or permanent settlements because they were trespassing on Ute territory. Although the

federal government declared it was illegal for Euro-Americans to mine in Ute territory,

legal mining claims were filed in Gunnison County as early as the mid-1870s. The claims

were located along the drainages of Quartz Creek, Tomichi Creek, and the Taylor River

(Greubel et al. 2010; Gunnison County 2015f).

In 1880 and 1881 the federal government responded to increasing Euro-American

pressures to mine and settle land reserved for the Ute by removing the Utes to reservations

in Utah and the extreme southwest corner of Colorado. The Ute removal came at the

height of the silver mining boom in Colorado and allowed miners to establish mining

towns in the mountains near the center of the county, including the silver mining towns of

Crested Butte and Gothic. The City of Gunnison became a jumping-off point for miners to

access silver mines located north, south, and east of the city. With construction of the

D&RG and DSP&P railroads in 1881 and 1882, the City of Gunnison and Town of Crested

Butte became transportation hubs for miners, supplies, and ore, and each town had

smelters and operated as industrial hubs. Miners contributed to the growth of the cities and

permanent establishment of the mountain towns in higher elevations that are still on maps

today (Eskew 1994; Greubel et al. 2010; Gunnison County 2015f).

Because of the nature of the geology in the region and the cyclical nature of the

economy for precious metals, the permanence of mountain metal mining towns in

Gunnison County was short-lived. The drainages along which miners established placer

and hard rock mines did not provide sufficient water for larger mining operations, and it

was difficult and expensive for miners to separate ore from gravel deposits or from veins in

underground mines without improved technology. Therefore, easily worked ore was

quickly extracted and miners needed to invest more energy and in more tools to reach gold



or silver deposits. After the repeal of the Sherman Silver Act in 1893, a nationwide

economic depression ensued and investment into mines in Gunnison County was no longer

profitable. Prospectors continued to work small copper, tin, and gold placer mines

throughout the 1890s and early 1900s; however, the population of mountain mine districts

continued to decline, and the small-scale operations left little impact on trends in the

settlement of the region (Greubel et al. 2010; O’Rourke 1992). Later periods of

significance for mining various metals in Gunnison County occurred in association with

improved technology, political, and economic trends during and after both World Wars

and the Great Depression; however, additional research is needed to define the later

periods of significance for different types of metal.

Coal mining was just as important to settlement and development of transportation in

Gunnison County as gold and silver mining, and has been a longer-lasting venture than any

other form of mining in the county. The earliest-known efforts to mine coal were

completed by ranchers and gold or silver prospectors who travelled into the region during

the mid-1870s. By the mid-1880s, the region surrounding all sides of the Elk Mountains in

central and northwest Gunnison County became known as the Uintah Field; the field

includes the Crested Butte Coals fields (discovered in 1879), the Mount Carbon field in the

upper drainages of Ohio Creek (discovered around 1880), and the Grand Mesa field in the

vicinity of Somerset along the North Fork of the Gunnison River (discovered in 1896)

(O’Rourke 1992).

Although the Utes and other Gunnison County settlers knew of the existence of coal

prior to 1881, it was the arrival and financing of the D&RG and DSP&P railroad

companies that culminated in large-scale operations to mine coal (Greubel et al. 2010;

O’Rourke 1992). Both railroad companies extended their lines into the three Uintah fields

with the goal of establishing their own coal-mining operations to fuel their locomotives

and steel plants, as well as sell to smelters and local residents. The D&RG created the first

large-scale coal mining operation in the county when it completed tracks to Crested Butte

in 1881. D&RG financed and provided labor for the construction of infrastructure to

access coal mines in and above Crested Butte, and left operation of the mines to its

subsidiary, Utah Fuel. Coal mines in the Crested Butte fields remained in operation until



the D&RG ceased railroad operation in Gunnison County in 1949 (Greubel et al. 2010;

O’Rourke 1992).

Always in close competition with the D&RG, the DSP&P extended a narrow-gauge

line from Gunnison to the coal fields in the upper drainages of Ohio Creek in 1883 and

provided the financing for construction of coal mines near Baldwin, Castleton, and on

Kebler Pass. Like the D&RG, the DSP&P left operation and management of the coal

mines in the Ohio Creek fields to a subsidiary, the Union Coal Company. Coal mines at

lower elevations near the towns of Baldwin and Castleton were short-lived and closed in

1893. Coal mines at higher elevations remained in operation until 1910 when the Union

Pacific Railroad Company ended operation of the DSP&P tracks in the Rocky Mountains

and leased the DSP&P tracks to the D&RG (O’Rourke 1992).

Settlers in the vicinity of Somerset began to extract coal from the Elk Creek drainage in

1896. In recognition of the rich coal deposits at this location, the D&RG extended a line

along the North Fork of the Gunnison River in 1902 to create a large-scale coal mining

operation. The D&RG and Utah Fuel Company constructed the company town of

Somerset beginning in 1903. Although corporate ownership of the coal mines around

Somerset has changed throughout the 20th century, the coal mines along the North Fork of

the Gunnison River were the largest, most productive, and longest-lasting mining venture

in the county. The coal mine at Somerset is still in operation today (Greubel et al. 2010;

O’Rourke 1992; Strack 2013).

Gold and silver prospecting at higher elevations in northern Gunnison County also led

to the discovery of high-quality marble deposits in the Yule Creek area, south of the

present day site of the Town of Marble. Prospectors and explorers first recorded the

presence of marble in the region during expeditions in 1873. However, no efforts to quarry

the marble were made until after the Ute were forcibly removed from the region in 1881

and gold and silver placer miners had removed all easily mined ore from nearby river and

creek beds. It wasn’t until hard rock miners recognized the value of the pure white marble

in 1884 that investors made the first efforts to quarry the marble for commercial interests.

In 1885 and 1886, coal and steel magnate John C. Osgood provided financial backing to a

small group of mine investors, including a marble worker from Wales, to file four marble-



lode claims along Yule Creek. Osgood purchased the bonds to the marble claims and

provided financing to incorporate the Colorado Marble and Mining Company and the

infrastructure necessary to create a large-scale quarry operation.

A multitude of other mining companies operated quarries along Crystal River

throughout the 1890s and early 1900s. Because miners were reliant on horse- or mule-

drawn carts and toll roads to move marble to the D&RG line north along the Colorado

River, marble mining was a difficult and costly venture, and many mining companies

ended their quarry operations in the region in financial collapse. In 1905, New York

investors financed the incorporation of the Colorado-Yule Marble Company and

construction of the Crystal River and San Juan Railroad to the Town of Marble. Between

1906 and 1910, the Colorado-Yule Marble Company was awarded contracts from cities

and counties across the country to provide marble for the interiors and exteriors of

courthouses and government landmarks. The contracts provided funds for the company to

expand its mills and construct an electric tramway between the mill and quarries. Marble

quarries remained in operation until the United States entered WWI. Production declined

and ended at the marble quarries because many of the Yule Marble Company’s more

skilled laborers returned to their home countries in Europe at the start of the war, and the

federal government declared a moratorium on mining materials that were not essential to

the war effort. Most residents of Marble and the Crystal River area left after the Yule

Marble Company went into receivership and the Crystal River and San Juan Railroad

ceased operation in 1917 (Whitacre and Simmons 1989).

Examples of resources in project area related to the early mining industry:

Because placer mining in creek drainages did not require a lot of tools or the rearranging of

landforms, there is little archaeological evidence of early placer mining activities from the

1860s and 1870s in the county. Evidence of larger-scale silver and coal mining operations

is visible along abandoned railroad corridors and the ruins of mills outside larger mountain

mines. Mining adits and prospects are located throughout the county in forested areas at

higher elevations. Although many mining towns have been abandoned or are nearly

abandoned, many towns have the ruins or extant buildings of assay offices, commercial

buildings, and single- or multi-family dwellings constructed for miners and their families.



Significance: The mining industry is important to the early economic development

and permanent settlement of Gunnison County. The presence of profitable metal, coal, and

stone mines in the region attracted commerce and the interests of railroad companies,

which constructed transportation links for the exchange of people and goods in and out of

the county. Significant developments in mining coal, gold, silver, radioactive and other

metals occurred in Gunnison County during and after WWI; however, later periods of

significance were not explored as part of this report, and additional research is needed to

define separate periods of significance for different types of mineral extraction in the

county.

Early Ranching, 1869 to ca. 1914 Despite the dry climate and extreme weather conditions of Gunnison County,

agriculture is the longest-lived industry in the county and is still important to the region’s

heritage and economy today. Because of the high elevation and extreme climate, vegetable

and crop farmers were never successful in establishing large, productive farms in the

region. Therefore, farming in Gunnison County was predominantly focused on growing

hay for ranchers, and the following context is focused on the early growth of the ranching

industry. The period of significance for early ranching in Gunnison County ranges from

1869 to ca. 1914. The beginning of this period of significance is defined by the first use of

land in Gunnison County for grazing cattle in association with the mission of the Bureau of

Indian Affairs to assimilate the Utes into Euro-American culture. The end of this period of

significance is defined by the closure of open range lands as a result of settlement and

increased government management of land and changes in the agricultural economy

associated with U.S. participation in WWI. Significant developments in Gunnison County

agriculture during the 20th century were not explored as part of this report.

The first cow camp in the region was operated under the direction of the Los Pinos

Indian Agency, a branch of the federal government’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, beginning

in 1869. The cow camp was located along the Tomichi River, south of the future location

of the City of Gunnison, and was run by Jim Kelley and Alonzo Hartman, men who would

become important to the settlement and commercial growth of the City and County of

Gunnison. Hartman and Kelley managed the grazing of cattle on Tomichi Creek and in



Taylor Park and assisted the Los Pinos Indian Agency with distributing beef and small

herds of cattle to Ute families.

American infringement on the Ute territory and efforts to assimilate the Utes into an

agricultural-pastoral lifestyle culminated in the 1879 Meeker Massacre at the Bureau of

Indian Affiar’s White River Agency. To end violent encounters between the Utes and

Euro-American settlers, the U.S. Army and federal government forcefully removed the

Utes from Colorado to Utah in 1881, opening Gunnison County for Euro-American miners

and farmers to settle (Eskew 1994; Greubel et al. 2010). Cattlemen and early farmers

immediately began settling in the region to profit from selling meat and produce to

developing towns and mining and railroad camps.

During the 1880s, herders began bringing hundreds-of-thousands of cattle to the

Gunnison River Valley. Cattlemen were attracted to the abundant amount of unclaimed

land for open grazing in Taylor Park, along Ohio Creek, and in the Cebolla-Powderhorn

region of southern Gunnison County. Ranchers would graze their herds on Black Mesa

and at higher elevations during the summer months and moved their herds to creek and

river valleys at lower elevations during the winter. The most well-known trail that used

this seasonal route was known as the Hartman Trail, named for Alonzo and his brother

Sam Hartman, who worked for the Los Pinos Indian Agency throughout the 1870s; the

Hartman Trail crossed over Black Mesa to Sapinero and the Gunnison River Valley

(Greubel et al. 2010; O’Rourke 1992).

Although farming was limited to valley hay production and small-scale grain or

vegetable gardens, all of the land along creek and river valleys at lower elevations was

claimed by homesteaders over the course of the 1880s. Homesteaders who arrived too late

to get land directly adjacent to a stream were dependent on the construction of irrigation

ditches to water their pastures and fields. By 1890, most of the winter pastures used by

open range cattlemen were fenced and under private landownership, and the last big round

up of the open range days in Gunnison County was in 1893. Farming and cattle and sheep

grazing on smaller areas of land – combined with deforestation as a result of mine, town,

and railroad construction – led to a depletion of natural grasses and issues with erosion and

water pollution (Eskew 1994; Greubel et al. 2010; O’Rourke 1992).



In response to environmental issues caused by overgrazing, the federal government

established the Battlement Mesa Forest Reserve in 1892. The reserve removed important

summer pasture from cattle and sheep herders, forcing them to compete for pasture in an

even smaller area of land around private property and the reserve. In 1900, the federal

government established a permit system to allow the limited grazing of cattle or sheep on

public land; however, because sheep remove all plants and the plant’s roots from the

ground, sheep were soon banned from the Battlement Mesa Forest Reserve and restricted

to pastures south of the Gunnison River. In 1905 the Battlement Mesa Forest Reserve was

divided for the Gunnison and Uncompahgre Forest Reserves, and, in 1906, the federal

government implemented grazing fees and a leasing system for cattlemen to graze on

public lands (Greubel et al. 2010; O’Rourke 1992). By 1910, homestead settlement, the

federal government’s oversite of grazers on public lands, and decline of the mining

industry led to a decline in the cattle-ranching industry in Gunnison County. The end of

the early period of significance for early ranching in Gunnison County is marked by

increased government oversite and changes to the economy of agriculture associated with

U.S. entry into WWI.

Examples of early ranching-related resources in Gunnison County: Evidence of

early agriculture in Gunnison County includes artifact scatters from cattle and sheep

herders during the open range days and early days of forest reserves. Evidence of early

homesteads in the region include agricultural complexes with log- and wood-framed

structures such as corrals and buildings used as dwellings, barns, and storage. Landscape

features such as irrigation ditches are also important to the early development of

agriculture in the region, and many are extant and in use today.

Significance: Agriculture is important to the early settlement and economic growth of

Gunnison County. Cattle grazers have been important to the political development of land

use policies in the region and contemporary public land use policies applicable to

Gunnison County residents today. Additionally, some barns and dwellings exhibit unique

adaptations to the climate and construction materials available to early settlers and may

also embody trends in late 19th century and early 20th century architecture. Significant

developments in farming and ranching occurred in Gunnison County in association with



changes in political and economic trends related to WWI, the Great Depression, and

WWII; however, later periods of significance were not explored as part of this report and

additional research is needed to define later periods of significance.

Recreation, 1879 to ca. 1965 Recreation contributes to Gunnison County’s local economy and community identity

today and is rooted in the years of early settlement of the region. The following context is

an overview of all periods of significance for recreation in Gunnison County, starting in

1879 and ending in ca. 1965. The general period of significance for recreation in

Gunnison County is defined by the opening of the earliest known commercial operations to

attract recreationists and extends to the end of the historic period (approximately 50 years

before present); because this report provides only a cursory examination of historical

recreation in Gunnison County, additional research is needed to better define early and 20th

century periods of significance for each type of resource. Important themes in recreation

include hot springs resorts; outdoor sports like skiing, hiking, camping, fishing and

hunting; and train, automobile, and bicycle touring. Because the history of each theme is

not entirely contingent on other themes in recreation, the history of each theme is

summarized in separate sections, below.

Hot Springs Resorts: The period of significance for the development of hot springs

resorts in Gunnison County is from 1879 to ca. 1965. The period is defined by the opening

of the earliest known commercial hot springs resorts in Gunnison County and extends to

the end of the historic period (50 years before present); additional research is needed to

better define separate periods of significance for the operation of hot springs resorts.

Early explorers noted that the Utes used numerous hot springs located across the south

half of Gunnison County during expeditions in the 1850s and 1870s. Early settlers

developed a healing resort around the Waunita Hot Springs, also called the Tomichi Hot

Springs, in 1879. Over the course of the 1880s, operators of the hot springs resort and

railroad companies widely advertised the health benefits of the springs and attracted

visitors from all over the country. In 1890, another popular hot springs resort was

developed at the Cebolla Hot Springs outside of Powderhorn (not to be confused with the



fishing destination along the Gunnison River and D&RG); the Cebolla resort featured a

large hotel and multiple bath houses (Greubel et al. 2010; Gunnison County 2015e).

Skiing: The period of significance for skiing in Gunnison County ranges from

ca. 1880 to ca. 1965. The beginning of this period of significance is loosely defined as

1880 based on the earliest known written and materials evidence that Gunnison County

residents used skis as a form of transportation. The end of this period extends to the end of

the historic period (approximately 50 years before present); additional research is needed

to better define early and 20th century periods of significance for skiing and the

commercial development of individual ski resorts in Gunnison County.

Because skiing served as an early form of transportation, and is important to the history

and heritage of mountain mining communities and later trends in settlement of Gunnison

County, this report addresses skiing as a separate theme from other forms of outdoor

recreation in Gunnison County. As early as 1883, the mining towns of Crested Butte and

Irwin held ski races, and mines provided materials to build tow ropes. Before the advent

of ski resorts, mining companies like the Callahan Mining Company in Whitepine also

built tow ropes for miners and their families during the 1940s and 1950s. Small ski lifts

started opening across the county during the 1950s. After 1960, local investors began

efforts to open larger ski lifts and develop resorts and special lodging around popular

skiing areas such as Crested Butte (Greubel et al. 2010; O’Rourke 1992; Vandenbusche

2011).

Outdoor recreation (hiking, camping, fishing and hunting): The period of

significance for outdoor recreation in Gunnison County is ca. 1880 to ca. 1965. The period

of significance is defined based on the early 1880s organization of the county’s first tourist

outfitters and resorts specifically for outdoor leisure activities such as picnicking, hiking,

camping, fishing, and hunting. The period extends to the end of the historic period

(roughly 50 years before present); because this report provides only a cursory examination

of historic outdoor recreation in Gunnison County, additional research is needed to better

define separate periods of significance for outdoor recreation.

Beginning in the early 1880s, Gunnison County’s early settlers and industrialists began

to develop commercial ventures to profit from outdoor recreation . Homesteaders who



settled along the Gunnison and Taylor Rivers capitalized on opportunities to profit by

hosting guests to recreate on their land. Significant to the settlement of Gunnison County

was the establishment of multiple resorts along the Gunnison River east of the City of

Gunnison; these resort towns were also located along stops of the D&RG and offered

tourists improved outdoor areas to comfortably fish, hunt, camp, hike, and picnic along the

river. Despite the popularity and ongoing economic importance of these resorts along the

Gunnison River Valley today, the period of significance for this recreation along the

western Gunnison River valley ends in 1965 with the damming of Blue Mesa Reservoir

and abandonment of the Gunnison River resorts.

Train, automobile, and bicycle touring: The period of significance for mobile

touring of Gunnison County includes the construction of the D&RG railroad and improved

roads through Gunnison County in 1881 until ca. 1965. The period is defined by the 1881

construction of railroads in the county and extends to the end of the historic period (50

years before present); because this report provides only a cursory examination of mobile

recreation in Gunnison County, additional research is needed to better define early and 20th

century periods of significance for hot springs resorts.

Early explorers in west-central Colorado documented transportation routes and

minerals as well as the scenic beauty and plentiful game of the region beginning in the

1870s. With the boom-and-bust cycles of mining in the region, the D&RG promoted

scenery and opportunities for outdoor recreation at stops along its “Around the Circle

Tour” to bolster passenger-ticket sales. The Around the Circle Tour started in Denver and

took passengers through southwest Colorado and across Gunnison County. The D&RG

promoted the scenery of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison River and advertised amenities

at resorts along the Gunnison River (Eskew 1994; Greubel et al. 2010; O’Rourke 1992).

Recreational touring by bicycle and car was important to developing improved roads

and an interconnected highway system in Gunnison County. Bicyclists and automobile

owners began soliciting the State to build and maintain improved roads beginning in the

early 1900s. In 1909, the Colorado legislature established the Colorado Highway

Commission and began designating heavily trafficked roads as part of the state highway

system. In 1916, the commission was reorganized into the Colorado Highway Department



and began receiving federal funding to improve roads; one of the department’s first

investments on the Western Slope was to designate and improve the Rainbow Route; the

Rainbow Route was named for the various colors of different mountain formations the

road crossed through Colorado and Utah. Towns and businesses along the road provided

tourists access to scenic forest and mountains areas for picnicking, hiking, camping,

fishing, and hunting. In Gunnison County, the Rainbow Route was also known as State

Highway 12 and included portions of what is today U.S. Route 50. In 1916, the

department also designated State Highway 46, today State Highways 92 and 133, and

improved existing wagon roads along the Gunnison River through fishing resort

destinations such as Cebolla and Sapinero. By 1964, most state highways and heavily

trafficked county roads were paved with the exception of many mountain passes and

single-lane roads to small population centers isolated at higher elevations (Greubel et al.

2010; Associated Cultural Resource Experts 2002).

Federal land management and conservation initiatives in the 1890s and 20th century

protected popular areas for outdoor recreation and made them available for public use and

access. Federal land management in Gunnison County began in 1892 with the established

the Battlement Mesa Forest Reserve in 1892; in 1905, the Battlement Mesa Forest Reserve

was divided for the Gunnison and Uncompahgre Forest Reserves. The Black Canyon of

the Gunnison, located in the west extent of the Gunnison River Valley in Gunnison County

and the Battlement Mesa Forest Reserve, was a key point in rail and automotive tours and

was designated as the Gunnison National Monument in 1933; men in the Civilian

Conservation Corps developed recreational amenities in the Gunnison National Monument

during the 1930s. In 1965, the Bureau of Reclamation constructed the Blue Mesa, Morrow

Point, and Crystal Reservoirs in the Black Canyon; resorts constructed around the

Gunnison River in this area were moved and their sites inundated with water. The federal

government designated the area surrounding the reservoirs as the Curecanti National

Recreation Area in 1965, and the area remains a popular scenic, boating, and fishing

destination for motorists today (Greubel et al. 2010; O’Rourke 1992).

Examples of recreation-related historic resources in Gunnison County: Historic

structures related to outdoor recreation in Gunnison include buildings such as hotels, pool



houses, commercial buildings, and cabin dwellings as well as artifacts, structures, and

cultural landscape features associated with fishing, picnicking, camping, and ski lifts and

slopes. Evidence of early resorts in Gunnison County is limited to the Cebolla Hot Springs

and buildings from resort towns along the Gunnison River that were moved to private

properties during the 1965 construction of the three reservoirs in the Curecanti National

Recreation Area.

Significance: Recreational activities embody important historic economic and social

trends in Gunnison County. Additionally, some resort lodges and cabins have the potential

to embody trends in late-19th and early 20th century revival or Modern architectural styles.

Because this report provides only a cursory examination of historic recreation in Gunnison

County, additional research is needed to better define separate periods of significance for

each type of recreation.

Recommendations for Future Survey ERO has prepared the following survey plan with a focus on opportunities for the HPC

to perform future survey and documentation work. The recommendations for intensive or

reconnaissance surveys are prioritized from high to low — see Methodology and Data

Collection, above — and are focused on the built environment with considerations for

archaeological resources where possible. Comprehensive intensive surveys, recommended

for areas with a high concentration of resources, are systematic, involve in-depth research,

and result in the identification, documentation, and evaluation of any building, structure, or

archaeological site. Reconnaissance surveys result in the baseline identification and

documentation of concentrated or scattered resources unified by type or theme and may

support future intensive survey. Both types of surveys are precursors in identifying the

location of significant resources for landmark nomination or listing in the SRHP or NRHP

and help the County recognize potential impacts on significant cultural resources and plan

future land use.

While planning future surveys, the HPC should refer to reports from the previous

surveys ERO lists in the following recommendations; the reports provide historical

background and resource information. ERO included geographic information system

(GIS) data with the submission of this report to the HPC to help HPC understand the



location and extent of previously conducted intensive and archaeological surveys as well as

previously documented cultural resources on county-owned land in the project’s select

population centers (City of Gunnison, Pitkin, Ohio City, Tin Cup, Somerset, Marble,

Whitepine, and Crested Butte) with the submission of this report to the HPC.

In conjunction with intensive or reconnaissance surveys, ERO recommends preparation

of in-depth contexts. An in-depth context should provide detailed information about

periods of significance that span the entire history of a resource’s use. Additional research

and detailed information relevant to the specific location, historical theme, and continuous

use of a resource would be needed to inform official determinations of eligibility in

relation to a well-defined period of significance. The context is beneficial for future work

to create educational and interpretive materials for the public, and to develop grants for

preservation.

The most important factors for prioritization include the goals and powers of the HPC,

the results of public outreach, and the extent and age of previously conducted surveys.

Prioritization is given to surveys with higher feasibility for success given the constraint of

private-land access or opportunities for collaboration with local community members who

have a strong interest in the county’s heritage. Prioritization for intensive surveys is

assigned to places with a high concentration of resources that possess good physical

integrity and are potentially eligible for nomination as a landmark or for listing in the

SRHP or NRHP. Reconnaissance survey recommendations are primarily applied to areas

or resource types located on private land and/or as a method to identify resources that

retain integrity and have significance for later intensive documentation. Higher

prioritization is also for areas that appear to contain contiguous districts or cultural

landscapes containing individually or collectively significant resources.

High-Priority Surveys A recommendation for high-priority survey is appropriate for areas with a high

concentration of potentially significant resources, areas not previously surveyed, and/or

areas that may be in danger of loss because of neglect. Although there are many

endangered resource types across the county, higher prioritization is given to places or



resource types visible from transportation or recreational corridors that can be identified

and documented under the constraint of limited private property access.

ERO recommends the following surveys are high priorities for the HPC to complete:

Comprehensive reconnaissance/selective intensive survey to identify architectural resources on all properties owned by Gunnison County or a municipality. The survey would result in activities and the collection of information that would help the HPC meet its goal for Gunnison County government to serve as a role model for historic preservation through documentation and potential nomination of resources as landmarks or for listing in the SRHP or NRHP. The survey would also allow the HPC to assess government-owned buildings and structures for their significance and potential landmark status to ensure protection of significant public buildings and structures.

ERO recommends an initial comprehensive reconnaissance survey to first identify all buildings and structures that predate 1970. The survey-area boundary would be defined as all county-owned land and the legal parcel boundary of county- or municipality-owned properties; see Figure 1. The reconnaissance survey should seek to identify buildings and structures that retain integrity and that have high potential to be assessed as eligible for listing in the SRHP and NRHP or that have the potential to be nominated as a landmark. The reconnaissance survey should be followed by a selective intensive survey and documentation of the resources identified to retain integrity and eligibility potential on the OAHP Architectural Inventory form (1403).

Significant resources in the survey area include buildings related to important trends in settlement and government in Gunnison County. Tax assessor records and ERO’s windshield survey identified approximately 20 undocumented local government–owned historic buildings that should be considered during the comprehensive survey (Appendix C). Additionally, the survey should include re-documentation and re-evaluation of buildings that the county or a municipality altered since the buildings were documented in 2001 (GN.SHF.R11, see Table B1 in Appendix B) on the current OAHP Architectural Inventory Form (1403).

Comprehensive intensive archaeological survey of select county-owned lands. This survey would ensure that the location of undocumented prehistoric and historic cultural resources are identified and not impacted or lost during future land development projects that don’t have a federal or state nexus for compliance with Section 106 or the State Register Act. ERO did not examine rural and undeveloped areas during the windshield survey; however, ERO’s review of aerial images and topographical maps indicates that several undeveloped county-owned properties are



not adequately surveyed. The extent of this survey area would include upland areas to the south of Gunnison River as well as county-owned land not previously surveyed or surveyed more than 10 years ago and undisturbed by modern construction; the county-owned areas that should be surveyed are depicted on maps B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B8, B10, B12, B13, B15, B16, B17, B18, B19, and B23.

Previous surveys that intersect these areas have resulted in the documentation of significant prehistoric sites (5GN1835/Tenderfoot Site and 5GN5469), suggesting additional undocumented archaeological resources are present that could yield important information about the early prehistory of the region. ERO recommends focusing survey efforts on areas above the modern flood plain of the Gunnison River. Cultural resources within the flood plain are likely buried and would not be identifiable through surface survey.

Because few archaeological surveys have been completed on county-owned property, the survey would result in the identification of an unknown number of resources. Due to the size of some of the unsurveyed areas, a preliminary archaeological review of the potential study areas should be conducted in order to identify adjacent areas with high potential for cultural resources. High-potential areas could be identified by comparing areas of previous survey and previously documented site density within the aforementioned parcels. Archaeological and structural resources should be documented on OAHP Management Data Forms (1400) and the appropriate associated component form (prehistoric (1401), historic (1402), or linear (1418)). Isolated archaeological features or sites with fewer than 15 artifacts that do not yield significant information about the history of the region should be documented on Archaeological Isolated Find/Feature forms (1408).

Selective intensive/selective reconnaissance survey of East and West Downtown Gunnison. The goal of this survey is to document historic buildings and define two potential districts in the City of Gunnison. The buildings and potential districts would be associated with significant trends in the original settlement and growth of the city over time. The survey area and potential district boundaries could include the entire extent of all the legal property parcels between 14th and 12th Streets in the area of the city’s historic West Downtown along Boulevard Street (potential West Downtown Gunnison Historic District) as well as the entire extent of all the legal property parcels between Wisconsin and Iowa Streets historically associated with the city’s East Downtown, centered along Main Street; Spencer and Rio Grande Avenues would define the north and south extents of the survey (potential East Downtown Gunnison Historic District).

The survey would update the records for previously documented resources and identify changes in condition and integrity. The intensive survey would require re-documentation and re-evaluation of approximately 85 historic buildings (see Figure



B14a) previously documented in 1979 and 2001 on the OAHP’s Architectural Inventory Form (1403); the 1979 and 2001 surveys were not systematic, were not completed to current OAHP standards for survey and documentation, and did not survey the two downtown areas north of Ohio Avenue or south of Gunnison Avenue. In the latter areas, ERO’s windshield survey identified up to 50 additional undocumented historic commercial or residential buildings. Survey of the undocumented resources should be conducted at a reconnaissance level utilizing OAHP form 1417. If clearly significant resources that retain integrity are encountered during the reconnaissance survey, ERO recommends limiting 10 percent of the documentation to intensive levels using OAHP form 1403.

Conducting the survey would provide opportunities for the HPC to meet its goals for collaboration by working with local landowners and the city government on preservation through documentation, district nominations, and public interpretation projects. Completion of this survey would be feasible because surveyors would not need private landowner permission to document buildings from public right-of-way and the survey could be funded under a future SHF or CLG grant.

Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of abandoned railroad grades. This survey would identify cultural resources associated with significant trends in early transportation and settlement in the county. The reconnaissance survey boundary would be restricted to a 300-foot buffer on both sides of the historic right-of-way of the D&RG and DSP&P on County-, municipality-, or privately owned lands (when possible); much of the survey could be completed from the right-of-way of public roads without negotiating private-property access. The primary goal of the reconnaissance level survey would be to identify resources that retain integrity to convey association with significant trends in early transportation. These sites could later be surveyed during a different project at an intensive level.

The selective intensive survey would require redocumentation and reevaluation of 24 previously documented railroad transportation-related resources (Table B4); the resources should be redocumented because all of the resources were previously documented more than 10 years ago (most during the 1970s and 1980s), significant changes to the resources such as decay or demolition are likely to have occurred, and the original forms on which they were documented are no longer in use at the OAHP. Based on ERO’s windshield survey, modern aerial imagery, and tax assessor records, ERO anticipates that the survey would result in the identification of up to 35 additional railroad-related structures not previously documented, such as bridges, culverts, rock retaining walls, stock loading ramps, and depot or storage buildings.



This survey would contribute to the understanding of early transportation in the region, identified by the HPC as important to the region’s history, and the HPC would have records of structures and landscape that otherwise could soon be lost as a result of neglect or changes in land use. The HPC could use the results of these surveys and associated research to convey the significance of railroad resources to landowners and open dialogue about interpretation, nomination, and/or preservation.

Selective intensive survey of historic agricultural complexes along recreational and transportation corridors. The survey would result in the documentation of cultural resources associated with significant trends in settlement and the agricultural industry in Gunnison County. The HPC identified agriculture as an important theme to the history of the region, and many historic agricultural buildings are under threat of loss from neglect, replacement, or changes in land use. This survey would provide opportunities for the HPC to work with the Ranchland Conservation Legacy (Legacy), Gunnison County Trails Commission, and private landowners who have already made efforts to commemorate and interpret their heritage for the public.

The boundary for the survey would be defined loosely as the extent of legal property parcels located adjacent to the abandoned D&RG and DSP&P grades and highly trafficked highways in Gunnison County: U.S. Route 50, State Highway 135, and CRs 727, 730, and 742 (Figure 1). These properties are highly visible to residents and tourists in Gunnison County, and, therefore, HPC programs for preservation and public outreach that may result from survey and documentation would also be highly visible to the public.

The file and literature review demonstrates that nearly 100 agricultural resources in this survey area were previously surveyed and documented, predominantly during the 1970s; therefore, updated survey, documentation, and research is needed on these resources because many have changed significantly as a result of new construction, neglect, or demolition, and because the previous survey and documentation work was not completed to the OAHP’s current standards. Based on ERO’s windshield survey, the file search results, and tax assessor records, ERO estimates that this survey could result in the identification and documentation of up to 30 additional agricultural resources within the recommended study area along major transportation corridors. Buildings on an agricultural property should be documented on an OAHP architectural inventory form (1403). Ranch properties with archaeological ruins and no extant, standing buildings should be documented using a Management Data Form (1400) and Historic Archaeological Component Form (1402).



Because of the large scope of this project, ERO recommends that the survey be accomplished through two or three phases. The earlier phases could involve not only redocumenting resources previously evaluated as eligible for listing in the NRHP but also working with private landowners identified by the Legacy and Gunnison County Trails Commission as interested in commemorating their heritage and amenable to working with the county for land access. The HPC could use the results of these surveys and associated research to convey the significance of agricultural resources to landowners and open dialogue about interpretation, nomination, and/or preservation including the honorary designation of “Centennial Farm” by History Colorado and the Colorado Department of Agriculture.

Medium-Priority Surveys Medium-priority recommendations include extant and abandoned towns the HPC and

the public identified as significant to the history of the region. These places possess a high

concentration of resources that may be individually significant or contribute to a potential

historic district or cultural landscape. A recommendation for intensive survey in the

medium-priority section is appropriate for places with good collective historic integrity,

high potential to yield additional information important to the history of the region, and

present opportunities for HPC to collaborate with community members with a vested

interest in the county’s heritage. Additionally, none of the towns included in this portion

of the plan have existing preservation or design boards. Except for Ohio City and

Somerset, all of the towns in the medium-priority category have been previously surveyed;

although most of the surveys resulted in preliminary historic district evaluations, most

surveys were completed more than 15 years ago and did not include an inventory and

documentation for all potentially significant buildings. The HPC would need to facilitate

intergovernmental agreements between the county and the incorporated towns for local

landmarks to be nominated.

ERO recommends the following surveys are medium priorities for the HPC to

complete:

Comprehensive intensive architectural survey of Ohio City. The survey of Ohio City would result in the identification, documentation, and evaluation of historic buildings associated with important trends in settlement, railroad transportation, and the mining industry in Gunnison County. The survey area would encompass all extant buildings constructed prior to 1970 and located within the corporate limits of Ohio City (Figures 1 and B20). Residents have worked to



preserve the Ohio City town hall using an SHF grant, which demonstrates good potential for the HPC to meet its goal for future public outreach. Depending on the results of public outreach, the survey could result in the definition of a potential historic district or individual property nominations. The survey would present opportunities for the HPC to educate residents about the survey and nomination process as well as the potential benefits of nomination and preservation.

Ohio City has never been intensively surveyed and inventoried; however, resources in the town are under no known threat of loss and residents have been working to document and preserve buildings of architectural and historical significance. In 2005, residents independently documented a historic buildings in town and in 2011 a historic structure assessment of the Ohio City Town Hall (5GN5833) was completed with SHF grant assistance. In 2016, the HPC received a SHF grant to begin rehabilitation of the hall. Given the relatively small number of resources in Ohio City and the low threat level, survey of this area was identified as a medium priority but should be undertaken as soon as feasible. In the meantime, the HPC should continue to encourage and support resident’s efforts to document and preserve the town’s resources.

Tax assessor records and ERO’s windshield survey indicate that the proposed survey would result in the identification and documentation of approximately 25 historic resources; the resources would be documented for the first time, and an OAHP Architectural Inventory form (1403) should be completed for each resource.

Comprehensive intensive architectural survey of Pitkin. A survey of Pitkin would result in the identification and documentation of historic buildings and structures associated with significant trends in settlement, railroad transportation, and the mining industry. The town has a high concentration of significant structures in danger of loss through neglect that are related to early mining and railroad transportation activities. The survey area would include all buildings constructed prior to 1970 located within the corporate limits of Pitkin (Figures 1 and B21).

Between 1976 and 2005, the Forest Service and residents of Pitkin documented a total of five select buildings within the town (Figure B21, Table B2); however, this documentation work was not associated with a systematic, intensive survey and did not result in documentation or an evaluation of all the buildings within the corporate limits. Lastly, documentation forms the Forest Service completed during the 1976 survey are no longer compliant with current OAHP standards for documentation. Therefore, the survey would require documentation of approximately 75 individual buildings on OAHP Architectural Inventory forms (1403). Documentation serves as a form of preservation and the survey results and archival research could support the definition of a potential Pitkin Historic District.



Public efforts to preserve individual buildings and install interpretive signs demonstrate good potential for future public education and property owner participation in individual or district nominations. The survey would present opportunities for the HPC to educate residents about the survey and nomination process as well as the potential benefits of nomination and preservation.

Comprehensive intensive architectural survey of Marble. A survey of Marble would result in the identification and documentation of historic commercial and residential buildings associated with significant trends in settlement and mining in the region. The survey area should include all buildings constructed prior to 1970 located within the corporate limits of the Town of Marble (Figures 1, B1, and B1a).

Although Marble was evaluated as a potential NRHP historic district in 1989, the nomination included intensive documentation of only six buildings (all located in west Marble) for listing in the NRHP, and a high concentration of significant buildings in both east and west Marble have not yet been individually documented (Whitacre and Simmons 1989). Because documentation for the six previously documented buildings is more than 10 years old and does not meet the OAHP’s current standards for documentation, and because changes to the buildings as a result of maintenance, preservation, or neglect have occurred since the buildings were originally documented, the six buildings should be reevaluated and redocumented on OAHP Architectural Inventory forms (1403). Based on tax assessor records and ERO’s windshield survey, approximately 25 additional buildings would require documentation on OAHP Architectural Inventory forms (1403).

Contextual research and documentation of these resources would serve as a form of preservation and provide material for the HPC to engage local residents. Year-round residents of Marble have strong interest in the town’s heritage and are active in preserving and researching the town’s historic buildings, demonstrating an opportunity for the HPC to meet its goals for public education and collaboration with the Marble–Crystal River Chambers of Commerce. The HPC should strongly consider working with Marble residents as participants in the documentation and research process.

Comprehensive intensive architectural survey of Crystal Townsite. The townsite is included as a medium priority based on public and HPC input and because it presents another opportunity for the HPC to collaborate with the Marble–Crystal River Chambers of Commerce and residents who are invested in the preservation and interpretation of the town’s history. Documentation serves as a form of preservation, and survey results and archival research could support the definition of a potential Crystal Townsite Historic District.



The survey area should include all buildings located along State Highway 3 in Sections 27, 28, 33, and 34, Township 11 South, Range 87 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. A survey of the buildings in the Crystal Townsite would result in the documentation of buildings associated with important trends in settlement, mining, and recreation in Gunnison County. Forest Service archaeologists identified the entire townsite as a resource under the Smithsonian number 5GN1332 in 1974, but did not complete an inventory of extant buildings nor provide an evaluation for the town or each individual building’s eligibility for listing in the SRHP or NRHP. Tax assessor records and modern aerial photographs indicate that the survey would result in the identification and evaluation of approximately 15 historic buildings constructed between ca. 1885 and 1970; each building should be documented on an OAHP Architectural Inventory form (1403)

Comprehensive reconnaissance/intensive architectural survey of Somerset. A survey of the town of Somerset to evaluate the town’s potential to constitute a district would result in the documentation of approximately 90 historic residences associated with significant trends in settlement, architectural design, and mining in Gunnison County. The survey area should include all buildings located within the corporate limits of the Town of Somerset (Figures 1, B2, and B3).

All of the single family dwellings in Somerset are representative of a typical, historic coal mining town, are linked by a distinguishable architectural design, and were constructed during the same period of significance (1896 to 1914). ERO recommends reconnaissance documentation of 90 percent of the buildings and structures and reserving 10 percent of the buildings and structures for intensive documentation. Resources that retain the highest integrity or have significant historical associations should be documented at the intensive level.

The town possesses fair physical and associative integrity at this time. However, in recent years the coal mining industry has been in decline, and Oxbow Mining, LLC has been considering ending all mining operations in the mines around Somerset (Finley 2016). As in many historic mining towns in Gunnison County, mine closures often result in the sale or abandonment of property by the town’s residents, and new residents may significantly modify the town’s buildings, use dwellings only on a seasonal basis, and neglect maintenance of town infrastructure. Closure of active coal mines near Somerset would impact the character and historic association of the town and could result in further changes to Somerset’s historic integrity of materials, design, feeling, and association.

Somerset has never been surveyed; however, the town is not under immediate threat of loss, has no museum or body of residents known to be interested in its heritage or preservation, has no infrastructure for tourism or heritage tourism, and there are no known opportunities for collaboration with local residents. Given the



current threat level and absence of local interest and support for preservation, survey of Somerset is identified as a medium priority. A survey to document the town in its current condition would provide the HPC with an opportunity to inform residents about the town’s history, the economic benefits of heritage tourism, and local and state preservation and nomination programs.

Comprehensive intensive archaeological survey of the Baldwin/Castleton townsites. An archaeological survey of the historic location of the abandoned Baldwin and Castleton townsites would result in the identification of archaeological features, historic structures, and extant buildings associated with the Rocky Mountain Fuel/Utah Fuel company towns occupied between 1884 and 1949. The town’s history is associated with significant trends in early settlement, transportation, and coal mining in Gunnison County.

The Forest Service oversaw a series of selective archaeological surveys of portions of both townsites and sections of the DSP&P between the sites between 1976 and 1981 in association with Amax, Inc.’s Mount Emmons Project and the Crested Butte Mine Impact study. The surveys included the entire Baldwin townsite and covered approximately half of the location of the Castleton townsite. The surveys identified 10 resources related to the DSP&P and the associated railroad spur to Castleton and defined the resource boundary for the entire Baldwin Townsite (5GN156) around all extant buildings. OAHP Compass records indicate that architectural historians have completed additional documentation of select buildings in Baldwin during the early 1980s and late 1990s, and no additional studies have been completed at Castleton. Therefore, ERO recommends an intensive archaeological survey to re-evaluate and re-document the previously recorded resources on current OAHP Architectural Inventory forms (1403) or Management Data form (1400) and appropriate associated component form (historic (1402) or linear (1418)), and to identify new resources in previously surveyed and unsurveyed land.

Based on modern aerial imagery and OAHP Compass records, ERO anticipates up to 12 buildings are currently extant in Baldwin and would need to be documented; additional features such as privies, outdoor ovens, and gardens could also be extant. No standing buildings are evident on aerial photographs of Castleton; however, ERO anticipates that artifacts and features associated with the townsite are extant and could include domestic artifacts, tools, structural foundations, rock walls and embankments, road grades, privies, or stone markers. Castleton, like Baldwin, could be documented and evaluated as a single site with its boundary defined based on archival research. Additionally, most features associated with the DSP&P or a spur of the DSP&P could be documented as features of a single linear resource



segment instead of by the Forest Service’s 1976-1980 method of documenting the features with individual Smithsonian numbers.

The survey area would include the chartered limits of the abandoned towns of Castleton and Baldwin as well as associated DSP&P railroad- and coal mine–related features in the Ohio Creek drainage. The legal location of the survey would generally be the sections surrounding the DSP&P in Township 15 South, Range 86 West; Township 15 South, Range 87 West; and Township 14 South, Range 87 West of the 6th Principal Meridian (Figure 1). Due to the size of this area and the limitations of gaining access to private property, a preliminary archival review of historic maps should be conducted prior to survey in order to identify parcels with high potential for cultural resources.

The HPC identified these resources in the upper drainages of Ohio Creek as under-researched, under threat of loss, and important to interpreting the history of the region; survey and associated research here would yield information important to the region’s history and provide opportunities for public education about this over-looked historical theme. Documentation also serves as a form of preservation.

Low-Priority Surveys Places under little threat of loss but identified by the HPC and the public as important

to the history of the region have low priority for survey. Low-priority designation is also

for places with moderate density of potentially significant buildings and would not provide

good opportunities for effective public education because they are accessible only on a

seasonal basis and not subject to frequent traffic. Recreation-related resources and

resources related to the growth of the county after WWII likewise have low priority

because these resources are under little threat of loss, and the public and HPC showed less

interest in researching and preserving these resources as compared to those in the medium

and high priority categories.

ERO recommends the following surveys are low priorities for the HPC to complete:

Selective intensive architectural survey of Tin Cup. The goal of this survey is to identify and complete OAHP Architectural Inventory forms (1403) and eligibility evaluations for historic buildings associated with significant trends in settlement and mining in Gunnison County history. Documentation would serve as a form of baseline preservation, and associated research would provide information for nomination of significant buildings or structures. Tax assessor records and modern aerial images indicate that approximately 25 of the extant buildings within the town were constructed during the period of significance for early settlement of Tin Cup



(1879 to ca. 1905) and need to be evaluated for their individual eligibility and potential to contribute to a historic district. The survey boundary would encompass the corporate limits of the town as defined in Figures 1 and B11.

Tin Cup is included in the survey plan at the request of the HPC and because it has no local board or organization of residents concerned with the preservation or interpretation of its history. Tin Cup is a low-priority survey because of few prospects for meaningful public outreach and education because it is only accessible seasonally. The Bureau of Land Management completed preliminary documentation of Tin Cup in 1974, but did not complete documentation of individual buildings nor an assessment of the town’s local, state, or national significance; further, records completed in 1974 are no longer sufficient for OAHP standards for documentation.

Selective intensive architectural survey of Whitepine. The goal of this survey is to identify and complete OAHP Architectural Inventory forms (1403) and eligibility evaluations for historic buildings associated with significant trends in settlement and mining in Gunnison County history. Documentation would serve as a form of baseline preservation, and associated research would provide information for nomination of significant buildings or structures. Tax assessor records and modern aerial images indicate that approximately 15 of the extant buildings within the town were constructed during the period of significance for early settlement of Whitepine (1878 to 1893) and need to be evaluated for their individual eligibility. The survey boundary would encompass the corporate limits of the town as defined in Figures 1 and B22.

Whitepine is included in the survey plan at the request of the HPC and because there is no known local board of residents concerned with the preservation or interpretation of its history. The town is a low-priority survey because it comprises a scatter of modern and historic buildings along a single, one-lane road and there is no potential for a historic district. County tax assessor records demonstrate that some potentially significant buildings are still extant, such as the town’s historic Crawford Hotel; however, less than half of the buildings in the town date to its period of significance for early settlement — and those buildings are in poor condition. Additionally, Whitepine is inaccessible during most winter months, most, if not all, residents are seasonal, and there are few prospects for meaningful public outreach and education.

Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey and historical context development of historic recreation–related resources. Although the county has a long history of outdoor recreation activities, this theme in the county’s history has not yet been well-researched. The primary goal of this survey is to develop a robust recreation context and document select resources significant to that context



at an intensive level. Therefore, ERO recommends additional archival research, development of a historical context for specific recreational activities, and a reconnaissance survey to identify potentially significant recreational sites.

Recreation-related cultural resources could be significant for their association with important trends in the history of Gunnison County or for their embodiment of distinct trends in architecture, landscape design, or engineering. Recreational properties include ski areas, fishing-related resources, resorts, hot springs, and historic social trails, picnic areas, and campsites. These resources have potential to yield additional information about this theme in the region’s history, and information gathered during the survey could be presented in materials for public education. The reconnaissance survey should seek to identify buildings and structures that retain integrity and that have high potential to be assessed as eligible for listing in the SRHP and NRHP or that have the potential to be nominated as a landmark. The reconnaissance survey should be followed by a selective intensive survey and documentation of the resources identified to retain integrity and eligibility potential on OAHP Architectural Inventory forms (1403).

The boundary for the survey would be loosely defined as the corporate limits of the select population centers in this survey plan (City of Gunnison, Pitkin, Ohio City, Tin Cup, Somerset, Marble, and Whitepine) and known historic locations of buildings associated with early recreation that have been moved onto private properties directly adjacent to highly trafficked highways in Gunnison County (U.S. Route 50, State Highway 135, and CRs 727, 730, and 742) (Figure 1). These properties are highly visible to residents and tourists in Gunnison County, and, therefore, HPC programs for preservation and public interpretation that may result from survey and documentation would also be highly visible to the public.

This survey is a low priority because many historic resort cabins and fishing lodges were relocated from their original locations during the 1965 construction of Blue Mesa Reservoir. Additionally, many of the county’s historic ski and hot springs properties are still in use and were developed after WWII.

Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey and historical context development of post–World War II resources in and around the City of Gunnison. A primary goal of this survey is to develop a robust post–WWII context and document select resources significant to that context at an intensive level. During ERO’s guided windshield evaluation with HPC member David Primus, Primus identified multiple post–WWII historic buildings that may embody a distinctive architectural style and are associated with significant trends in the history of the City and County of Gunnison. These buildings include Modern-style residential and commercial buildings, the county fairgrounds, and dormitories and classrooms on the Western campus. Reconnaissance survey of potentially



significant buildings within the corporate limits of the City of Gunnison (as defined on Figures 1 and B14) presents opportunities to work with local ranchers to interpret the enduring heritage of ranching, collaborate with local businesses or homeowners on documentation and preservation activities, and to work with Western faculty and students.

The reconnaissance survey should seek to identify buildings and structures that retain integrity and that have high potential to be assessed as eligible for listing in the SRHP and NRHP or that have the potential to be nominated as a landmark. The reconnaissance survey should be followed by a selective intensive survey and documentation of the resources that retain integrity and potential eligibility on OAHP Architectural Inventory forms (1403).

Opportunities for Implementing Future Surveys HPC efforts to organize and conduct cultural resource surveys present opportunities for

this board to collaborate with local and state organizations, private landowners, and the

general public. Through collaboration with the Legacy and Gunnison County Trails

Commission, which have goals for public outreach and education similar those of the HPC,

the HPC would be able to integrate survey, documentation, or public interpretation initiates

into future trails expansion or funding grants. The Legacy and Trails Commission can

identify private landowners who are both open to working with local government and

already invested in commemorating their heritage. The HPC could also improve and

increase its message delivery about incentives for preservation and interpretation using the

Legacy and Trails Commission as outlets for disseminating information to private

landowners.

In addition to increasing awareness of the HPC’s mission through other County

organizations, the HPC could include the public in efforts to research and document

historic buildings and structures. Property owners as well as students and faculty at

Western or the Gunnison County Substance Abuse Prevention Project could assist with

survey and documentation at low to no fiscal cost to the HPC. For intensive surveys

requiring the assistance of archaeologists or architectural historians who meet the Secretary

of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, students could provide assistance as

low-cost labor by volunteering, interning, or organizing class projects (Dr. Heather

Thiessen-Reily, personal communication 2016). The OAHP maintains a list of qualified

contractors who could assist survey efforts (www.historycolorado.org/sites/



default/files/files/OAHP/crforms_edumat/pdfs/1502.pdf) and a list of local, state, and

national funding sources (www.historycolorado.org/grants/additional-resources-funding),

summarized in Appendix D.

The conflicting values and interests between the HPC and some private property

owners highlight the primary challenge the HPC faces in its preservation goals.

Preservation, although ultimately the primary goal of the HPC, is not the only avenue the

HPC could pursue to encourage commemoration of history in the county. In areas where

local communities are not interested in physical preservation through stabilization or

restoration, the HPC may use documentation as preservation, which allows for listing in

the SRHP or the NRHP and affords the private landowner the freedom to alter his or her

property without HPC review. While this method does not protect a place permanently, it

does allow the HPC to set a preservation baseline from which to build future physical

preservation work and develop relationships with landowners who typically object to

landmark designations. The HPC should work to educate landowners regarding the

benefits of having a property listed locally such as opportunities to apply for access to the

SHF as well as Federal Rehabilitation and Colorado Historic Preservation Tax Credits.

Using the information derived from intensive surveys would help the HPC build

relationships with local communities. Strengthening these relationships is a critical step in

the preservation process, and interacting with communities and private landowners in the

documentation process may provide an ideal avenue for the HPC to gain the trust and

support of oppositional residents.



Summary

This document’s information and recommendations for prioritization of cultural

resource surveys are intended to help the HPC meet its goals for preservation and public

outreach. The surveys ERO recommends facilitate the collection of data to provide the

foundation for the HPC to work proactively with the other county commissions during the

planning process for new construction projects, to create opportunities for public education

and collaboration, and to complete the initial steps for nomination of a significant property

or site as a landmark or for listing in the SRHP or NRHP.

The completion of a cultural resource survey is beneficial to the HPC and the general

public: the survey’s inventory and evaluation activities not only are the principal steps of

preservation but also ultimately enhance the further development of local programs for

physical preservation and education. Information collected during a cultural resource

survey helps the HPC and the public better interpret their shared history, assess the

significance and integrity of the county’s resources, and define any impending threats to

significant resources. Information gathered during a survey is beneficial for guiding future

decisions on how to fund preservation, research, or community commemoration initiatives.



References Cited Associated Cultural Resource Experts

2002 Final Highways to the Sky: A Context and History of Colorado’s Highway System. Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver.

Brown, Freeda 1981 Pitkin: Past Times (1879-1884). Wendell’s Print Shop, Pitkin, Colorado.

City of Gunnison 2007 The City of Gunnison 2007 Master Plan. On file, City of Gunnison,

Colorado.

Eskew, Susan 1994 Gunnison County Historic and Cultural Resources Mapping Project.

Prepared for Gunnison County. On file, Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission, Gunnison, Colorado.

Fell, James E. and Eric Twitty 2006 The Mining Industry in Colorado. National Register of Historic Places

Multiple Property Documentation Form. On file, Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.

Finley, Bruce 2016 “Collapse of Colorado Coal Industry Leaves Mining Towns Unsure What’s

Next.” Denver Post. May 14. Electronic document, http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29893983/this-could-be-last-mine-colorado-clean-coal. Accessed, May 15, 2016.

Fraser, Clayton and Jennifer Strand 1997 The Historical and Technological Evolution of Colorado’s Railroads 1858-

1948. Railroads in Colorado 1858-1948 National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. On file, Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.

Greubel, Rand A., Jaclyn Mullen, Matthew J. Landt, Jonathon C. Horn, and Alan D. Reed 2010 Class I Cultural Resource Overview of the Bureau of Land Management’s

Uncompahgre Field Office, Western Colorado. Submitted by Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc. On file, Bureau of Land Management, Uncompahgre Field Office, Montrose, Colorado.



Gunnison County

2015a “Gunnison County – Early History & American Explorers” [map]. Electronic document, http://www.gunnisoncounty.org/779/Maps, accessed May 4, 2016.

2015b “Gunnison County – 1894 to Present” [map]. Electronic document, http://www.gunnisoncounty.org/779/Maps. Accessed, May 4, 2016.

2015c “Ohio City.” Electronic document, http://www.gunnisoncounty.org/628/ Ohio-City, accessed May 5, 2016.

2015d “Tin Cup.” Electronic document, http://www.gunnisoncounty.org/635/ Tin-Cup, accessed May 5, 2016.

2015e “Gunnison County – Early Mining and Ranching, 1861-1878” [map]. Electronic document, http://www.gunnisoncounty.org/DocumentCenter/ View/3918, accessed May 4, 2016.

2015f “Gunnison County – Mining Boom and Bust, 1879-1893” [map]. Electronic document, http://www.gunnisoncounty.org/DocumentCenter/ View/3918, accessed May 4, 2016.

Gunnison County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) 1993 A resolution providing for the preservation of the cultural, historic and

architectural history within Gunnison County. Gunnison County resolution No. 93-32. On file, Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission, Gunnison, Colorado.

1997 Intergovernmental cooperative agreement for purposes of historic preservation. Gunnison County resolution No. 97-67. On file, Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission, Gunnison, Colorado.

1998 Intergovernmental agreement between the Town of Crested Butte and the County of Gunnison, Colorado for the purpose of designating structures, sites, and districts within the incorporated limits of Crested Butte as Gunnison County Historic Landmarks. Gunnison County resolution No. 98-01. On file, Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission, Gunnison, Colorado.

1999 A resolution amending resolution No. 93-32. Gunnison County resolution No. 99-39. On file, Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission, Gunnison, Colorado.

Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) 2007 Guide for Designating Gunnison County Historic Landmarks. Electronic

document, www.GunnisonHistoricPreservation.org. Accessed March 14, 2016.

Gunnison County Tax Assessor 2016 Property Record Search. Electronic database,

http://www.gunnisoncounty.org/327/Property-Record-Search, last accessed April 29, 2016.



Guthrie, Mark R., Powys Gadd, Renee Johnson, and Joseph J. Lischka

1984 Colorado Mountains Prehistoric Context. Colorado Historical Society, Denver.

Horn, Jonathon C. 2009 Class III Inventory of a Proposed Research Center Location for Rocky

Mountain Biological Laboratory, Gothic City, Gunnison County, Colorado. On file, Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.

Lipe, William D., Mark D. Varien, and Richard H. Wilshusen (editors) 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin.

Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver.

McLeod, Gary 2014 “Welcome to Tin Cup.” Electronic document,

http://www.tincupco.com/index.html. Accessed, May 5, 2016.

Mehls, Steven F. 1984 Colorado Mountains Historic Context. Colorado Historical Society,

Denver.

O’Rourke, Paul 1992 Frontier in Transition: A History of Southwestern Colorado. Bureau of

Land Management, Colorado State Office, Denver.

Pitblado, Bonnie L. 2003 Late Paleoindian Occupation of the Southern Rocky Mountains: Early

Halocene Projectile Points and Land Use in the High Country. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Strack, Don 2013 “Utah Fuel Company.” Electronic document,

http://utahrails.net/utahcoal/utahcoal-utah-fuel.php, accessed, May 6, 2016.

Twitty, Eric 2008 Guide to Assessing Historic Radium, Uranium, and Vanadium Mining

Resources in Montrose and San Miguel Counties. Prepared by Mountain States Historical, Boulder, Colorado. Prepared for Western Colorado Interpretive Association, Delta, Colorado.

2015 Archaeological Mining Context for the Grand Mesa, Uncompaghre, and Gunnison National Forests, Colorado. Prepared for U.S. Forest Service, Delta, Colorado.



U.S. Federal Census

1940 Federal Census Precinct Divisions Map, Gunnison County. Map. Online document, http://1940census.archives.gov/search/?search.census_ year=1940&search.city=&search.county=Gunnison, accessed April 22, 2016.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1930 Snowmass, Colorado [topographic map]. 1:48,000. United States

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1938 Mt. Gunnison, Colorado [topographic map]. 1:48,000. United States

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1945a Garfield, Colorado [topographic map]. 1:62,500. United States Department

of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1945b Pitkin, Colorado [topographic map]. 1:62,500. United States Department of

the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1955 Gunnison, Colorado [topographic map]. 1:24,000. United States

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1958 Mount Harvard, Colorado [topographic map]. 1:62,500. United States

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1964 Marble, Colorado [topographic map]. 1:24,000. United States Department

of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1967a Parlin, Colorado [topographic map]. 1:24,000. United States Department of

the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1967b Pitkin, Colorado [topographic map]. 1:24,000. United States Department of

the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1967c Somerset, Colorado [topographic map]. 1:24,000. United States Department

of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1983a Tincup, Colorado [topographic map]. 1:24,000. United States Department

of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1983b Whitepine, Colorado [topographic map]. 1:24,000. United States

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Vandenbusche, Duane 2011 “The Rise and Fall of White Pine Colorado.” Colorado Central Magazine,

May 1. Electronic document, http://cozine.com/2011-may/the-rise-and-fall-of-white-pine-colorado, accessed, May 8, 2016.

Whitacre, Christine, and R. Laurie Simmons 1989 Historic Resources of Marble, Colorado and Vicinity. National Register of

Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. Prepared by Front Range Research Associates. On file, Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver.


Appendix A Meeting Notes and Public Response

ERO Project #6503 A1

Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission

Blackstock Government Center –March 16, 2016

Members Present: Lynn Card, Lyda Mary Hardy, Dave Primus, Justin Lawrence, Lee Ann Mick, Jordan Cooper

Others Present: Mike Pelletier, ERO Resources Corp. (Abigail Sanocki and Johathan Hedlund)

Justin opened the meeting. Lee Ann (2nd by Lyda) to approve the minutes. It was approved unanimously.

Justin described the status of the survey project and introduced members of ERO Resources Corp. The group discussed areas of the county and resources to focus on for the project. It was decided to hold a public outreach effort on April 20th to gather input from the public on the possible sites to investigate.

The group discussed the possible location of oral histories. It was suggested they may reside at the public library or in the HP file cabinet. The group discussed the need to clean and purge the HP file cabinet. Lyda said she would get with Mike to work on it.

The certificate of alteration that was approved for the Ohio City hall was discussed and the original could not be located. Lee Ann showed that the minutes reflect it was approved and Justin said he would recreate the form for the applicant.

Mike updated the group regarding the budget. There is currently about 45% of the budget left for the year or about $1,000.

Dave provided an update on the Mountaineer site. He said that basically some letters have been exchanged but no real progress has been made.

Mike described that now all the school information is on the HP website.

Lee Ann discussed with the group data sources for the downtown project and that the interns are currently working on the project.

Justin gave an update on the USFS status with regard to the Alpine tunnel damage. They will assess the situation once the snow is clear and likely close the road to the public.

Dave described the picture of Chipeta Falls that was sent in by a citizen and that he would see if the WSCU library would keep it.

Meeting adjourned at 6:10

DRAFT

Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission

Blackstock Government Center –April 20, 2016

Members Present: Lynn Card, Lyda Mary Hardy, Dave Primus, Justin Lawrence, Lee Ann Mick, Jordan Cooper

Others Present: Mike Pelletier, ERO Resources Corp. (Abigail Sanocki)

Justin opened the meeting. Lee Ann (2nd by Dave) to approve the minutes with two changes. It was approved unanimously.

The group discussed with Abigail the survey project. Abigail requested information and the goals of the project. It was decided that the effort should focus on populated areas and public buildings. Other areas to focus on included ranches and railroads. Other areas to consider included stage stops, mines, churches, and cemeteries. The project should focus on identifying sites that have register potential, but should also include community outreach opportunities.

The group discussed the oral history transcriptions locations and asked if anyone has copies. * Jordan suggested using software to digitize typed transcriptions.

The group discussed the cleanup of the HPC filing cabinet. Lyda and Mike did some work on it and it now all fits in the file cabinet except for pamphlets and magazines. **

Dave said he would remove appendix G from the historic register packet as it is not needed and contains old information.

Lynn said she has lots of cemetery information including photos of headstones. The group thought this could be compiled and helpful for genealogy work.

Jody gave an update on interns. Colin is working on the downtown project and Nathaniel is working on the old books and both are making good progress.

The group asked Mike to bring HPC mail to the meetings and email minutes and agenda a few days before the meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 6:10

*note: In HPC file cabinet there are at least the following written transcriptions: Dan and Litha Vader, Bob and Irene Irby, Katherine Emsden, Hazel Calkins, [McGraw, Danni, & Krueger]. Did not find digital copies of the transcriptions.

**note: Mike forget to mention at the meeting that he put all the magazines on a book shelf in case someone wants to look through the material.

1

Abigail Sanocki

From: Heather Thiessen-Reily <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:32 PMTo: Abigail SanockiSubject: RE: Gunnison County historic places survey plan

Hi Abbey: all of this sounds great! I have placed a number of students with Jody Reesor and they

have worked on projects for the Gunnison County Historical Preservation Commission with her.

I am also developing a Public History emphasis for WSCUʹs History program and it will be sent to

curriculum committee this fall and will hopefully be approved to be in the catalogue for 2017‐2018.

Until then, I am offering special topics courses on Public History, Oral History, Monuments and

Memorials. These courses will all become part of the Public history Emphasis. So letʹs stay in touch.

Heather

From: Abigail Sanocki <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:00 PM To: Heather Thiessen‐Reily Subject: RE: Gunnison County historic places survey plan

Hi Dr. Thiessen – Thank you so much for your interest and immediate action. Unfortunately, the Colorado History (State Historical Society) staff managing the grant has given us a very tight schedule, my report is due in a few weeks, and our contract does not allow for me to recruit interns. The report will include recommendations for future intensive surveys, documentation efforts, and means for greater collaboration between the County’s Historic Preservation Commission and other entities in the state (projects for future grants that interns could potentially participate on). That being said, please give Nicholas the following emails for commission members that do currently work with interns. I believe interns right now are working on digitization and oral history projects. Lee Ann Mick <[email protected]>; Lyda Hardy <[email protected]>; Lynn Card <[email protected]>. Sorry I can’t be of more help to Nicholas right now, I’ve definitely been in his shoes before, too… My report will definitely give the Commission/History Colorado a template for getting Western students involved in local projects. The intent of my original email was to see if any Western faculty might be open to increased collaboration with the County HP Commission; mostly as a litmus test for positive responses. For example, one of the commission members was curious about if any faculty would be interested/able to integrate a lesson in documentation into a course, and have students produce nomination forms for local sites; their names would be on the forms and they could put that experience down on their resumes. Like I said, I don’t need any promises at this point, just a read on more ways the County could get students experience in Public History and both them and the County could benefit. Thanks again and have a good weekend, Abbey

2

A b i g a i l S a n o c k i Historical Archaeologist

ERO Resources Corporation

303.830.1188 O | 734.730.5005 C | [email protected] | www.eroresources.com

From: Heather Thiessen‐Reily [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 12:39 PM To: Abigail Sanocki <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Gunnison County historic places survey plan

Dear Abby: I have a student, strong History major, who is very interested in working on this project

with you starting as soon as possible. His name is Nicholas Fischer and his contact number 505‐610‐

3711. I am going to give him your contact information as well. We can get a summer internship set

up next week if you are still interested in having student help with this project. I hope you

are. Nicholas is excited, keen and has strong academic skills. And most importantly he is very

responsible. Please let me know if we can get this going.

Heather T‐Reily

From: Abigail Sanocki <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 8:02 AM To: Heather Thiessen‐Reily Subject: RE: Gunnison County historic places survey plan

Dr. Thiessen, Thank you so much for your prompt and positive response! I’m very happy to hear you are interested in collaborating with the County and getting your students involved with documentation and oral history. The SHF grant I’m working under is currently limited to producing a plan/recommendations for future documentation work and collaboration. Unfortunately, the County and I were only given notice to proceed with the work as of a couple weeks ago and the report is due in early June, so I won’t be able to recruit the help of your students this time around. That being said, I’d love to talk to you more about how to get students involved in local history projects, how the County could help students interested in Public History, and to discuss historic places you would potentially see students working. Please feel free to call either of the numbers listed below or email me. Best Regards, Abbey




3

From: Heather Thiessen‐Reily [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 3:01 PM To: Abigail Sanocki <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Gunnison County historic places survey plan

Dear Abigail: I think this is the survey project I have been in contact with Jodi Reesor about over the

last year. I am excited that it is getting off the ground. Jodi and I talked about having History major

involvement with the survey and I know I could provide a couple student interns to work on it this

fall and perhaps even this summer. Student interns could look for historical structures, help with

their documentation; interview locals for suggestions and gather information. I would love to

discuss this further with you.

Dr. Heather Thiessen‐Reily

From: Abigail Sanocki <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 7:25 PM To: Kym MacEwan; Jim Stewart; Heather Thiessen‐Reily; Duane Vandenbusche Cc: Jon Hedlund Subject: Gunnison County historic places survey plan

Hello Western History Department faculty, I’m working with the Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission on a county‐wide reconnaissance survey of state and city lands to identify historic places important to the history of Gunnison County. The goal of my survey and report is to help the County Commission identify historic places of significance for future work in documentation, intensive survey/identification, and public education and collaboration. The County is especially interested in historic places related to any type of mining, agriculture, stage or railroad transportation, historic schools, and recreation (e.g. fishing, skiing). I would greatly appreciate any suggestions you may have for ways Western’s history department and students may be able to collaborate with the County Commission. If you would like to recommend historic places you feel are important to the history of the region, please place a point on the map available at: http://tiny.cc/HistoricBuildings (please limit historic place suggestions to places within City limits, County‐owned land, and private land; our survey cannot include historic places on Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management‐owned lands). Please provide feedback by May 13 and feel free to share this message and the map link with anyone interested in Gunnison County history. Don’t hesitate to contact Jon Hedlund ([email protected]) or myself if you have any suggestions or have any questions about the survey plan project. Best Regards, Abbey


4



1

Abigail Sanocki

From: Gunnison Ranchland Conservation Legacy <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 3:17 PMTo: Abigail SanockiSubject: RE: Gunnison County historic places survey plan

Hi, Abbey‐ Thank you for your email and your work with the Historic Preservation Commission. We appreciate that you would consider collaborative opportunities. I’m not sure how we can help but in looking through my client list I believe 3 ranches have previously been honored as Centennial Farms‐ Allen Ranches, Vevarelle Esty Ranch, & McLain Ranch. (Did I miss any?) It was my understanding that in order to be selected, the ranch or farm must have been in continuous family ownership for at least 100 years. While we have a few ranches that could qualify (Trampe, Spann, etc.), many ranches with historical buildings have not been in continuous family ownership that long. They have wonderful barns and outbuildings that I’m sure you’d find significant, but would not qualify in the Centennial Farms definition. You are correct in pointing out the parallels in our missions and I’d love to help. In thinking about this for several days, my suggestion would be to make materials available to landowners we work with that describe what the Historic Preservation Commission does and how it works, as well as Centennial Farms info. If a landowner doesn’t qualify for the Centennial program, I’d love to be able to communicate what they could do in collaboration with the Historic Preservation Commission. Also, I’d contact landowners we have worked with in the past to provide materials and discuss their interest. Please let me know if I’m looking at this too narrowly‐ I’m open to suggestions! Thanks, Stacy StacyMcPhailExecutiveDirectorGunnisonRanchlandConservationLegacy(970)641‐4386307N.MainSt.Suite2HGunnison,CO81230

From: Abigail Sanocki [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 12:55 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Gunnison County historic places survey plan Hello, I’m working with the Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission on a county‐wide reconnaissance survey of state and city lands to identify historic places important to the history of Gunnison County. The goal of my survey and report is to help the County Commission identify historic places of significance for future work in documentation, intensive survey/identification, and public education and collaboration. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions you may have for the Gunnison County Conservation Legacy to collaborate with the Historic Preservation Commission. Based my own preliminary review of the Conservation Legacy’s website, many of the Legacy’s goals overlap with the Historic Preservation Commission’s goals to identify places of significance, preserve the cultural landscape of the region, and improve public education. Can you provide any current examples or

2

do you foresee any potential opportunities for the Conservation Legacy to work with the Historic Preservation Commission to encourage landowners to allow researchers to document historic buildings (in association with the State’s Centennial Farms program, not necessarily for nomination to the State or National Register of Historic Places) or construct interpretive signage? Please provide feedback by May 13 and don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any suggestions or questions about the survey plan project. Best Regards, Abbey




No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7539 / Virus Database: 4556/12100 - Release Date: 04/25/16

1

Abigail Sanocki

From: Mike Pelletier <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:19 PMTo: Abigail SanockiSubject: RE: Land Preservation Fund program

Hi Abbey, The Land Preservation Funds only role is providing funds to Land Trusts. The Land Trusts are the ones who work directly with the ranchers and other land owners who are interested in putting a conservation easement on their property. The Land Trusts work very hard to minimize their intrusion into the lives of these owners, since they are generally very private people. I can bring the issue up to the Land Trusts but I suspect they would not likely even want to mention historical documenting let alone interpretive signage or landmarking to their clients. They have to be very careful not to give the wrong impression as to what they are trying to achieve. Regards, Mike Pelletier GIS Manager, Gunnison County, Colorado 970 641‐7645

From: Abigail Sanocki [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 12:58 PM To: Mike Pelletier Subject: Land Preservation Fund program Hello Mike, I’m working with the Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission on a county‐wide reconnaissance survey of state and city lands to identify historic places important to the history of Gunnison County. The goal of my survey and report is to help the County Commission identify historic places of significance for future work in documentation, intensive survey/identification, and public education and collaboration. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions you may have for the County Land Preservation Board to collaborate with the Historic Preservation Commission. Based my own preliminary review of the Land Preservation Board’s website, many of the Board’s goals overlap with the Historic Preservation Commission’s goals to preserve the cultural landscape of the region and improve public education and outreach. Can you provide any current examples or do you foresee any potential opportunities for the Land Preservation Board to work with the Historic Preservation Commission to encourage landowners to allow researchers to document historic buildings (in association with the State’s Centennial Farms program, not necessarily for nomination to the State or National Register of Historic Places) or construct interpretive signage? Please provide feedback by May 13 and don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any suggestions or questions about the survey plan project. Best Regards, Abbey

2




1

Abigail Sanocki

From: Lawrence, Justin P -FS <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:51 AMTo: Abigail SanockiSubject: FW: Gunnison County Survey Plan

Justin Lawrence, MA Archaeologist

Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre & Gunnison National Forest, Gunnison Ranger District

p: 970-642-4420 c: 970-901-3269 f: 970-642-4425 [email protected]

216 N. Colorado Gunnison, CO 81230 www.fs.fed.us

Caring for the land and serving people

From: Jordan Cooper [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:46 AM To: Lawrence, Justin P ‐FS <[email protected]>; 'David Primus' <[email protected]>; 'Jody Reeser' <[email protected]>; 'Lee Ann Mick' <[email protected]>; 'Lyda Hardy' <[email protected]>; 'Lynn Card' <[email protected]>; Mike Pelletier <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Gunnison County Survey Plan Hello Justin et alt., I found the survey to have great feedback for how we can achieve more of our preservation efforts, both within our committee and with the community. I did not find anything problematic (besides what Dave pointed out). As recommended in the report, I too would like to see more surveys conducted as well as more educational outreach, and a growth in community support—which I believe will grow with more educational outreach. With my degree in cultural resource management (CRM) and experience as a CRM contractor for FE Warren Air Force Base, I would love the opportunity to be contracted for future surveys and/or educational outreach. I’d love to talk to the committee about using me as a resource to help preserve and enrich our committee. Have a great day,

Jordan Cooper, MA Education Specialist Gunnison County Substance Abuse Prevention Project (GCSAPP)

Appendix B Previous Surveys and Previously Documented Sites (Tables B1 through B9) and

Corresponding Site Location Maps (Figures B1 through B23).

ERO Project #6503 B1


Table B1. Previously conducted surveys on Gunnison County–owned land and select population centers.

Survey ID Survey Name Contractor Year Completed

GN.PA.R3 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Mt. Gunnison Mine # 1 and its Support Facilities

Fort Lewis College 1976/2006

MC.CH.R60 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed State Highway 133 Expansion Between Hotchkiss and Paonia Reservoir Dam, Delta and Gunnison Counties, Colorado (Rs 0133(5))

CDOT 1977

MC.LM.R424 Cultural Resource Inventory Report Western Slope Carbon Exploration and Development Areas, Gunnison and Delta Counties, Colorado

Gordon and Kranzush Archaeological Consultants

1977

GN.PA.R2 Historic Resources Study of the Crested Butte, Colorado, Mining Impact Area

Long - Hoeft Architects 1980/2002

GN.FS.NR25 A Cultural Resource Inventory of Eighty Acres in Gunnison, Colorado

Western Cultural Resource Management, Inc. (WCRM)

1980/2002

GN.LM.R94 Little Land Cattle Company Right-Of-Way BLM Gunnison Field Office

1980/2006

GN.FS.R52 An Assessment of Cultural Resources in the Vicinity of Chance Gulch, Gunnison, Colorado (in Two Volumes and One Addendum)

WCRM 1980/2008

GN.FS.R55 Heritage Resource Study Series for the Mount Emmons Project of Amax Inc., Gunnison County, Colorado (Volume VI, Part IV): A Stratified Random Sample Survey for Prehistoric Sites in the Indirect Impact Areas of the Mount Emmons Project

Centuries Research, Inc. 1980/2008

GN.LM.NR29 Gunnison Highway Gravel Storage BLM-UFO 1981

GN.LM.NR4 A Cultural Resources Inventory of Drill Holes/Access Roads on the North and West Mine Lease Areas, Hawk's Nest Mine, for Western Slope Carbon, Inc., Gunnison County, Colorado

Science Applications, Inc.

1981

GN.PA.R1 A Cultural Resource Inventory of Residential Subdivisions in Gunnison County, Colorado

WCRM 1981/2008

GN.R.NR1 A Cultural Resources Clearance Survey of Three Proposed Powerline Crossing Areas on the Fire Mountain Canal, Paonia Project, Gunnison County, Colorado

Bureau of Reclamation - Western Colorado Grand Junction

1985/2006

GN.E.R1 Cultural Resource Inventory East Gold Basin Disposal Site Gunnison Umtra Site Gunnison County, Colorado

Complete Archaeological Service Association

1986/2008

GN.LM.R4 Cultural Resources Inventory Report of a 160-Acre Block for the Proposed Chance Gulch Tailings Disposal Area in Gunnison County, Colorado, for Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

Grand River Institute 1987/2006

GN.LM.R7 Cultural Resources Inventory Report of Twenty-Six Proposed Soils Test Locations in Gunnison County, Colorado, for Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.


GN.LM.R8 Cultural Resource Inventory Report of Seven Proposed Corehole/Monitor Well Locations in Gunnison County, Colorado for Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.


GN.LM.R9 Cultural Resource Inventory Report of Eleven Test-Pit Locations in Association with the Umtra Project, Chance Gulch Area, Gunnison County, Colorado for Mk-Ferguson Company





GN.LM.NR71 Cultural Resource Inventory Report for the Sanborn Creek Mine in Gunnison County, Colorado, for Somerset Mining Company


MC.E.R10 Cultural Resources Inventory for Western Area Power Administration Curecanti- Blue Mesa - Salida 115 Kv Transmission Line Access Roads Rehabilitation Project (Original and Addendum)

Alpine Archaeological Consultants

1992/2003

GN.LM.R13 Cultural Resources Inventory Report on the US Department Of Energy's Proposed Remedial Actions at Gunnison Uranium Mill Tailings Site Including the Land Fill Disposal Site, the Sixmile Lane Borrow Site, and the Tenderfoot Mountain and Chance Gulch Borrow Site Haul Routes in Gunnison County, Colorado for Mk-Ferguson Company, Three Addendums


GN.WE.R4 Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed KUBC/KKXK Radio Equipment Shelter Addition on Tenderfoot Mountain, Gunnison County, Colorado


1994/2002

GN.WE.R5 Cultural Resource Inventory of the Cellular One Utility Line and Archaeological Monitoring of the Cellular One Cellular Site on Tenderfoot Mountain, Gunnison County, Colorado


1994/2002

GN.LM.R21 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Rage in the Sage Mountain Bike Race Trail, Gunnison County, Colorado

BLM Gunnison Field Office

1995/2002

GN.OSM.R1 West Gob Disposal Area for the Somerset Mine in Gunnison County, Colorado


MC.CH.R65 An Intensive Cultural Resource Survey of Six Proposed Fence Replacement Locations in Chaffee, Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison and Lake Counties, Colorado (C R300-034)

CDOT 1996

GN.LM.R30 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Rage in the Sage II Gunnison County, Colorado


1996/2002

MC.LM.NR179 Gunnison Trails Clearance BLM Gunnison Field Office

1998

MC.E.R31 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Curecanti-Poncha 230 Kv Transmission Line Access Roads & Tower Locations, Montrose, Gunnison & Chaffee Counties, Colorado. (FEC No. 98-604, 98-606) (2 Volumes)

Foothill Engineering Consultants, Inc.

1998/2003

MC.LM.R169 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for Road Maintenance 1999 Field Season, Gunnison and Saguache Counties, Colorado


1999

GN.SHF.R1 Historic Buildings Survey, Crested Butte, Colorado 1998-1999 (SHF 98-01-113)

Front Range Research Associates

1999

GN.NP.R10 An Archaeological Survey of 623 Acres Along Colorado Forest Highway 59 Between Almont and Cottonwood Pass in Gunnison County, Colorado. Addendum Report to the Cultural Resource Survey an Archaeological Survey of 623 Acres Along Colorado Forest Highway 59 Between Almont and Cottonwood Pass in Gunnison County, Colorado (GMUG #R2001-02-04-09-002). An Addendum to an Archaeological Survey of 623 Acres Along Colorado Forest Highway 59 Between Almont and Cottonwood Pass in Gunnison County, Colorado

FS East Zone (GUNNISON) - Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests

2001

MC.LM.NR81 A Class III Cultural Resource Survey for the Elk Creek Lease Exploration Project, Gunnison and Delta Counties, Colorado (00-B-030-Oxbo-Cliii)

WCRM 2001




GN.E.NR1 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Panaview Borrow Pit #2 and the John Wilson Haul Road Borrow Pit for the Umtra Project, Gunnison, Colorado

Grand River Institute 2002

GN.E.R3 Cultural Resources Inventory Umtra Project, Gunnison, Colorado Three Borrow Areas and Bio-Stack Pile


GN.E.R4 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Riverside Cemetery Site, 5GN2566, as Part of the Umtra Project, Gunnison, Colorado.


GN.LG.NR1 Cultural Resource Inventory of the Cellular One Cellular Site on Tenderfoot Mountain, Gunnison County, Colorado


2002

GN.LG.NR3 Archaeological Survey of the Gunnison County Metropolitan Recreation District's Television Facilities Station, Tenderfoot Mountain, Gunnison County, Colorado

Western State College 2002

GN.LG.R2 Cultural Resource Inventory of the Newvector Cellular Site on Tenderfoot Mountain, Gunnison County, Colorado


2002

GN.LM.R42 A Class Three Cultural Resource Inventory of the Motorcross Enduro Bikerace Trail Course, Gunnison, Colorado


2002

GN.SHF.R11 Downtown Gunnison, Colorado Historic Buildings Survey, 2001 (SHF 01-M1-014)

City of Gunnison 2002

MC.LM.R308 Gunnison Energy Corporation's Proposed Lone Pine #1 Access Road Addition: A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory in Delta and Gunnison Counties, Colorado

Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

2003

GN.CM.NR1 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for a Proposed Waste Pile, Sedimentation Pond, and Access Roads at Oxbow Mining Corporation's Sandborn Creek Mine, Gunnison County, Colorado

Metcalf Archaeological Consultants

2004

GN.LM.NR210 River Rest Stop 1/2 Acre Square, Gunnison County, Colorado (93UB025)

BLM Uncompahgre Basin Field Office (BLM-UFO)

2004

MC.LM.R372 A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Elk Creek Lease Exploration Project Delta and Gunnison Counties, Colorado

WCRM 2004

GN.FS.R65 Cultural Resource Survey of the Woodward Access Road Easement Pitkin CCC Camp Site, Gunnison County, Colorado (GMUG R2004-020407-020)

GMUG 2005

GN.FS.R67 Tincup Fuels Treatment Project Cultural Resources Survey Report (R-2004-02-04-09-014)

GMUG 2005

GN.CH.R3 Cultural Resource Survey of State Highway 135 South of Crested Butte, Gunnison County, Colorado

Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)

2006

GN.FS.R38 A Cultural Resource Inventory for the Taylor Loop Capitol Investment Project (93-07-115)

Taylor River/Cebolla Ranger District

2006

GN.LG.R9 Historic Buildings Survey Crested Butte,Colorado-2000 (CLG 08-00-15300-015)

Town of Crested Butte 2006

MC.LM.NR172 Class III (Intensive) Cultural Resources Inventory of Ten Proposed Drill Holes and Related Access Roads on BLM Administered Lands for the Elk Creek Mine Exploration Program YR 2004-2006 in Delta and Gunnison Counties, Colorado (GRI No. 2426)(04UM61)





GN.LM.R36 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Report for the Proposed Gunnison Landfill Lease and Potential Land Transfer Area in Gunnison County, Colorado for Gunnison County Public Works


GN.FS.R131 Akron Mine Remediation Gunnison National Forest Gunnison County, Colorado (R2007 020407 043)

FS Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Forest (GMUG)

2007

GN.FS.R150 Ohio City–Pitkin Prescribed Burn Cultural Resources Survey Report (USFS R-2004-02-04-07-29)

GMUG 2009

MC.FS.R369 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Block Clearance Area for the Oxbow Mining LLC Project in Delta and Gunnison Counties, Colorado (GRI No. 2546)


GN.LM.R108 Class III Cultural Resources Inventory for the Antelope Hills Waterline Project, Gunnison County


2010

MC.LM.R611 Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed Aberdeen Quarry Trail Re-Route, Gunnison and Saguache Counties (BLM # 10GN021)


2011

GN.LM.R128 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Right of Way Renewal Projects Located on Tenderfoot Mountain, Gunnison County, Colorado (BLM # 11GN011)


2012

GN.PA.R7 A Class I and Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Gunnison Rising Project, Gunnison County

SWCA, Inc. - Denver Metro Office

2013

GN.WE.R15 The WSC Project: An Archaeological Survey for a Proposed Bike Route Between Cupola Hill and Smelter Hill, Gunnison, Gunnison County

Western State College 2013

GN.PA.R8 A Class I And Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Gunnison Rising Project, Gunnison County, Colorado

SWCA, Inc. - Denver Metro Office

2014

MC.E.R110 Intensive Cultural Resource Inventory of Western Area Power Administration's North Gunnison - Salida 115 Kv Transmission Line and Associated Access Roads, Gunnison, Saguache And Chaffee Counties

Alpine Archaeological Consultants; US Forest Service

2014

GN.FS.R174 Stratman Driveway Easement (Gunnison County) US Forest Service 2015



Table B2. OAHP file search results for select population centers in Gunnison County. Smithsonian

Number Resource Name / Type S/NRHP Evaluation Land Ownership

5GN21 Archaeological No assessment (1949) Unknown

5GN22 Archaeological No assessment (1949) Unknown

5GN28 Laveta Hotel Needs data – field (1979) Private

5GN29 Gunnison Hardware, Denver and Rio Grande Freight, Mechling Block, Gunnison Arts Center, Klinkerhaus

Listed SRHP (2000) City of Gunnison

5GN30 Vienna Bakery/ Royal Cafe/ Johnson's Restaurant, Johnson Building Gallery

Listed NRHP (2005) Private & Religious

5GN31 Webster Building, Gunnison Hotel Listed NRHP (1984) Private

5GN32 Taylor Hall Eligible – field (1979) Western State Colorado University

5GN33 Webster Building, Gunnison Hotel Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN254 Oliver Mine Needs data – officially (2006)

Gunnison County

5GN270 Marble Mill Site, Colorado Yule Marble Company

Listed NRHP (2002) Private

5GN313 Division Point, Hobo Junction No assessment (1980) Private

5GN363.8 D, L & G Railroad, Denver South Park And Pacific Railroad

Resource not evaluated in its entirety

Private

5GN890 Archaeological Eligible – officially (1999) Gunnison County

5GN1262 Beaver Creek Granite Quarry, Aberdeen Spur Railroad, Aberdeen Quarry

Eligible – officially (1999) Gunnison County

5GN1340 Tincup Needs data – field (1978) Private

5GN1344 Ohio City-Eagle City No assessment (1976) Private

5GN1346 Pitkin Depot No assessment (1976) Unknown

5GN1355 Saint Paul's Church, Marble Community Church, St. John's Episcopal Chapel

Listed NRHP Private

5GN1364 Irwin/Ruby Townsite Eligible – field (2015) Gunnison County

5GN1494 Historical Archaeology Not eligible – officially (2006)

Gunnison County

5GN1496 Historical Archaeology Eligible – field (1979) Private




5GN1500 Edgerton House, Teachout Building Listed NRHP (1998) Private

5GN1501 Harrison House Not eligible – officially (2003)

Private


5GN1503 Smith's Opera House Eligible – field (1988) Private


5GN1505 West Gunnison School Eligible – field (1979) Gunnison Hinsdale Youth Services Inc. DBA

5GN1506 Gunnison Gas-Water Eligible – field (1979) City of Gunnison & Private

5GN1507 City Manager’s House Needs data – field (1979) City of Gunnison & Private



Smithsonian Number Resource Name / Type S/NRHP Evaluation Land Ownership

5GN1508 Pioneer Park-Paragon Rural School-Hartman Post Office

Eligible – field (1979) Gunnison County Pioneer & Historical Society

5GN1511 Bowmans Locker Eligible – field (1979) Private

5GN1512 Hobo Junction No assessment (1979); destroyed/total disturbance (1979)

Gunnison County and Gunnison County Airport

5GN1513 Petri Plumbing Eligible – field (1979) Private

5GN1514 Historical Archaeology Needs data – field (1979) Private

5GN1516 Adams Ranch Needs data – field (1979) Private




5GN1560 Somerset Cemetery Eligible – officially (2006) Private

5GN1561 Auden Mine–Hawknest Mine Not eligible – officially (1992)

Gunnison County

5GN1630 Harry Fogg Clothing/ Endner Hardware, Carrolls Ltd., Circus Train

Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN1633 Fisher-Zugelder House and Smith Cottage Listed NRHP (1984) Private

5GN1635 Miller Furniture, Gambles Store, The Bookworm/ Assay Office Antiques/ Tee'z Me/ Fuller Advertising Products


5GN1636 Farrell's Restaurant Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN1646 Fishback Residence/ Lefevere Residence, Miles Residence


5GN1651 Murray House Listed SRHP (1996) Private

5GN1656 St. Peter's Rectory (Gunnison) Not eligible – field (2000) Gunnison County

5GN1659 George & Barbara Adams Residence, Wilson Residence

Eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN1660 Webster Hall Eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN1661 Ioof Building (Gunnison) Contributing to historic district – field (1979)

Private

5GN1662 Golden Rule Store, Zenith Store, Tune-Up Bike & Ski Shop


5GN1770 Treasure Mountain Railroad Needs data – field (1976) Private

5GN1835 Tenderfoot Site Listed SRHP (1994) City of Gunnison

5GN2041 Marble High School Listed NRHP (1989) Private

5GN2042 Marble Town Hall Listed NRHP (1989) Private

5GN2043 William D. Parry House Listed NRHP (1989) Private

5GN2067 Archaeological Eligible – officially (2013) Board of County Commissioners & Western State Colorado University

5GN2118 Archaeological Not eligible – field (2011) Western State Colorado University

5GN2128 Pitkin CCC Main Camp F-20-C Not eligible – officially (2004)

Western State Colorado University

5GN2176 Archaeological Needs data –officially (1991)

City of Gunnison




5GN2366 Leslie J. Savage Library (Western State College)

Listed SRHP (1993) Private

5GN2370 Bon Ton Hotel, Pitkin Hotel, Mason Block

Listed SRHP (1993) Private

5GN2441 Illian-Miller Residence Needs data – field (1991) Private

5GN2459 Woll Cabin-Niederhut Cabin No assessment (1988) Private

5GN2473 Archaeological Not eligible – field (1994) Gunnison County

5GN2477 Mountaineer Site Eligible – officially (1994) Gunnison County

5GN2549 Pitkin School Listed SRHP (1995) Pitkin Historical & Community Association

5GN2550 House At 417 N. Taylor Street Eligible – officially (1994) Private

5GN2552 Gunnison Cebolla/Taylor Ranger District Office

Eligible – officially (1997) Private

5GN2553 Gunnison Garage/Shop/Storage, Gunnison Superintendent's Warehouse

Eligible – officially (1997) Private

5GN2556 Wilson Site Eligible – officially (1995) Board of County Commissioners

5GN2557 Haxby House Listed NRHP (1996) Private

5GN2566 Riverside Cemetery Eligible – field (1995) Private

5GN2582 Archaeological Eligible – officially (1995) Private



5GN2872 Marble City State Bank Building, Marble State Bank

Listed NRHP (1999) Gunnison County

5GN2904 Archaeological Not eligible – field (1998) Gunnison County Pioneer & Historical Society

5GN2905 Archaeological Not eligible – officially (1999)

Gunnison County Pioneer & Historical Society

5GN3363.1 Blue Mesa To Salida Transmission Line - Segment

Not eligible – field (1988) Private, Gunnison County, City of Gunnison, Board of County Commissioners

5GN3364 Gunnison Substation Not eligible – officially (2002)

City of Gunnison

5GN3572 Gunnison Main Post Office, US Post Office- Gunnison


5GN3579 Heritage Books/ First Gunnison Title Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3580 Ideal Laundry, All Sports Replay Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3581 Historical Archaeology Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3582 St. Peter's Catholic Church (Gunnison) Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3583 Community Church Biebel Chapel Not eligible – field (2000) Private


5GN3585 Quinn Building, Quinn Building/ Corner Cupboard


5GN3586 Safeway/ Fleetwood Drug Store, Treasure Hunt Antiques


5GN3587 Jack's Cafe, Firebrand Delicatessen Not eligible – field (2000) Private




5GN3588 Lashbrook's Fishing Tackle, Cottonwoods Weekend And Adventure Wear


5GN3589 J.C. Penney, The Perfect Blend/ Kathy's Secretarial


5GN3590 Frasier's Luncheonette Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3591 Johnson's Sporting Goods, The Bean Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3592 Oprandis Pool And Billiards, Rocky Mountain Shirts & Shades


5GN3593 Davis Cigar Store Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3594 Montgomery Ward, Head Over Heels Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3595 Gunnison Building Loan And Savings, Silver Queen Jewelry


5GN3596 Gunnison Mercantile, E&P Sewing Emporium


5GN3597 Grubb Cleaners, Ellis Jewelry Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3598 S.J. Miller & Son Clothing, Wildwood Music


5GN3599 Oasis Cafe And Bar/ Dutcher And Seraphine, Oasis Bar/ Internet Colorado


5GN3600 Fogg's Cash Store, The Toggery Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3601 First National Bank Of Gunnison, Community First National Bank Of Gunnison


5GN3602 Gunnison Home Bakery, Chatterbox Cafe Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3603 Gunnison Bakery/ Tombling Jewelry/ Patterson Jewelry, Hair It Is/ Ultimate Gamez


5GN3604 Globe Publishing Building, Fair Deal Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3605 Hamlin & Webster Dry Goods, Booma-Rang/ Pat's Screen Printing


5GN3606 Miller Furniture, Pizza Mountain Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3607 Unique Theater, Summit Records Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3608 Western Plumbing & Heating Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3609 French Electric Cleaners Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3610 Western Slope Liquor/ Mil Davis Agency, Wells Fargo Bank Loan Office


5GN3611 Movie Marvels Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3612 Miller Furniture Eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3613 Hanson Bowling/ Little Super, Colorado Budget Furniture



5GN3615 Mergelman Residence, Kirk Mueller Insurance


5GN3616 M.J. Verzuh Agency, Cliggett & Associates


5GN3617 Verzuh Residence, Tea House Residence Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3618 Alexander House/ Card Chiropractic Office


5GN3619 Mauer Lumber Company, Peterson Lumber Co., Clarke Excavation Company


5GN3620 Elks Lodge (Gunnison) Not eligible – field (2000) Private




5GN3621 John Q. Adams Residence, Williams Residence


5GN3623 First Baptist Church (Gunnison) Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3624 Van Sunderlin Residence, Misty Mountain Floral


5GN3625 Wright Mobil Service, Gunnison Sporting Goods


5GN3626 Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph/ Telephone Exchange, Rose Petal Out West


5GN3627 Blackstock Building, Buckhorn Trading Company


5GN3628 Rainbow Route Garage, The Mall Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3629 Gavett & Scott Building/ Hotel Columbine, Columbine Victorian Hotel


5GN3630 Rainbow Apartments Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3631 Christian Science Church (Gunnison), Gunnison Parks And Recreation


5GN3632 H&R Block Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3633 Mergelman Building, The Print Shop/ Gunnison Valley Tack & Saddlery


5GN3634 Dale Pontiac Garage, Paper Clip/ The Western World


5GN3635 Miller Furniture Warehouse Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3636 Miller Funeral Home, Lachot Funeral Home/ Last Resorts/ Today Realty


5GN3637 Gunnison Grade School/ Blackstock School, Gunnison County Annex

Eligible – field (2000) Gunnison County

5GN3639 Gunnison Courier, Gunnison Country Times


5GN3640 Adams Brothers Garage, Alpine Acupuncture


5GN3641 Palmer Residence, Harriman Residence Not eligible – field (2000) Private

5GN3681 Gunnison Municipal Building, Gunnison Town Hall, Gunnison City Hall

Listed SRHP (1998) City of Gunnison

5GN3864 Denver & Rio Grande Steam Locomotive No. 268 And Tender

Eligible – field (2002) Gunnison County

5GN4626 Ohio City Cemetery No assessment Unknown

5GN4726 Historical Archaeology Not eligible – officially (2006)

Gunnison County




5GN5022 Pitkin Presbyterian Church, Pitkin Community Church

Needs data - officially (2005)

Religious

5GN5130.2 Floresta Branch of the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad


5GN5211 Levi House, Shipman Home Needs data – officially (2008)

Private

5GN5313 Archaeological Eligible – field (2008) Private







5GN5401 President's Campus House (at Western State College)

Not eligible – officially (2009)

Private

5GN5469 Archaeological Eligible – officially (2012) City of Gunnison & Gunnison County

5GN5756 US Steel Train Loading System, US Steel Coal Loader

No assessment (1975) Gunnison County

5GN5833 Ohio City Town Hall No assessment (2011) Private

5GN5953 Archaeological Eligible – field (2011) Western State Colorado University

5GN6110 Unknown Not eligible – officially (2013)

Private



Table B3. Gunnison County Register of Historic Landmarks and associated Smithsonian numbers and SRHP/NRHP evaluations. Table sorted by date of local designation. Smithsonian

Number Resource Name N/SRHP Evaluation; Landmark Designation

5GN1262 Aberdeen Quarry / Beaver Creek Granite Quarry / Aberdeen Spur Railroad

Eligible - officially (1999); Gunnison County Landmark (1996)

5GN5833 Ohio City Town Hall No evaluation given on form (2011); Gunnison County Landmark (1996)

5GN99 Sewell’s Gulch Gravesite Eligible – officially (1996); Gunnison County Landmark (1997)

5GN3752 Spencer School Listed SRHP (1996); Gunnison County Landmark (1997) 5GN365 Rock Culverts & Railbed Trail Eligible – officially (2015); Gunnison County Landmark

(1998) N/A Great Wall Gunnison County Landmark (1998) 5GN1190 Fairview School House Eligible – field (1979); Gunnison County Landmark

(1999) 5GN30 Johnson Building Listed NRHP (2005) ; Gunnison County Landmark

(2000) 5GN817 Chance Gulch Site Listed – NRHP (2006); Gunnison County Landmark

(2000) 5GN1503 Smith Opera House Eligible – field (1988); Gunnison County Landmark

(2000) 5GN2370 Bon Ton Hotel Listed – SRHP (1993); Gunnison County Landmark

(2000) 5GN2477 Mountaineer Site Eligible – officially (1994); Gunnison County Landmark

(2000) 5GN3864 Narrow Gauge Railroad Exhibit Eligible – field (2002); Gunnison County Landmark

(2000) N/A Bomber B-24E Crash Site Gunnison County Landmark (2000) 5GN1314 Dorchester Guard Station Eligible – officially (1997); Gunnison County Landmark

(2001) N/A Ohio City Jail Gunnison County Landmark (2001) 5GN3900 Star Mine Listed SRHP (2003); Gunnison County Landmark (2003) N/A Ohio City School Gunnison County Landmark (2004) 5GN1505 8th Street School / West Gunnison

School Eligible – field (1979); Gunnison County Landmark (2008)

N/A Clark Ranch House Gunnison County Landmark (2012) N/A Clark Ranch Barn Gunnison County Landmark (2015) 5GN1735 Alpine Guard Station Eligible – officially (2009); Gunnison County Landmark 5GN2129 Fairview Peak Fire Lookout Eligible – officially (1997); Gunnison County Landmark N/A Water Tank at Gothic Mill Gunnison County Landmark N/A American Legion Post #54 Gunnison County Landmark



Table B4. Previously documented railroad transportation-related resources in Gunnison County. Smithsonian

Number Resource Name / Type N/SRHP Evaluation

5GN313 Division Point, Hobo Junction No assessment (1980) 5GN363 Denver South Park & Pacific Railroad Resource not evaluated in its entirety 5GN470

Kubler Branch Railroad (Denver, South Park, And Pacific Railroad)

Eligible – field (1979)

5GN1193 Shed built by Colorado Southern Railroad Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1262 Beaver Creek Granite Quarry, Aberdeen Spur

Railroad, Aberdeen Quarry Eligible – officially (1999)

5GN1352 Railroad Loading Ramps Needs data – field (1979) 5GN1512 Hobo Junction No assessment (1979); destroyed/total

disturbance (1979) 5GN1661.2 D&RGW Railroad Trestle and Associated Track

Segment Not eligible - field (2001)

5GN1664 Gateview Site/Marion Railroad Camp/Prehistoric Site

Needs data – field (1982)

5GN1766 Curecanti Depot No assessment (1976); destroyed/total disturbance (1976)

5GN1770 Treasure Mountain Railroad Needs data – field (1976) 5GN1973 Denver South Park and Pacific Railroad Grade on

Ohio Creek Not eligible – field (1978)

5GN1976 Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Grade Resource not evaluated in its entirety 5GN2008 Former boxcar now used as pedestrian bridge Not eligible- officially (1990) 5GN2215.1 Crested Butte Railroad Needs data – officially (1992) 5GN2598 Alpine Tunnel Historic District Listed – NRHP (1996) 5GN3112 Crested Butte Denver & Rio Grande Railroad

Depot, Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Stationhouse, High Country Citizens' Alliance

Listed - NRHP (2001)

5GN3864 Denver & Rio Grande Steam Locomotive No. 268 and Tender

Eligible – field (2002)

5GN4179 Cebolla D &RG Railroad Station Not eligible – field (1978) 5GN4726 Railroad camp Not eligible – officially (2006) 5GN5130 Floresta Railroad Branch Resource not evaluated in its entirety 5GN5219 Rogers Tank Historic Railroad Site Eligible – officially (2015) 5GN5756 US Steel Train Loading System, US Steel Coal

Loader No assessment (1975)

5GN5848 Rio Grande Railroad, Anthracite Spur Resource not evaluated in its entirety



Table B5. Previously documented stage/wagon road-related resources in Gunnison County. Smithsonian


5GN468 Pioneer Toll Road Resource not evaluated in its entirety 5GN1349 Barnum (Stage Stop) No assessment (1976) 5GN1688 Hoagland's Stage Stop, Hoagland's Stage Station,

Midway Station Needs data - field (1983)

5GN1771 Taylor Pass Stage Road Needs data – field (1985) 5GN1772 Pearl Pass Stage Road Needs data – officially (1992);

destroyed/total disturbance (1992) 5GN2664 Old Stage Road Needs data – officially (1997) 5GN3709 Trimble Stage Stop Cabin Eligible – officially (2008) 5GN3838 Old Black Sage Pass Road Not eligible – officially (2004) 5GN3955

Whitepine Wagon Road Alignment and Historic Debris Dump

Not eligible – officially (2004)

5GN6070 Johnson Stage Station~Carr Ranch

Eligible - officially (2014); eligible - officially (2013)



Table B6. Previously documented ranches and homesteads in Gunnison County. Smithsonian


5GN37 Homestead Not eligible – officially (1996) 5GN246 Soderquist Site~Soderquist Ranch Eligible – officially (1979) 5GN440 Farnum Gulch Homestead Needs data – field (1979) 5GN445 Helene’s Site Not eligible – field (1979) 5GN460 Pastoral Site Eligible – officially (2004) 5GN1117 Esty Ranch Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1131 Mixtle Ranch Not eligible – field (1979) 5GN1142 Anders Ranch Needs data – field (1979) 5GN1143 Cottonhurst Ranch Not eligible – field (1979) 5GN1147 Y-Ranch Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1148 Danni Ranch Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1158 Rozman Ranch Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1159 Agricultural complex Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1161 Halazon Ranch Needs data – field (1979) 5GN1166 Ralph R. Allen & Sons, Inc. (Centennial Farm) No assessment (1991); eligible -

field (1979) 5GN1179 Robbins Roost~Robbins E W Ranch Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1180 Headlee Ranch No 1 Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1181 Horse barn and habitation Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1182 Elze-Ochs Barn Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1184 Headlee Ranch No 2 Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1191 Moores Ranch Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1192 Redden Ranch Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1196 Campbell Ranch Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1197 Little No 3 Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1199 Agricultural complex Needs data – field (1979) 5GN1200 Agricultural complex Not eligible – field (1979) 5GN1203 Mill Creek Ranch Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1204 Dollard Ranch Not eligible – field (1979) 5GN1205 Agricultural complex Not eligible – field (1979) 5GN1208 Castleton Ranch Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1209 Headlee Ranch No 3 Needs data – field (1979) 5GN1217 Wilson John Ranch Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1219 Agricultural complex Not eligible – field (1979) 5GN1220 Baldwin Ranch Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1221 Buffington Ranch Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1222 Sanderson No 2 Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1223 Sanderson No 1 Needs data – field (1979) 5GN1226 Agricultural complex Not eligible – field (1979) 5GN1233 Harry Miller Place Not eligible – field (1979) 5GN1234 Guerreri Needs data – field (1979) 5GN1235 Guerreri No 2 Needs data – field (1979) 5GN1236 Guerreri No 3 Needs data – field (1979) 5GN1275 Homestead Eligible – officially (2000) 5GN1351 Agricultural complex Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1391 Hildreth Ranch Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1418 Agricultural complex Eligible – field (1980) 5GN1421 Agricultural complex Eligible – field (1980) 5GN1422 Agricultural complex Eligible – field (1980)



Smithsonian


5GN1423 Root cellar, barn, shed, privy, foundation Eligible – field (1980) 5GN1424 Barn, shed, house, privy Eligible – field (1980) 5GN1425 Homestead Not eligible - officially (2004) 5GN1425 Homestead Not eligible – officially (2004) 5GN1516 Adams Ranch Needs data – field (1979) 5GN1517 Dos Rios Ranch~Hartman Mansion Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1518 Spann Ranch Needs data – field (1979) 5GN1523 Thornton Ranch, Mountain Meadow Ranch Eligible – field (1997) 5GN1524 Ankemann Ranch Needs data – field (1979) 5GN1557 Agricultural complex Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1697 Whinnery Ranch Site Needs data – field (1983) 5GN1726 Dwyer Homestead Not eligible – officially (1983) 5GN1759 Homestead/Ranch Not eligible – officially (1987) 5GN1950 Jones Homestead Not eligible – officially (2002) 5GN1951 Parlin Ranch Not eligible – field (1978) 5GN1955 Sugar Creek Cabin, Willow Creek Ranch Not eligible – field (1987) 5GN1960 Camp Creek Ranch Not eligible – field (1987) 5GN1970 Wood Gulch Ranch Not eligible – field (1987) 5GN1978 Sillsville Ranch Not eligible - field (1978) 5GN2114 Homestead Not eligible – officially (1990) 5GN2181 Vevarelle Esty Farm (Centennial Farm) No assessment (1991) 5GN243 Arrowhead Ranch Site Needs data – field (1978) 5GN2443 Hotchkiss Ranches, Inc. (Centennial Farm) No assessment (1989) 5GN2445 Flick Ranch of Quartz Creek, Colorado

(Centennial Farm) No assessment (1992)

5GN2463 Ranch Not eligible – field (1978) 5GN2467 Agricultural complex Not eligible – field (1978) 5GN2795 Cabin Not eligible – officially (1998) 5GN2796 Homestead Not eligible – officially (1998) 5GN2797 Homestead Not eligible – officially (1998) 5GN2798 Ranch complex Needs data – officially (1998) 5GN2800 Agricultural complex Not eligible – officially (1998) 5GN2896 Homestead Needs data – officially (1999) 5GN2994 Cozetto Residence, Renegade Ranch Within existing district –

noncontributing (2002) 5GN3131 Nash Residence/Hillside Ranch House Within existing district –

noncontributing (2002) 5GN3527 Oohs & Ahs, Malensek Ranch Building Not eligible – field (2000); within

existing district – noncontributing (2000)

5GN3903 Elk Creek Ranch (Centennial Farm) No assessment (2002) 5GN4949 Homestead Needs data – officially (2009) 5GN4976 Homestead Needs data – officially (2009) 5GN5072 Homestead Needs data – officially (2009) 5GN5101 Grey Ranch Eligible – officially (2011) 5GN6070 Johnson Stage Station~Carr Ranch Eligible - officially (2014); eligible -

officially (2013) 5GN6072 Mclain Ranch (Centennial Farm) No assessment (2011)



Table B7. Historical schools in Gunnison County. Smithsonian


5GN1121 Paragon School Site Not eligible – field (1979) 5GN1144 Jack Cabin School Needs data – field (1979) 5GN1153 Glacier School Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1190 Fairview School Gunnison County Landmark (1999);

eligible – field (1979) 5GN1206 Castleton School Eligible – field (1979 5GN1410 Rimrock School, Redtop School, Rim Rock

School Listed - NRHP (2000)

5GN1419 Baldwin-Kubler School Eligible – field (1980) 5GN1505 West Gunnison School Eligible – field (1979); Gunnison

County Landmark (2008) 5GN1508 Pioneer Park~Paragon Rural School~Hartman Post

Office Eligible – field (1979)

5GN1979 Doyleville Schoolhouse Listed – SRHP (1995) 5GN2041 Marble High School Listed - NRHP (1989) 5GN2549 Pitkin School Listed – SRHP (1995) 5GN3030 Crested Butte School, Alpine Outside, Gifts and

Things Within existing district – contributing (2002)

5GN3207 Crested Butte High School, Crested Butte Town Hall

Within existing district – contributing (2002)

5GN3208 Old Rock Schoolhouse, Crested Butte School, Crested Butte Library

Within existing district - contributing (1999)

5GN3571 Ruland Junior High School Not eligible – officially (1987) 5GN3637 Gunnison Grade School/ Blackstock School,

Gunnison County Annex Eligible – field (2000)

5GN3752 Spencer School Listed SRHP (1996); Gunnison County Landmark (1997)

Schools ERO identified on historical maps that have not yet been evaluated/documented.

Name Location

Colorado Outward Bound School SW ¼ of SW ¼ S19 T11S R87W 6th Ohio City School NE ¼ of NW ¼ S26 T50N R3E NM Parlin School SW ¼ of SW ¼ S14 T49N R2E NM Powderhorn School SE ¼ of NW ¼ S3 T46N R2W NM Quartz Creek School NW ¼ of NE ¼ S8 T49N R3E NM School Formerly Near Blue Mesa Road current location/condition unknown School Near Fourth of July Creek NW ¼ of SE ¼ S2 T45N R4W NM School Near Muddy Creek NW ¼ of SE ¼ S17 T12S R89W 6th Whitepine School NE ¼ of NW ¼ S34 T50N R5E NM



Table B8. Cemeteries and graves in Gunnison County. Smithsonian

Number Resource Name N/SRHP Evaluation

5GN35 Heilmans Grave Not eligible – field (1981) 5GN99 Charles E. Sewell's Grave and Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Eligible – officially (1996) 5GN1139 Jack’s Cabin Cemetery Not eligible – field (1979) 5GN1342 Tomichi Cemetery No assessment (1966) 5GN1363 Cemetery – Irwin (Old Irwin Cemetery) Not eligible – field (1979) 5GN1369 Crested Butte Cemetery Eligible – field (1979) 5GN1509 Gunnison Cemetery Needs data – field (1979) 5GN1560 Somerset Cemetery Eligible –officially (1979) 5GN1767 Parlin Cemetery No assessment (1966) 5GN1768 Marble Cemetery No assessment (1966) 5GN2115 Grave of Pilot W. Vincent Noice Not eligible – officially (1990) 5GN2169 Grave near Lily Lake Needs data – field (1991) 5GN2187 Sapinero Cemetery Not eligible – field (2002) 5GN2566 Riverside Cemetery Eligible – field (1995) 5GN3823 Grave Markers near Quakey Mountain Not eligible – field (2002) 5GN4121 Tincup Boothill Cemetery Not eligible – officially (2004) 5GN4615 White Pine Cemetery No assessment (2007) 5GN4616 Cebolla Or Lower Powderhorn Cemetery No assessment (2007) 5GN4617 Powderhorn Cemetery No assessment 5GN4618 Old Doyleville Cemetery Section II No assessment 5GN4619 Old Doyleville Cemetery Section I No assessment (2007) 5GN4620 Doyleville Cemetery No assessment (2007) 5GN4621 Pitkin Cemetery No assessment 5GN4622 Grave near Island Lake No assessment 5GN4623 Baldwin Cemetery No assessment 5GN4624 Palisade Cemetery No assessment 5GN4625 Tincup Cemetery No assessment 5GN4626 Ohio City Cemetery No assessment 5GN4627 Vulcan Cemetery No assessment 5GN4628 Chance - Iris Cemetery No assessment

Cemeteries or graves ERO identified on historical maps that have not yet been evaluated/documented.

Name Location Fairview Cemetery NW ¼ OF SE ¼ S36 T50N R8E NM Irwin Cemetery NW ¼ OF SE ¼ S10 T14S R87W 6th Cemetery near Tincup NE ¼ of NE ¼ S18 T15S R81W 6th Cemetery near Tincup SE ¼ of NE ¼ S18 T15S R81W 6th Cemetery near Tomichi Creek SW ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ S10 T48N R3E NM Grave near Hidden Lake SE ¼ of SE ¼ of SW ¼ of SW ¼ S1 T45N R2W NM Grave near Sylvester Gulch W ½ of SW ¼ S10 T13S R90W 6th Illinois Gulch Cemetery SW ¼ of SW ¼ of SW ¼ S23 T50N R3E NM Rifle Range Cemetery E ½ S34 T50N R1W NM Cemetery Near Tomichi Creek/Akron Mine E ½ of NE ¼ of SE ¼ S13 T46N R4W NM



Table B9. Previously documented resources in Gothic. Smithsonian


5GN1525 Gothic City No assessment (2005) 5GN5128 Gothic Town Hall Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2003) 5GN5402 Swallow's Nest Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5403 Oh-Be-Joyful House Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5404 Ore House, Botany and Ecology Laboratory Eligible – field (2005) 5GN5405 Assay Office, Mammal and Parasitology

Laboratory Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5406 Beanpod Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5407 Gothic City Post Office, Old Dining Hall Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5408 Ruby Cabin Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5409 Lead King Cabin Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5410 North Pole Cabin Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5411 Sylvanite Cabin Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5412 Virginia Cabin Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5413 Judd Falls Cabin Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5414 East River Cabin Contributing to district – field (2009) 5GN5415 Bellview Cabin Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5416 Snowmass Cabin Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5417 White Rock Cabin Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5418 Crystal House Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5419 Richards Cabin, Murray House Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5420 J.C. Johnson House Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5421 Macleod House, Mcleod Cabin Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5422 Barclay House Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5423 V.A. Johnson Laboratory Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5424 Savoy House Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5425 R.K. Enders Lecture Hall Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009)



Smithsonian


5GN5426 Pelton House Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5427 Schofield House Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5428 Langenheim House Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5429 Tincup House Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5430 Treasury House Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5431 Ehrlich House Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5432 Bizer House Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5433 Baker House Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5434 Remington House Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5435 Red Rock House Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5436 Enders House Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5437 A.N. Murray Laboratory Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009); moved (2010)

5GN5438 Weese Laboratory Contributing to district – field (1979); no assessment (2009)

5GN5439 B.D. Barclay Laboratory Contributing to district – field (1979) 5GN5440 J.C. Johnson Library Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5441 Hull House Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5442 Forest Queen Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5443 Avery House Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5444 Hunter House Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5445 Hull Cabin Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5446 Paradise Cabin Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5447 Levi House Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5448 Willey House Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5449 Wash House Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5450 Storehouse Contributing to district – field (1979);

no assessment (2009) 5GN5821 A.N. Murray Laboratory (new location) Moved (2010); not eligible – field

(2010)


B8

B9

B7

B6B5

B4B3B2

B1

B11

B22

B10

B16

B21

B20

B18

B19

B15 B17B14

B12 B13

B23

Prepared for: Gunnison County HistoricPreservation CommissionFile: 6503 Figure Bs - Index.mxd (GS)May 11, 2016 ±

Index


0 46,00023,000 Feet

COLORADO

Location

1:552,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs

- Inde

x.mxd

Historic Resource Survey Plan - Gunnison County, ColoradoSelected TownGunnison CountyCity of Gunnison

(

((

(

( (

(

See Figure B1a5GN2441

Prepared for: Gunnison County HistoricPreservation CommissionFile: 6503 Figure Bs.mxd (GS)June 12, 2016 ±

Figure B1Project Location


0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 25-27, T11S, R88W; 6th PMUSGS Marble, CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1978)

SiteApproximateSite Location

Selected TownGunnison CountyCity of Gunnison

(

Carbonate Creek Dr

Main St

Silver St

Marble StGallo Hill Dr

Village Dr

E3rd

StW3rd

St

1stS

t

E 2nd

S t

Park St

State St

State Dr

Park St

W7th

StW8th

St

W4th

St

E1st

St

Hill St

Marble Quarry Rd

Lichen Ct

OnyxLn

5GN270

5GN13555GN2872

5GN1770

5GN2557

5GN2041

5GN2042 5GN2043

5GN1774

Prepared for: Gunnison County HistoricPreservation CommissionFile: 6503 Figure Bs - Insets.mxd (GS)May 11, 2016 ±

Figure B1aProject Location

0 700350 FeetImage Source: USDA FSA, 2015 1:8,400

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs

- Inset

s.mxd

Historic Resource Survey Plan - Gunnison County, ColoradoSiteApproximateSite Location


5GN15605GN5756




0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 1 and 12, T13S, R91W; Sections 4-9, 17, and 18, T13S, R90W; 6th PMUSGS Somerset, CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1976)



5GN254

5GN4726

5GN1561

5GN1494




0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 2-4 and 9-11, T13S, R90W; 6th PMUSGS Somerset, CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1976)






0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSection 7, T13S, R89W; 6th PMUSGS Somerset and Paonia Reservoir, CO Quadrangles (1:24,000, 1976, 1967)



5GN1364

5GN13645GN1364

5GN1364




0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSection 34, T13S, R87W; Section 3, T14S, R87W; 6th PMUSGS Mount Axtell, CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1964)






0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 22 and 26, T13S, R86W; 6th PMUSGS Oh-be-joyful and Gothic, CO Quadrangles (1:24,000, 1973, 1979)



(

((

See Figure B7a




0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 34 and 35, T13S, R86W; Sections 2 and 3, T13S, R90W; 6th PMUSGS Crested Butte CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1979)



(

(

(

6t hS t

Butte Ave

Whiterock Ave

Belleview Ave

Sopris Ave

Elk Ave

Maroon Ave4th

St

3r dSt

2nd S

t

1st S

t

Teocalli Ave

9thSt

Journeys End Road8th

St

7t hS t

5 thSt

Red Lady Ave

Peanut Lake Rd

Trea

sury Hi l

l Rd

Kebler Pass Rd

Ruths

Rd

5GN2715GN3112

5GN3210

5GN271

5GN1772.1

5GN2179

5GN2215.1

5GN1161

5GN3112

5GN17725GN1367

5GN3210

5GN5457

5GN3371

5GN3370

5GN271.8

5GN3558




Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs

- Inset

s.mxd

Historic Resource Survey Plan - Gunnison County, Colorado Site

ApproximateSite LocationSelected TownGunnison CountyCity of Gunnison

5GN1772.1

5GN1772.1




0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSection 12, T14S, R86W; Section 7, T14S, R85W; 6th PMUSGS Crested Butte CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1979)






0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 15 and 22, T15S, R84W; 6th PMUSGS Almont CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1979)






0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 11 and 12, T51N, R1E; New Mexico PMUSGS Almont CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1979)



5GN2459

5GN1340




0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 7, 8, and 18, T15S, R81W; 6th PMUSGS Tincup and Cumberland Pass CO Quadrangles (1:24,000, 1983, 1983)






0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSection 22, T50N, R1W; New Mexico PMUSGS Gunnison CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1979)






0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSection 13, T50N, R1W; Sections 19 and 20, T50N, R1E; New Mexico PMUSGS Gunnison CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1979)



(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

See Figure B14a

5GN6110

5GN2550

5GN3363.1

5GN3363.1

5GN3363.15GN3363.1

5GN3363.1

5GN2566

5GN3363.1

5GN32

5GN313

5GN3363.1

5GN1522

5GN1506

5GN3364

5GN15075GN1505

5GN2366

5GN1512

5GN1508

5GN1519

5GN1514

5GN1521

5GN3864

5GN3322

5GN3321

5GN2366




0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 23, 25, 26, and 34-36, T50N, R1W; Sections 30 and 31, T50N, R1E;Sections 1-3 and 10 T49N, R1W; Sections 6 and 7, T49N, R1E; New Mexico PM



USGS Gunnison CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1979)

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

Tomichi Ave

San Juan Ave

New York Ave

Telle

rSt

Gunnison Ave

Main

St

Wisc

onsi n

St

Ruby Ave

Gothic Ave

IowaS

t

S pru

ceSt

14th

S t

San Juan Ave

Evans Ave

10th

St

Bidwell Ave

12th

St

11th

St

Rio Grande Ave

Virginia Ave

Georgia Ave

Ohio Ave

Denver Ave

Color

a do S

t

Arthur Ave

Boule

vard

St

5GN29

5GN1651

5GN1633

5GN1500

5GN5401

5GN2552

5GN28

5GN29

5GN1511

5GN3611

5GN5211

5GN1501

5GN1502

5GN1504

5GN1496

5GN1498

5GN1503

5GN1513

5GN1497

5GN1499

5GN1656

5GN3613

5GN3637

5GN35825GN3612

5GN3615

5GN3580

5GN3623

5GN1500

5GN3639

5GN1636

5GN36415GN1646

5GN25535GN3628

5GN3579

5GN3634

5GN3572

5GN3619

5GN3583

5GN36205GN1659

5GN36245GN3625

5GN1516

5GN3584

5GN1633

5GN1651

5GN3581

5GN3621 5GN36185GN36175GN3616

5GN3681

5GN3630

5GN3640

5GN3614

5GN3603, 5GN3606, 5GN1662, 5GN3585, 5GN3592, 5GN3595, 5GN3597, 5GN3599, 5GN3593,5GN3596, 5GN3598, 5GN3635, 5GN3600, 5GN1630, 5GN3601, 5GN3607, 5GN3589, 5GN1635,5GN3602, 5GN3604, 5GN1660, 5GN3605, 5GN3608, 5GN3609, 5GN31, 5GN3610, 5GN3631,5GN3632, 5GN3681, 5GN30, 5GN3587, 5GN3586, 5GN3591, 5GN3590, 5GN30, 5GN3633,5GN3636, 5GN3594, 5GN3635, 5GN3588, 5GN33, 5GN3627, 5GN3629, 5GN3626

5GN1661




Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs

- Inset

s.mxd

Historic Resource Survey Plan - Gunnison County, Colorado Site

ApproximateSite LocationSelected TownGunnison CountyCity of Gunnison

(

5GN3321




0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 3, 8, 10, and 18, T49N, R1W; New Mexico PMUSGS Gunnison CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1979)






0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSection 11, 12, and 14, T49N, R1W; Section 7, T49N, R1E; New Mexico PMUSGS Gunnison CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1979)






0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 30 and 31, T50N, R1E; Sections 5, 6, and 7,T49N, R1E; New Mexico PM



USGS Gunnison CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1979)




0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 3, 10, 11, 14, and 15, T49N, R1E; New Mexico PMUSGS Signal Peak CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1979)



5GN1262




0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 4 and 5, T48N, R1W; New Mexico PMUSGS Iris NW CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1979)



5GN1344

5GN5833




0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 23 and 26, T50N, R3E; New Mexico PMUSGS Pitkin CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1979)



(

(

( 5GN1346

5GN2128

5GN363.8

5GN50225GN2365

5GN2370

5GN2549




0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 9 and 10, T50N, R4E; New Mexico PMUSGS Pitkin CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1979)



(((




0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSection 34, T50N, R5E; New Mexico PMUSGS Whitepine CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1983)



(

5GN1979




0 2,0001,000 Feet1:24,000

Path:

P:\65

00 Pr

ojects

\6503

Gun

nison

Coun

ty Histo

ric Res

ource

Surve

y Plan

\Map

s\650

3 Figu

re Bs.

mxd

Gunnison County Historic Resource Survey PlanSections 2 and 11, T48N, R3E; New Mexico PMUSGS Doyleville CO Quadrangle (1:24,000, 1979)



Appendix C Table of Cultural Resources Identified During Windshield Survey

ERO Project #6503 C1


Table C1. Cultural Resources identified during windshield survey. Name Address Resource Type / Architectural Style Date of

Construction Survey Plan Prioritization

Gunnison Savings & Loan 303 N. Main Street, Gunnison

Commerce, financial institution / Modern Movement 1947 Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of post–WWII resources in and around the City of Gunnison

Denver & Rio Grande Depot 611 S. Main Street, Gunnison

Transportation, rail-related, depot/ Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

1885, 1935 High; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of abandoned railroad grades

Chipeta Hall - Western State Colorado University

N. Teller Street, Gunnison

Education, education-related / Modern Spanish Colonial Revival

1950 est. Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of post-WWII resources in and around the City of Gunnison

Ute Hall - Western State Colorado University

N. Pitkin Street, Gunnison

Education, education-related / Spanish Colonial Revival 1950 est. Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of post-WWII resources in and around the City of Gunnison

Crawford Hall - Western State Colorado University

E. Gothic Avenue, Gunnison

Education, college / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

1940 est. Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of post-WWII resources in and around the City of Gunnison

Taylor Hall - Western State Colorado University

N. Adams Street, Gunnison

Education, college / Mixed late 19th century and 20th Century Revivals

1911, 1940, 2000s

Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of post-WWII resources in and around the City of Gunnison

Kelley Hall - Western State Colorado University

Escalate Drive, Gunnison

Education, college / Modern 1960 est. Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of post-WWII resources in and around the City of Gunnison

Hurst Hall - Western State Colorado University


Education, college / Modern 1960 est. Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of post-WWII resources in and around the City of Gunnison

Escalante Complex - Western State Colorado University


Education, education-related / Modern 1960 est. Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of post-WWII resources in and around the City of Gunnison

Kelly Dairy / Kelly Building 302 W. Tomichi Avenue, Gunnison

Commerce, specialty store / Mixed: Quonset w/ modern false storefront

1928, 1988 Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of post-WWII resources in and around the City of Gunnison

Vacant residence 512 W. Virginia Avenue, Gunnison

Domestic, single dwelling; possible health care, hospital; vacant / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

1920 est. High; Selective intensive/selective reconnaissance survey of East and West Downtown Gunnison

Stone block garage 901 W. New York Avenue, Gunnison

Domestic, secondary structure, garage / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

1935 High; Selective intensive/selective reconnaissance survey of East and West Downtown Gunnison

Western State Colorado University Student Union

620 S. 9th Street, Gunnison

Education; commerce, organizational / Rustic 1960, 1976 Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of post-WWII resources in and around the City of Gunnison

Brick Commercial Building 708 W. New York Ave., Gunnison

Commerce / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

1966, 1974 Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of post-WWII resources in and around the City of Gunnison



Name Address Resource Type / Architectural Style Date of Construction Survey Plan Prioritization

Residence 315 S. Teller Street, Gunnison

Domestic, single dwelling / Modern Movement 1955, 1968 Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of post-WWII resources in and around the City of Gunnison

Parlin Post Office / railroad stop

51387 US-50, Parlin

Government, post office; transportation, rail-related / No style

1906, 1965 High; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of abandoned railroad grades High; Comprehensive reconnaissance/selective intensive survey to identify architectural and structural resources on all properties owned by Gunnison County or a municipality

Denver South Park & Pacific Railroad Depot & Section House

205 Roller Street, Ohio City

Transportation, rail-related, depot; domestic, multiple dwelling / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

1881-1890 est., 1930

High; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of abandoned railroad grades.

Cebolla Sportsmans Hotel 93 CR 13, Gunnison

Domestic, hotel / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

1905 est. Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of historical recreation-related resources

Pitkin Assay Office 315 Main Street, Pitkin

Commerce; dwelling / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

1881-1900, 1961

Medium; Comprehensive intensive architectural survey of Pitkin

Pitkin Post Office 419 Main Street, Pitkin

Government, post office / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

1885, 1965

Medium; Comprehensive intensive architectural survey of Pitkin

Silver Plume General Store 204 9th Street Commerce / No style 1964, 1980 Medium; Comprehensive intensive architectural survey of Pitkin

Fuyu Farms US Highway 50, Parlin

Agriculture, agricultural field; domestic, single dwelling; vacant / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

Late 1800s est. High; Selective intensive survey of historical agricultural complexes along recreational and transportation corridors

Santarelli Hotel, Sapinero fishing cabin

1809 County Road 727, Gunnison

Recreation and culture, outdoor recreation / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

Early 1900s est.

Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of historical recreation-related resources

Gunnison-Crested Butte Tourism Association

202 E. Georgia Avenue, Gunnison

Government, government office / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

1920, 1979 High; Comprehensive reconnaissance/selective intensive survey to identify architectural and structural resources on all properties owned by Gunnison County or a municipality

Gunnison County Family Services

225 N. Pine Street, Gunnison

Government, government office / Modern 1950, 2000 High; Comprehensive reconnaissance/selective intensive survey to identify architectural and structural resources on all properties owned by Gunnison County or a municipality

Gunnison County Fairgrounds 275 S. Spruce Street, Gunnison

Recreation and culture, fair / No style 1960 High; Comprehensive reconnaissance/selective intensive survey to identify architectural and structural resources on all properties owned by Gunnison County or a municipality

Gunnison County Health Education Center

300 E. Denver Avenue, Gunnison

Governmental, government office; healthcare / Modern 1955, 1968 High; Comprehensive reconnaissance/selective intensive survey to identify architectural and structural resources on all properties owned by Gunnison County or a municipality




Rocky Mountain Rose Shopping Center

322 E. Denver Avenue, Gunnison

Commerce / Modern 1964, 1970 Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of post-World War II resources in and around the City of Gunnison

Cranor Hill ski area 2438 County Road 10, Gunnison

Recreation and culture, outdoor recreation; health, resort / No style

1970 est. Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of historical recreation-related resources

Elmer’s Ranch 5855 County Road 742, Taylor River Canyon

Domestic, single dwelling; agriculture / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

1921 High; Selective intensive survey of historical agricultural complexes along recreational and transportation corridors

Moncrief Farm 35382 US Highway 50, Gunnison

Agriculture 1897, 1935 High; Selective intensive survey of historical agricultural complexes along recreational and transportation corridors

New Sapinero Village - Store and Campgrounds

16020 US Highway 50, Sapinero Area

Commerce, department store; recreation and culture, outdoor recreation

1926, 1976 Low; Selective reconnaissance/selective intensive survey of historical recreation-related resources

Garver Residence 176 King Avenue, Somerset

Domestic, single dwelling 1903, 1945 Medium; Comprehensive reconnaissance/intensive architectural survey of Somerset

Oxbow Mining Residence 3616 State Highway 133, Somerset

Domestic, single dwelling 1945 Medium; Comprehensive reconnaissance/intensive architectural survey of Somerset

Miszczak Residence 12 River Road, Somerset

Domestic, single dwelling 1903, 1957 Medium; Comprehensive reconnaissance/intensive architectural survey of Somerset

Cook Family Residence 34 River Road, Somerset

Domestic, single dwelling / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

1903, 1938 Medium; Comprehensive reconnaissance/intensive architectural survey of Somerset

Drennan Residence 125 King Avenue, Somerset



Sangeniti Family Residence 101 River Road, Somerset



McCay Residence 3800 State Highway 133, Somerset



Gillaspie Family Residence 3788 State Highway 133, Somerset



Somerset Domestic Waterworks district office

3764 State Highway 133, Somerset

Government, government office / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements


Keithley-Graham Family Cabin 311 W. Park Street, Marble

Domestic, camp; domestic, single dwelling, seasonal dwelling / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

1912, 1920 Medium; Comprehensive intensive architectural survey of Marble

Abstract Marble 303 W. Park Street, Marble






Kern Residence 301 W. Park Street, Marble



Desser Residence 201 W. Park Street, Marble



Soucie Family Residence 113 State Street, Marble



Marble Butcher 112 Main Street, Marble

Commerce, specialty store; commerce, warehouse / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements

Late 1800s est. Medium; Comprehensive intensive architectural survey of Marble

Illian-Barber Residence 205 E. Marble Street, Marble



Burdick Garage 213 E. Marble Street, Marble

Domestic, secondary structure, garage / Late 19th century and early 20th century American Movements


Beaver Lake Lodge guest cabin 201 E. Silver Street, Marble


1954 Medium; Comprehensive intensive architectural survey of Marble

Beaver Lake Lodge guest cottage

201 E. Silver Street, Marble


1905 Medium; Comprehensive intensive architectural survey of Marble

Gibbons Residence 205 E. Second Street, Marble




Appendix D Information and Contacts for Funding Sources

ERO Project #6503 D1


Local Community Foundation of the Gunnison Valley http://cfgv.org/ Gunnison County Metropolitan Recreation District (MetRec) http://gcmetrec.com/grants.htm#6 State Colorado Come to Life – Matching Grant Program http://industry.colorado.com/resources/matching-grant-program Community Resource Center – Colorado Grants Guide http://crcamerica.org/colorado-grants-guide/ Denver, South Park & Pacific Historical Society http://www.dspphs.org/index.html Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) http://www.goco.org/grants History Colorado http://www.historycolorado.org/grants/grants-financial-incentives http://www.historycolorado.org/grants/additional-resources-funding

National American Association for State and Local History (AASLH) http://about.aaslh.org/awards/ The Graham Foundation http://www.grahamfoundation.org/grant_programs/ National Endowment for the Arts https://www.arts.gov/grants National Trust for Historic Preservation http://www.preservationnation.org/resources/find-funding/?referrer=http://www.historycolorado.org/grants/additional-resources-funding#.VzNQpYQrJpg Preserve America Grant https://www.nps.gov/preservation-grants/PreserveAmerica/


http://gcmetrec.com/grants.htm%236

http://industry.colorado.com/resources/matching-grant-program

http://crcamerica.org/colorado-grants-guide/

http://www.dspphs.org/index.html

http://www.goco.org/grants

http://www.historycolorado.org/grants/grants-financial-incentives

http://about.aaslh.org/awards/

http://www.grahamfoundation.org/grant_programs/

https://www.arts.gov/grants

http://www.preservationnation.org/resources/find-funding/?referrer=http://www.historycolorado.org/grants/additional-resources-funding%23.VzNQpYQrJpg




Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) http://www.achp.gov/funding-community.html Institute of Museum and Library Services https://www.imls.gov/grants National Park Service, Historic Preservation Fund Grants https://www.nps.gov/preservation-grants/


http://www.achp.gov/funding-community.html

https://www.imls.gov/grants

https://www.nps.gov/preservation-grants/

GCHPC Survey Plan - ERO

Documents

Transcript of GCHPC Survey Plan - ERO