CO-15-018 Historic Resource Survey Plan, Gunnison County, Colorado

The survey plan provides prioritization recommendations for future intensive or reconnaissance survey efforts to identify and document cultural resources in Gunnison County.. The survey

Resources and the Environment

D ENVER • D URANGO • H OTCHKISS • I DAHO

ERO Resources Corp

1015 ½ Main Ave

Durango, CO 81301

970.422.2136 www.eroresources.com

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

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

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

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

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

ABBREVIATIONS

HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY PLAN

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

preservation, collaboration, and public education, and could be completed without entry to privately owned lands Medium priority surveys are focused on areas where there

right-of-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

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

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,

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

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

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

C re

ek

T

y lor Riv er

Qu a

rt z

C re ek

To m ich

PITKIN TINCUP

OHIO CITY

WHITE PINE SOMERSET

Prepared for: Gunnison County Historic Preservation Commission

±

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

Federally-Managed Land (not included in plan)

Gunnison County Boundary

Abandoned Denver South Park and Pacific 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

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 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

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

 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 American traders and fur trappers began to infiltrate the region using the northern fork of

Euro-the Old Spanish Trail and Jedediah Smith Trace to access Euro-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