USFS Logo Administering the National Forests of Colorado:
An Assessment of the Architectural and Cultural Significance of Historical Administrative Properties
NPS Logo

Appendix B
Quantitative Analysis and Scoring


The National Register of Historic Places has established four criteria for cultural properties. The quality of national significance is ascribed to districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States in history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture and that possess a high degree of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Sites, buildings, and structures that have association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history are significant under Criterion A. Those that have association with the lives of persons significant in our past are significant under Criterion B. Buildings and structures that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction are significant under Criterion C. Sites, buildings, structures and objects that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history are significant under Criterion D.

Forest Service administrative sites represent the expansion of the Service's mission from basic custodianship, which it practiced at its inception, to extensive resource management. Some sites and buildings constructed or modified by the CCC or other New Deal agencies are representative of the shift in thinking regarding the responsibilities of the government to its people which occurred during the Depression (Criterion A).

USFS design policy dictated that administrative building design be reflective of such values as practicality, efficiency, and sensitivity to nature and the surroundings. Early Forest Rangers, and later, Regional designers, combined these values with national stylistic trends and vernacular influences to create a distinct body of architecture that represents the architectural and administrative development of the National Forest system in Colorado. Those buildings constructed or maintained by the CCC or other New Deal agencies were evaluated for their unique expression of the Rustic-style architecture exclusive to Forest construction of the Depression era. This expression is manifest in the design and construction of these simple buildings that were built by hand out of native materials (Criterion C).

Even though the survey focused upon sites' significance under Criteria A and C, association with regionally or locally prominent persons was also taken into consideration. Archeological investigations, however, were not undertaken.

The significance of properties is highly subjective. Strict objectivity in the evaluation of architectural and cultural significance is improbable. Evaluation using quantified criteria is a method which attempts to rate the relative integrity of a building or site by assigning numeric values to its various attributes. While there is some subjectivity involved in assigning values to the criteria, the great advantage of this type of analysis is that all sites are consistently evaluated. Additional sites can be evaluated within the same methodology and interpreted relative to those sites previously evaluated.

The architecture of the Forest Service in Colorado from 1891 to 1942 varied widely in style and method of construction. That which remains has associative value as representations of the development of the Forest Service as a land management agency. The physical and psychological landscape of Colorado is commonly identified by the interaction of its rocks, water, vegetation, and sky (Helphand 1991:29). Perhaps no other body of architecture seeks to exist in harmony with this landscape more than that of the Forest Service. The buildings are tangible representatives of the standards and philosophy by which the Forest Service conducted its work and of the image that they wished to convey to the public. The architecture of the Forest Service also has value for the role it has played in the overall architectural history of Colorado, as well as being physically representative of the Service's attempts to integrate itself and its philosophies into the local cultural environment, yet stay separate from it (Throop 1993 :Introduction). The buildings remain examples of the way in which Forest Service personnel and their families lived and worked while developing and administering more than 17 percent of the land in Colorado (Year Book of Colorado 1943-44:494). They also represent the Forest Service's changing mission from one of custodianship to that of extensive resource management. CCC-era buildings have additional architectural significance as representations of a unique period in American architectural history.

Finally, buildings from this group are culturally significant as representations of the Depression era and its political and social ideals. Of the hundreds of ranger stations that once administered the Colorado National Forests, these few remain. Despite continuous use within a constantly changing agency, several stations remain virtually intact in their appearance and function.

The majority of buildings evaluated here are administrative buildings built by the Forest Service between 1891 and 1945. They were constructed by rangers, local contractors, and by a variety of New Deal work-relief programs, predominantly the CCC. Sites have been grouped chronologically into three phases, each with distinct architectural characteristics, and each representative of the evolution of Forest Service administrative policy of protection, administration, and development.

Identification of characteristic architectural elements of each era was done to evaluate the character and integrity of the sites and buildings. Mehls (1984a, 1984b) defines these as originality of location, function, dimensions, materials, and method of construction. Significant sites retain these characteristic elements and are still representative of the way in which rangers administered their forests in that they depict the working conditions of forest rangers, the utilitarian philosophy of the USFS, and the craftsmanship and construction techniques of their builders.

According to Forest Service definition (U.S. Forest Service 1991):

An administrative site is an area of land acquired, withdrawn, or leased, and dedicated specifically for forest headquarters, ranger stations, dwellings, warehouses, scaling stations, fire-retardant mixing stations, guard stations, and similar administrative installations for conducting Forest service activities. Site may consist of one or more semi-contiguous parcels and vary in size. Administrative sites are usually restricted to the area occupied by support buildings and grounds, and may be located within, adjacent to, or a considerable distance from a National Forest System unit.

"Ranger station," "guard station," and "work center" are unofficial terms. Often, sites that were first known as ranger stations became guard stations when the site changed from year-round occupancy to seasonal use, and then became work centers when even seasonal occupancy ceased. This analysis identifies sites by their current common name, which may not reflect their past or present official function.

Characteristics of Phase I

Phase I, the pre-design era, includes buildings predominantly, reflective of the pioneer building traditions of their builders. Though the number of Phase I buildings surveyed was small, several Phase II sites were built in classic Phase I manner. Historic records, site plans, and photographs helped to provide an adequate sampling from which to identify characteristic site and construction elements of Phase I administrative sites.

Sites were often located on flat areas near springs or streams. All evaluated Phase I sites were in rural areas. Sites could include a log dwelling (e.g., Derby Ranger Station, Figure 13), bunkhouse, a wood frame (e.g., West Elk Creek Barn, Figure 183, White River National Forest) or log barn (e.g., Platoro Work Center (Guard Station), Figure 107, Rio Grande National Forest), and a wood frame or log toilet. Associated features included spring developments, hitching posts, flag poles, corrals, pasture fences and an identifying sign, sometimes posted on the building or on a nearby tree.

Construction methods varied widely. Foundations were stone, log, or slab concrete. Buildings were constructed of axe-cut or hand-sawn logs, or rough-milled lumber. Log buildings displayed a variety of notching systems. Finishes included both peeled and unpeeled surfaces, and hewn faces on one, two, or four sides. Joints included the square, saddle, "V," 1/2 dovetail, and full dovetail notches (Figure 37). Roofing systems were gabled, with log or milled wood rafters and ridge beams. Gables on log buildings were sometimes log also, though they were usually framed. Sheathing was usually milled lumber. Roofing material, though rarely in original condition, included split and sawn shake shingles, flat metal, and corrugated metal sheets. Fenestration ranged from single-pane windows with rough milled frames to commercially available sliding and double-hung windows. Operable plank shutters were occasionally present. Buildings of this phase were influenced by the Rocky Mountain Cabin typology (e.g., Fitton Guard Station, Figure 104, Rio Grande National Forest) and pioneer vernacular traditions. Variations in this typology included the method of construction of the gable ends (some are framed, some are formed with logs), the method of corner notching and log finish, the type of bracing in the porch gable end (some are cantilevered, some are supported by log trusses and columns), the depth of the porch, the steepness of the roof pitch, and placement of entry and fenestration. Utility, time, and the availability of time and materials were significant forces behind the design and appearance of Phase I buildings.

Characteristics of Phase II

Phase II, the pre-CCC era, includes primarily buildings constructed from architectural plans, but still highly reflective of the pioneer traditions of their builders and the availability of materials. Some sites from this era were constructed in the manner of Phase I sites and are more accurately defined under Phase I. The remaining sites lay on relatively flat areas in both rural and urban areas. All evaluated Phase II sites were rural, often located near a spring or stream. They included ranger stations and temporary stopping places or guard stations.

Temporary stopping places were typically more remote than permanent ranger stations, and could include a dwelling, office, garage or barn (sometimes combined), and storage shed. Permanent ranger stations could include a dwelling, office, bunkhouse, garage or barn (sometimes combined), toilet, and root cellar. Associated features common to both site types could include portable fire caches, a spring development, flag pole, corral, fenced pasture, and Forest Service sign.

Construction was based upon standardized or "Series" plans produced by the Forests, Region, or National Office of Engineering. Formally designed building plans were rectangular and single storied. Guard buildings (e.g., Brewery Creek Guard Station, Figure 99, Rio Grande National Forest) had two or three principal rooms, and a single-stall garage/barn. Dwellings included one or two bedrooms, a kitchen, bathroom, and living room (e.g., Lost Creek Ranger Station, Figure 168, White River National Forest). Some had basements or cellars, often used for the furnace or storage. Single-stall garages (e.g., Thompson Creek Ranger Station, Figure 181, White River National Forest) were never attached to dwellings. Barns (e.g., River Springs Work Center Barn, Figure 108, Rio Grande National Forest) were rectangular, sometimes with lofts.

Foundations were of slab or 6" poured concrete from between 22" and 12" below grade to between 4" and 6" above grade. Moderate-pitch roofs were almost exclusively gable and overhung, with fully exposed rafters. There were occasional instances of fascia and gutters above the entries. Roofs were gable or pyramidal. Roofs had sawn shake wood shingles, metal seam roofing, tin ridge caps and flashing, and finials. Dwellings often had knee braces supporting the gable overhang. Heat was supplied by a stove, vented through an interior brick chimney.

Frame construction had Douglas fir studs, rafters and joists, pine clapboard or 6" simple drop siding, and overlapped or inlaid vertical molding at the corners. Log construction was varied as in Phase I, but examples built to design specifications had deeper overhangs and logs of more consistent diameter. Logs were daubed with concrete, sometimes mixed with sawdust or lime, over saplings or metal lath. Saddle notching became the predominant means of joining logs.

Fenestration consisted of singly arranged double-hung or sliding wood frame windows with craftsman-style multi-paned upper sashes and single-paned bottom sashes. Sometimes the windows had four panes on each sash. Windows were symmetrically arranged on each elevation. Some buildings had windows with operable shutters. Andersen windows and door frames were called for in specifications, though some windows indicate homemade construction.

Two entries were usually off center on the eave sides, the front entry flanked by at least one window, but more often by two windows. Occasionally protected by a canopy or extended gable roof, entries usually had only a wooden stoop, with no railings. Wood panel doors were usually half glazed, with craftsman-style vertical glass panes. Windows and doors were cased with simple 1"-x-4" milled lumber, and a 2"-thick sill. Buildings contained little or no exterior decoration. Interiors were finished with boards or commercially produced processed wood products like Beaver Board, Nu-Wood, and C-X. Formal stylistic influences include the Bungalow and Craftsman styles.

Characteristics of Phase III

The CCC era constitutes Phase III, and contains buildings representative of several regional and national architectural trends, especially the Rustic Style. Construction of this era, predominantly executed by New Deal labor, is typified by its standardized design, rustic appearance and hand-built construction.

Massive administrative expansion occurred during this era. The Regional Architectural Division produced the majority of designs. The Division designed in several styles, including Rustic, Pueblo, Spanish Colonial, Art Deco, Colonial Revival, and Classical Revival. The styles were largely independent of the interior layouts, which remained fairly consistent throughout the region. Site types consisted of supervisors' warehouses, rangers' residences, supervisors' residences, ranger stations, and guard stations. Rural sites often sat on flat or gently sloping sites near a spring or stream. Urban sites sat on principal routes through town, often in the transition zone between commercial and residential areas. Urban supervisors' warehouses (e.g., White River Supervisor's Warehouse, Figure 166, White River National Forest) included a garage/shop/storage building, and sometimes additional storage buildings or garages. Supervisor's residence (e.g., Monte Vista Supervisor's Residence, Figure 105, Rio Grande National Forest) and ranger's residence (e.g., Pagosa Springs Ranger's Residence No. 2, Figure 147, San Juan National Forest) sites were always in urban areas. Both had one or two dwellings, usually with a separate one- or two-stall garage. Ranger stations (e.g., Bailey Ranger Station, Figure 80, Pike National Forest) had similar, though larger, buildings as Phase II sites, but could include a shop. Guard stations (e.g., Dunton Guard Station, Figure 136, San Juan National Forest) typically had a combination office/storage/bedroom building, but could include a dwelling, bunkhouse, garage, or barn (sometimes combined). All could have portable fire caches. Dwellings were larger than pre-CCC-era dwellings, incorporating an average of three bedrooms in around 1,600 square feet of living space. Dwellings were rarely designed with entrances on axis with their approach.

Administrative buildings became larger, incorporating restrooms, furnace rooms, and visiting officers' bedrooms. Basements became standard on most offices and dwellings, containing the furnace, storage, and additional living spaces. Barns from the early part of Phase III held up to five horses. Though these occasionally included a vehicular stall, barns from the later part of Phase III were more likely to accommodate a vehicle, while holding fewer horses. Regional designs had low profiles and strong horizontal lines. Buildings were stained, varnished, or painted light cream or dark brown. Interiors incorporated materials like Nu-Wood, Plywood, Masonite, Log Cabin Siding, Beaver Board, and others.

Rustic designs during this era had frame (e.g., Carbondale Ranger Station, Figure 161, White River National Forest) or log (e.g., Basalt Ranger Station, Figure 159, White River National Forest) construction. Log Rustic design used both native and imported stone and timber. Building footprints were simple, though often irregular. Foundations for all CCC-era design were constructed of 6"- to 12"-thick non-reinforced poured concrete on footings. Rustic designs were usually veneered with between 12" and 24" of locally cut stone. Wall logs were sometimes just peeled, but were typically shaved to a uniform diameter and saddle notched. Overhung crowns were usually about 12" long at the foundation line but several inches shorter at the eave line. Some designs varied the length of each crown, creating an irregular vertical edge. Log ends were sometimes cut flat, but most often came to a sawn or axe-cut blunt point. Logs were hewn on their bottom side, and oakum was laid between courses. Joints were sometimes caulked and reinforced with metal anchor bolts.

Overhung roofs were gable, with exposed log rafters and purlins finished similarly to the wall logs. Roofing was 1"-by-8" milled lumber, covered with sawn wood shingles. Gable ends were often either vertical or horizontal log, but could also be framed in and covered with milled siding. Gutters were rarely seen on log buildings. Chimneys occurred both inside and outside the walls, typically veneered with stone similar to the foundation. Interior walls and ceiling were plastered, or sided with knotty pine siding or stained exposed logs. Floors were wood or linoleum.

Windows were typically wood frame Andersen casement or hopper windows, with three, four, six, or eight panes. Casement windows occurred in groupings of one, two, or three. Hopper windows were used exclusively for basement windows. Operable and fixed shutters were sometimes incorporated on both log and frame Rustic buildings. These were constructed of V grooved boards, held open by S-shaped metal tie backs, and almost invariably had a Forest Service pine tree logo cut out of the center.

Doors were usually wood batten, with V grooves and a single pane of glass. These were purchased Andersen frames or constructed by the builder. Entries were usually off center on the gable or eave wall. Front entries were approached from a substantial stone or concrete stoop, which often had massive stone piers and log railings. Doors and windows were cased with either split logs or milled log cabin siding. Hardware was purchased Yale or fabricated by Forest Service or CCC shops. Individuality between similar designs was accomplished by varying the foundation widths, crown lengths, approaches from the building, and attic vents in the gables.

Frame Rustic had similar foundations, doors, and windows as Log Rustic buildings, but the exteriors consisted of wood lapped siding. Milled exposed rafters supported 1"-by-8" sheathing covered by sawn wood shingles. The siding was joined at the corners with metal corner caps. Gables were sometimes sided similar to the walls, but were often sided with vertical V-grooved battens. The butt ends of these battens were either filleted with small 45-degree corners or rounded. Battens were sometimes of irregular width and lengths for a variegated appearance. Roof vents near the peak were sometimes full vents with frames and wood louvers, but were often simply a series of vent holes drilled in the wall in a vertical or triangular pattern.

Windows and doors were cased with simple 1"-by-4" milled lumber. Porches on smaller frame buildings were typically simple canopies over the door or small stone stoops with wood railings. Larger dwellings and offices had more substantial porches usually set under the principal mass of the gable roof, which was supported by massive 8"-by-8" wood pillars cut from a single piece of lumber, or by a more delicate Colonial Style pillars with bases and capitals of bed molding.

Individuality between similar designs was accomplished by varying the approach to the building, and through variations in the detailing of elements such as porch columns, railings, purlins, gable siding and attic vents. Buildings of both types were finished with stain, varnish, or paint.

Forest Service designers were heavily influenced by regional styles. The Pueblo Style (e.g., Dolores Ranger Station, Figure 135, San Juan National Forest) emulated the Native American architecture of southwest Colorado. Most designs had stucco-covered brick walls, though at least two were constructed with stuccoed adobe blocks. The Portland concrete stucco was hand troweled and painted to achieve the look of adobe. Some rectilinear Rustic layouts were constructed with Pueblo-style facades. True Pueblo-style layouts were single-story with irregular footprints, battered walls, and flat roofs. Foundation lines were sometimes accentuated by a small ledge or a change in materials, but were often stuccoed over for a seamless finish. The low-slung appearance of the buildings was reinforced by heavy wood window and door lintels constructed of both surfaced and unsurfaced lumber. The roofs drained through interior gutters, canals, or metal scuppers with drain pipes.

Windows were set deeply into the walls. They were typically wood frame casement Andersen windows, set singly, in pairs, or combinations of these. Some designs contained only horizontal panes, but most used the conventional three, four, six, or eight panes per casement.

Entries were usually off center, and typically approached from a large porch with thick knee walls, log or massive stucco columns, surfaced or unsurfaced wood beams and varnished wood ceilings. Doors could be similar to Rustic designs, but sometimes had a window overlain with a large wooden cross. Hardware was more elaborate than that on Rustic buildings. Hinges were often strap iron with diamond head bolts. Windows and doors had no casings, and the stuccoed openings were gently rounded.

Individuality between similar designs was accomplished through the use of decorative elements. Exposed log rafters, or vigas, were the predominant exterior element on many Pueblo designs, but were not a universal feature. The vigas were sometimes sawn flat and of uniform length, sometimes hand-sharpened to a blunt point, and sometimes of varying lengths. Other variations included the presence and configuration of roof vents, which were either tile or simple punched squares. Tiles were sometimes set into the stucco at the roof line and above the windows and doorways. The light fixtures were metal Spanish Style.

The Region also produced examples of other styles. The Spanish Colonial Style, another revival popular at the same time as the Pueblo Style, was similar to the Pueblo Style but incorporated more decoration. It was characteristically used on single-story buildings. Its most distinguishing elements were its red Spanish tile low-pitched roofs, and enclosed patios. The only known built example of a Spanish Colonial-style building was constructed in Pagosa Springs (see Figure 146, San Juan National Forest). This ranger's dwelling had gabled roofs with Spanish tiles, buttresses at the corners of its stuccoed walls, deeply inset windows with massive lintels, and an entryway accentuated with inset painted tiles and windows covered with metal grillwork.

The influence of the Art Deco Style is seen in many 1930s and 1940s commercial buildings throughout Colorado. This style of ornament was characterized by fluting and reeding adjacent to the fenestration, and horizontal banding in low relief. The presence of Art Deco-style detailing on several urban Forest Service buildings signals a distinct departure from Regional design philosophy, as it was defined by its superfluous ornamentation, which was not a part of the usual functionalist philosophy. The Art Deco Style is seen only during Phase III. Used exclusively for district or forest garages or office buildings, the few known examples (Animas District Office, Buena Vista Office, and garages at Steamboat Springs, Fort Collins, and Deadwood, South Dakota) utilized the characteristic geometric massing, stepped fronts and bold vertical and horizontal elements in their designs.

Several administrative buildings were converted from surplused temporary CCC buildings. These modular buildings were designed for quick assembly and disassembly, to ease portability. Their characteristic construction includes concrete slab, concrete pier and post foundations, simple drop-sided frame walls, sectioned into modular units of 4', 5', 6', or 8' sections, gable and bow roofs, also sectioned. Roofing material varied, but could include roll or tab asphalt shingles, tar paper, and wood shingles. Original windows were hopper type or fixed. The Service regularly modified their original design by adding additional doors and interior walls.

Several sites and buildings were converted to administrative use from other functions. These include tree nurseries, work camps, cow camps, resorts, ranches and complexes built by other Federal agencies. Many sites were not Forest Service related. Among those buildings that were not of Forest construction were some constructed by permittees, acquired from other Federal agencies, or included in private land acquisitions. These include nursery buildings, cowboy cabins, lodges, recreational cabins, phone line maintenance cabins, and former CCC camp buildings.

Several fire lookouts and recreational buildings and sites were evaluated in the report sample. Though administrative in function, lookouts represent a different aspect of Forest Service history, and their significance is best evaluated under different cultural criteria. Similarly, recreational design embodies different cultural and architectural characteristics, and is best evaluated separately. Both subjects are worthy of independent study. A large body of lookouts and related structures once existed throughout the Region. Table 5 lists some extant and demolished lookouts within Region 2. The few lookouts and recreational buildings evaluated here do not provide an adequate coverage of either typology. Architecturally, recreational buildings are some of the best examples of Rustic design and CCC construction found in Colorado's National Forests. Similarly, fire lookouts represent some of the most purely functional and utilitarian examples of design and construction ever produced by the Forest Service.

The individualized nature of these sites requires that they be evaluated independently of their resemblance to traditional administrative sites. The general historical information of each site is incorporated into the site evaluations on file with the State Historic Preservation Office, and is summarized in the Site Summary, Inventory, and Results of Evaluation section.

Much of the significance of the evaluated sites and their buildings is embodied in their character and appearance. Location, feeling, and association are important to a property's capacity to convey its past, but setting, integrity of design, workmanship, and materials are the most important elements in defining the architectural and cultural significance of these sites. To meet the criteria for significance under the established themes of this survey, a property must have retained most of the physical features that characterize the respective period expressions. A preponderance of historic materials of the original design and site configuration should have been clearly discernible, and workmanship in construction and finish evident. Each building was evaluated for its individual significance, as well as for its contribution to the site as a whole. Buildings relocated to compatible environments, and those whose relocation occurred more than 50 years ago, were also considered. Buildings that have been covered in siding have an unknown degree of integrity of materials, and were negatively evaluated only for their apparent loss of design and feeling.


The following eight valuative criteria are based upon the NRHP's guidelines for significance and were developed to objectively evaluate each site's significance primarily under Criteria A and C.

Although a total score did not necessarily determine recommendations for eligibility to the NRHP, it does reflect a base of information by which each site may be compared to and contrasted with similar sites. Only a small percentage of administrative sites built or used by the Forest Service in Colorado remain in existence. Pages 315-318 at the end of this appendix list some administrative sites referenced in research that were not evaluated. Many, if not all of these sites, have been destroyed or are no longer in Forest Service possession. An even smaller percentage remain in the possession of the Forest Service and were available for evaluation. Nevertheless, the project sample was believed to be an excellent representative sample of Forest Service construction in the state. The criteria and associated scoring used in this study are listed below. Site listings by architectural phase and by Forest follow. Sites containing buildings from more than one era were considered to be of the era of the largest or most representative building. Dwellings and office buildings took precedence over garages, barns, toilets, and sheds. The listings by phase include known plan numbers and recommendations for significance.

Evaluative Criteria

1: Method of Construction. Forest Service architecture represented a wide range of styles, methods of construction, and craftsmanship. Sites were evaluated based upon the number of remaining examples from their buildings' class and the characteristics of these remaining examples. Non-standardized buildings were evaluated based on the number and characteristics of similar remaining buildings within the survey. Outstanding examples of sites of each style and method of construction (including Pioneer log-notching techniques) received an excellent rating. The remaining examples of the relatively few Rocky Mountain Cabin, Spanish Colonial, Art Deco, Bungalow, and CCC temporary style buildings received a very good rating, as did those examples of the relatively numerous Rustic, Pueblo and Pioneer buildings that were still clearly identifiable, but less representative of their class due less masterful design or losses of integrity of design or construction. Rustic, Pueblo and Pioneer buildings that, though still identifiable, poorly reflected their style or method of construction received a good rating. Those buildings without any identifiable sense of style or organized method of construction retained no architectural significance, and received a 0 rating. Sites with multiple styles or methods of construction were evaluated based upon that of its most prominent building(s). Buildings not constructed by the Forest Service were evaluated separately.

Significance as an example of a particular style, material or method of construction, or level of craftsmanship:

(15) Excellent: Outstanding example of its class.

(10) Very Good: Very good example if many survive; good example if few survive.

(5) Good example: Identifiable as a particular style or method of construction, but not distinctive or especially representative.

(0) Of no architectural significance.

2: Age. The buildings have been grouped into three eras. Phase I began with the creation of the Forest Reserves in 1891 and ended with the start of the protection/custodial era in 1910. Phase II ran from 1911 until the start of the New Deal. Phase III encompassed the entire New Deal era, ending in 1942. Intact examples of older sites were rarer than younger ones and could be said to have had more significance.

Of eras defined by the major periods of development in the National Forests:

(10) Phase I: (pre-design era) 1891-1910.

(6) Phase II: (pre-CCC era) 1911-1932.

(3) Phase III: (CCC era) 1933-1942.

(0) Phase IV: (post-CCC era) 1943 to the present.

3: Association. Sites and/or buildings may have had a primary or secondary association with the community, forest, state, or nation, or with a prominent person or persons within or outside of its association with the Forest Service. Sites constructed entirely by New Deal agencies had a primary association with those agencies, and received an excellent rating. Sites maintained (painting buildings or cleaning) by New Deal agencies had a secondary association with them, and received a very good rating. Sites with association only with Forest Service administration received a good rating, and sites with no Forest Service or other significant associations received a fair/poor rating. Fire lookouts, because of their primary role in the protection of the forests, received an excellent rating.

(15) Excellent: Of primary association with the development, protection, and administration of the Forests or New Deal agency(s).

(10) Very good: Of secondary association with the development, protection, and administration of the Forests or New Deal agency(s).

(5) Good: Of secondary association loosely connected with the development, protection, and administration of the Forests.

(0) Fair/Poor: No significant association with the development, protection, and administration of the Forests or other known events or persons.

4: Landmark. Sites and buildings used for public administration were more identifiable and have more local and statewide association with the Forest Service than those more remote sites not generally seen by the public. Sites whose primary purpose was public use received an excellent rating. Buildings that received heavy public use (urban ranger stations) received a very good rating. Sites that received light public use (rural ranger stations, supervisor warehouses, ranger residences, and work centers) received a good rating. Acquired sites with little or no association with the development or administration of the Forests received a fair/poor rating.

(15) Excellent: A site or building which may be taken as or is perceived to be a symbol for the community, forest, or region as a whole.

(10) Very Good: A conspicuous and familiar site or building within the context or consciousness of the community, forest, or region.

(5) Good: A conspicuous and familiar structure in the context or consciousness of the immediate area.

(0) Fair/Poor: Not particularly conspicuous or familiar.

5: Architectural Philosophy. The architecture of the Region exhibited a wide variability in its representation of Forest Service values and philosophy. The Rustic Style of Phase III was acknowledged to be the Service's best expression of harmony with nature and regionally responsive design. Phase I and II buildings and Phase III non-Rustic styles were less expressive of Forest Service values, and received a very good rating. Acquired sites and buildings and those unidentifiable as Forest Service design or construction receive a fair/poor rating.

(15) Excellent: Perfectly reflective of Forest Service architectural philosophy of harmony with nature and regional design.

(10) Very Good: Moderately reflective of Forest Service architectural philosophy.

(5) Fair/Poor: Poorly or not at all reflective of Forest Service architectural philosophy.

6: Building Integrity. Buildings with major alterations, such as exterior renovations or additions to the primary elements of a design that have irreversibly altered the essential overall character of the design, received a fair/poor rating. Buildings with moderate alterations like new siding inconsistent with the original appearance or materials, or replaced windows, doors, porch railings or other secondary structural components received a good rating. Buildings with minor alterations like non-original doors, window screens, or roofing received a very good rating. Buildings perfectly reflective of their original materials and design features received an excellent rating. The state of deterioration was evaluated for its impact on the physical integrity and appearance of the building. Simpler buildings have fewer character-defining elements and can tolerate less physical change before a significant loss of integrity occurs.

(0) Excellent: No changes or very minor alterations.

(-10) Good: Minor changes which do not destroy character; replaced doors, aluminum screens, new roofing, etc.

(-5) Very Good: Overall character recognizable but undermined, because of replaced windows, modern siding, removed doors, etc.

(-15) Fair/Poor: Altered beyond recognition; major renovations, additions, etc.

7: Site Integrity. Sites that retain all buildings essential to the character of the site received a 0 rating. Sites recognizable as an administrative site but that have lost significant buildings or structures or have had non-sympathetic additions of new buildings received a good rating. Sites that had lost some buildings but retained enough to identify their original function, or had new buildings or structures which did not negatively impact the integrity of the older ones received a very good rating. Sites perfectly reflective of their respective site typology (ranger station, guard station, work center, etc.) and that retained their original contextual relationship to the site, each other, and associated features received an excellent rating. Associated buildings and structures like toilets, spring developments, hitching posts, etc., were considered to contribute to the value of the site as built representations of the way officers lived and administered the National Forests.

(0) Excellent: No changes or very minor alterations.

(-5) Very Good: Minor changes which do not destroy the character of the site; loss or addition of unsympathetic landscaping, sidewalks, etc.

(-10) Good: Original character still evident, but site altered by loss of or addition of unsympathetic buildings, fences, etc.

(-15) Fair/Poor: Altered beyond recognition; major building or feature loss or addition.

8: Some sites exhibit unusual elements of setting, design, construction, or detailing, or have characteristics not represented by the other criteria. Those sites that represent the first use of a style, type, or method of construction received five additional points.

(5) One or more

(0) None


The recommendations of eligibility for the following sites were incorrectly valued in Appendix B tables. Please note that these recommendations are not final determinations of eligibility. Consult the Colorado Historical Society, Denver, Colorado, for final determinations.

Under the Quantitative Analysis and Ranking by Era, Pre-CCC Era (1911 - 1932):
297Bar HL GS Cabin's score should be 26.
298Summit Creek RS's Recommended Significance should be NS (Not significant).
Under the Quantitative Analysis and Ranking by Era, CCC Era (1933-1942):
300Treasure GS's score should be 38.
300Cold Springs RS's score should be 43.
301Vallecito WC's Recommended Significance should be NS (Not Significant).
301Rollinsville WC's score should be 3.
301San Juan (Animas) Supervisor's Warehouse's Recommended Significance should be NS (Not Significant).
301Seedhouse GS's Recommended Significance should be NS (Not Significant).
302Gunnison Supervisor's Warehouse's Recommended Significance should be NS (Not Significant).
302Buena Vista Office's score should be 43.
303Cochetopa (Salida) Supervisor's Warehouse's Recommended Significance should be NS (Not Significant).
Under the Quantitative Analysis and Scoring by Forest:
305Roosevelt National Forest's Rollinsville Work Center score under Evaluative Criteria 7 should be -15, for a total score of 3
306Grand Mesa National Forest's Cold Springs Ranger Station's score under Evaluative Criteria 1 should be 15, for a total score of 43.
308San Isabel National Forest's Buena Vista Town Site's scores under Evaluative Criteria 7 and 8 should be 0 and 5, respectively, for a total score of 43.
312San Juan National Forest's Treasure Guard Station score under Evaluative Criteria 7 should be -5, for a total score of 38.
313White River National Forest's Bar HL Guard Station score under Evaluative Criteria 1 and 8 should be 5 and 0, respectively, for a total score of 26.

Quantitative Analysis and Ranking by Era
Pre-Design Era (Pre-1911)
(click on image for a PDF version)

Quantitative Analysis and Ranking by Era
Pre-CCC Era (1911-1932)
(click on image for a PDF version)

Quantitative Analysis and Ranking by Era
CCC Era (1933-1942)
(click on image for a PDF version)

Quantitative Analysis and Scoring by Forest
(click on image for a PDF version)

Former Administrative Sites, Not Evaluated

Arapaho National Forest

Ranger Station, Dickey
Ranger Station, Empire
Ranger Station, Hot Sulphur Springs
Ranger Station, Idlewild

Roosevelt National Forest

Ranger Station, Old Man


Residence, Steamboat Springs dwelling and garage
Guard Station, Cattle Creek
Guard Station, Capitol Creek
Guard Station, Gore Creek

Grand Mesa

Ranger Station, Coon Creek Ranger Station - demolished by CCC F-16-C between 1934 and 1942
Supervisor's Residence, Delta
Ranger Station, Silesca
Ranger Station, Cedaredge
SW, Grand Junction Warehouse/Garage
Ranger Station, West Muddy


Unknown, Beaver Dams (No.32)
Unknown, Dallas
Unknown, Horsefly
Unknown, Jackson
Unknown, Monitor
Unknown, Nate Creek
Unknown, Nellie Creek
Unknown, Pelham
Unknown, Taberquache
Unknown, Transfer Well
Ranger Station, Columbine
Ranger Station, Cortez


Ranger Station, Pitkin Ranger Station Built by F-71-C in 1941
Office, Paonia

Grand Mesa/Uncompahgre/Gunnison

Ranger Station, Ohio Creek
Guard Station, Big Meadows
Ranger Station, Big Creek
Ranger Station, Soap Creek
Ranger Station, Black Mesa
Residence, Gunnison dwelling and garage
Ranger Station, Paonia
Guard Station, Fruita
Ranger Station, Pelham
Ranger Station, Clay Creek
Ranger Station, Willow Creek
Ranger Station, Old Agency
Guard Station, Anthracite
Ranger Station, Minnesota
Ranger Station, Muddy District
Ranger Station, Parkview
Guard Station, Willow Creek
Ranger Station, Taylor Park
Ranger Station, Taylor River
Ranger Station, Upper Cement Creek
Ranger Station, Niagrara
Ranger Station, Mosca
Ranger Station, Spring Creek
Ranger Station, Brush Creek
Ranger Station, Gothic
Ranger Station, Washington Gulch
Ranger Station, Pittsburgh
Ranger Station, Englehart Ranger Station - demolished by CCC F-16-C between 1934 and 1942
Ranger Station, Surface Creek Ranger Station - maintained by CCC F-16-C between 1934 and 1942

Pike/San Isabel

Ranger Station, Indian Creek
Ranger Station, Woodland Park
Ranger Station, Hardscrabble
Ranger Station, Cottonwood
Ranger Station, Malachite

San Isabel

Unknown, Black Bear (S21, T 31 S, R 69 W)
Unknown, Camp Cuchara (S6 and 7, T 30 S, R 68 W)
Unknown, Camp Dean (S 26, T 31 S, R 69 W)
Unknown, Little Santa Clara (S 22, T 30 S, R 67 W)
Unknown, North Fork (S 16, T 32 S, R 69 W)
Ranger Station, Beulah
Ranger Station, Huerfano
Ranger's Residence, La Veta Ranger's Residence
Ranger Station, Westcliffe

Rio Grande

Guard Station, Carnero Guard Station torn down in 1990
Guard Station, Alamosa
Guard Station, Alder
Guard Station, Rock Creek
Guard Station, Upper Crossing


Ranger Station, Counting
Ranger Station, Buffalo Pass 1909
Ranger Station, Camp Creek 1909
Ranger Station, Big Red Park 1910
Ranger Station, Whiskey Park 1910
Ranger Station, Rabbit ears (5 Spruce) 1913
Ranger Station, Summit Creek
Ranger Station, Bears Ears (Elkhead) 1915
Ranger Station, Eagle Rocks 1912
Ranger Station, Walden
Ranger Station, Bears Ears (Hayden)
Ranger Station, Steamboat
Ranger Station, Lost Park
Ranger Station, Hayden
Ranger Station, Lynx Pass
SW, Steamboat Springs Warehouse/Garage
Ranger Station, Walden

San Juan

Residence, Westcliffe
Residence, Battlement
Residence, Reder
Ranger Station, 25 Mesa
Ranger Station, Columbine
Ranger Station, Cottonwood
Ranger Station, Stoner
Unknown, Trimble Springs Station
Ranger Station, Yellow Jacket
Ranger Station, Cimaron

White River

Guard Station, Wheeler
Guard Station, Bear River
Guard Station, Gore Pass
Guard Station, Oak Creek
Guard Station, Woody
Guard Station, Yeoman Park
Ranger's Residence, Glenwood Springs Ranger's Residence
Guard Station, Sweetwater


Unknown, Willow Springs
Unknown, Disappointment
Unknown, Priest Gulch
Unknown, Moqui
Unknown, Trout Lake
Unknown, Cornet
Unknown, Bilk Creek
Unknown, Wilson
Unknown, Flat Top

<<< Previous <<< Contents>>> Next >>>

Last Updated: 15-Jan-2008