Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage Using Historic Structures to Serve Park Needs: The McGraw Ranch, Rocky Mountain National Park Jim Lindberg, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Mountains/Plains Office, 910 16th Street, Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado 80202; [email protected] The short press release had a disturbingly familiar ring to it: “After careful consideration of all alternatives, Rocky Mountain National Park has decided that removal of the historic McGraw Ranch is the only feasible and cost effective course of action to pursue.” Removal was justified, continued the release, due to “the high cost of rehabilitating the buildings … and the basic lack of need for the structures.” To those of us in the Mountains/Plains Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP), these statements sounded very similar to what we had been hearing from Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. In that park, numerous rustic barns and classic dude ranches that predated the establishment of the park had been systematically demol- ished over the years and others were still threatened. Similar losses had also occurred in Glacier National Park in Montana, where more than half of the park’s original inventory of historic build- ings was gone, including several classic guest lodges built by the Great Northern Railroad. There was even talk of removing another rustic lodge, the Many Glacier Hotel. Why were so many historic buildings in shortly thereafter a ranch house, barn, national parks throughout the Rockies threat- bunkhouse, springhouse, and rustic-style out- ened with demolition? Maintenance costs and house were constructed, using locally harvest- lack of use were certainly major factors. But it ed logs and stone. During the Depression, the seemed that the underlying cause was a belief, owners of the ranch decided to make the tran- held by generations of park managers and sition from raising cattle to hosting guests, or some environmental advocates, that historic “dudes.” A group of small cabins was built to buildings didn’t really belong in the great, sce- accommodate visitors who would pay to stay nic parks of the West. Unless they were at the ranch, ride horses, fish, and explore the national historic landmarks like the Old mountain scenery. The first guests at the Faithful Inn, most historic structures in these McGraw Ranch were Kansas governor and parks were seen as impediments to the goals of 1936 Republican presidential candidate Alf preserving scenery and natural resources. Landon and his family. “I want to lead a flan- When the plan to demolish the McGraw nel shirt life,” said Landon, who made Ranch was announced, we at NTHP decided McGraw his summer campaign headquarters. it was finally time to challenge this thinking. Generations of visitors followed, and the We wanted to see if we could come up with an McGraw Ranch gained a reputation as one of alternative approach that would not only save Colorado’s finest guest ranches. this historic site in Rocky Mountain National After five decades of operation, the Park, but perhaps influence decisions in other McGraw family retired from the ranch and in parks as well. Little did we know that we were 1988 the property was acquired by the park. embarking on a nine-year journey! For several years, the ranch buildings sat Located at the head of a popular hiking empty and deteriorating, until finally the park trail in the Northeast corner of Rocky announced its plan to demolish all 15 struc- Mountain National Park, the McGraw Ranch tures and return the site to its “natural” condi- is not the kind of historic site that immediate- tion. To the park’s surprise, preservationists ly impresses visitors with its ornate architec- and local residents quickly voiced strong ture or grand scale. It is a collection of 15 opposition to the plan and a major public con- modest, vernacular-style structures that fit troversy erupted. comfortably into the mountain landscape. The struggle between historic preserva- The property was homesteaded in 1884 and tionists and the park over the fate of the 188 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage McGraw Ranch might have continued for past was to build a new dormitory for years had not a new park superintendent, A. researchers somewhere in the park, but Jones Durand “Randy” Jones, arrived and called for saw the potential for something more cre- a cease-fire. He defused tension by setting up ative—a chance to address two park needs a committee to evaluate the condition and re- with one project. His “win–win” proposal was use potential of all historic structures through- to establish a complete in-park research center out Rocky Mountain National Park, not just at by re-using the vacant buildings at the McGraw Ranch. At the same time, an informal McGraw Ranch. It was a good fit. Without any group of park staff and representatives from new construction, the ranch could be rehabil- outside groups began collecting ideas for how itated to accommodate up to 20 researchers in various vacant park buildings might be used, private quarters, with room left over for an based on park needs. A variety of adaptive-use office, library,laboratory,seminar and meeting options were discussed, including park rooms, kitchen and dining facilities, and living employee housing, artist-in-residence pro- areas for informal socializing. grams, public education programs, With this concept for re-use in hand, Elderhostels, and retreat centers. This potential university partners were asked if the approach to the problem of vacant park build- proposed research facility would be attractive ings was similar in many ways to what Main to their faculty and students. Colorado State Street groups have been doing for years to University, an institution with long-standing revitalize downtowns—matching up available connections to the Park Service, was seen as building inventory with unmet market the key “launch client.” After they agreed that demand. their College of Natural Resources would As it turned out, the key unmet market partner in the development of an expanded demand in Rocky Mountain National Park research program for the park, similar depart- was housing for visiting scientists and ments from the University of Colorado and researchers. Parks in general have been criti- University of Northern Colorado came on cized by groups such as the National Academy board. of Science for not having sufficient scientific Paying for the rehabilitation was the next data on which to base important management challenge. In part because we had started the decisions. Gathering better data is a particu- whole debate about the McGraw Ranch, but larly high priority in Rocky Mountain mostly because we believed in the importance National Park, where independent consult- of the project’s success, the Mountains/Plains ants have identified a backlog of more than Office of NTHP decided to become the lead $12 million in unmet natural and cultural private fundraising partner. Our commitment research needs, including the investigation of was to raise $800,000 toward the $2 million issues such as the impact of acid rain on the total project cost. The balance of the funding park ecosystem, how to manage the growing was provided by the park, primarily for budg- elk population, and what to do about invasive et items that are hard to raise money for, such weeds in the park. With park budgets as utilities and infrastructure improvements. stretched thin to meet growing demands for Because the project had so many dimen- visitor services, it was impossible to hire staff sions—historic preservation, scientific to address these research needs. For years research, university involvement, partner- parks have relied heavily on outside institu- ships—we found that a range of outside fun- tions, particularly universities and their gradu- ders were interested in supporting the rehabil- ate students, to carry out a range of scientific itation of the McGraw Ranch. Our first major research. The problem for Rocky Mountain grants came from the largest source of historic National Park, and for many other parks in the preservation funding in the state, the system, was a lack of in-park housing for these Colorado Historical Society’s State Historical researchers. Fund. With this key state support and a One solution that was considered in the matching commitment from the park in hand, 189 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage we were able to obtain additional support with partner organizations, and engage the from private donors as well as several public more fully in park resource and man- Colorado foundations. The Rocky Mountain agement issues. Designation as a learning cen- National Park Association, a strong park ter also provides Rocky Mountain National friends group with a proven track record of Park with additional long-term funding for raising funds for other historic sites in the research staff and maintenance dollars for the park, joined as a funding partner as well. McGraw Ranch research facility. Volunteers have played a major role The newly named Continental Divide throughout the rehabilitation of the McGraw Research and Learning Center in Rocky Ranch—logging more than 5,000 hours to Mountain National Park is among the first five date. Nearly one hundred NTHP members such centers that have been established from along the Colorado Front Range as well around the country. The others are located at as groups from the Rotary Club, local church- Point Reyes National Seashore in California, es, the Navy Seabees and Habitat for Cape Cod National Seashore in Humanity have contributed their time and Massachusetts, Great Smoky Mountains skills. Volunteers were attracted by the beauti- National Park in Tennessee,and Kenai Fjords ful park setting, the opportunity to learn new National Park in Alaska. Another eight park skills, such as repairing historic windows or learning centers are currently being devel- re-chinking logs, and the chance to be part of oped, with the ultimate goal of establishing a a highly visible public project.