Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence « Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2002

Figure 7. The image illustrates the principal elevation of the Trail Caretaker'’s Residence at Indian
Garden. From this angle, the aesthetic effects of the 1960 alteration and removal of the stone corner pier
from the main facade are most noticible, changing the balance and symmetry of the composition. Note the

prominence of the role of landscaping to the project. ARG Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F



April x3, 260r ;

replace the existing two-fused disconnect.

Existing large trees around the building provide a significant amount of shade. Many of these trees are
old and it is assumed that the majority of them may die in coming years. Once the trees are gone, both
the building and its adjacent courtyard will receive increased heat from solar radiation.

Abatement of Hazardous Materials
Asbestos materials and lead-based paint may be found throughout the interior and exterior of the build-
ing. A Level ] HAZMAT testing program is recommended for the entire building.

Alternatives for Treatment

This section presents and evaluates alternative approaches to realization of the ultimate treatment.
Alternatives are presented in both text and graphic form. Analysis addresses the adequacy of each solu-
tion in terms of impact on historic materials, effect on historic character, compliance with NPS policy,
and other management objectives.

‘Two alternatives have been discussed for the future of this building:

1) Retain the current configuration. Use the 1932 portion of the structure for public access; use the
1960 addition as storage.

2) Remove the 1960 addition and relocate stored items to the adjacent Rock House. For better uti-
lization of the existing structure and site, incorporate a landscaped central courtyard between the
pair of buildings, shelter and shade structures to cool the area, and site improvements including
landscaping, specifically with regard to greenery, circulation paths, benches, and fountains.

In both options, the historic portion of the building would be used as a controlled access point for hikers,
something like a visitor contact station, but without the services of stationed ranger. The benefit of
removing the addition is that is allows direct access from the building to the outdoor courtyard to the
west of the building. If the addition remains, and is used as storage, the west end of the building would
be off-limits to visitors, who would have to exit through the front (north) door and walk around to the
west side of the building to access the central Jandscaped part of the site.

Preferred Treatment

Alternative 2 is the preferred treatment because removing the addition allows the building to be restored
to its original 1932 configuration. It also allows (refer to the section on interior rehabilitation) a simpler
treatment/restoration of the interior wood floors and single wall construction. Further, if the addition is
removed the exterior courtyard area is enlarged, providing more outdoor space for people to gather and
increasing the area available for exterior shade structures. This would make the area more attractive and
desirable as a hiking destination point. This treatment is, however, the more expensive of the two

TREATMENT AND UsE = 27



" RECOMMENDED

Paul Cloyd, PEFRA
Project Manager, Denver Service Center

APPROVED:

J.P McKenna
Acting Superintendent, Grand Canyon National Park

Cover: North & East Elevations from HSR Drawings

April 23, 2001

April 30, 2001

a or



_

Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2001

Figure 16. This image represents the view looking from the kitchen, part of the original structure,
into the living room, looking west. ARG Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F



eB Farm 10-4000
$ sts Agcrove! a, 1026-0018

United States Department of the interlor
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

Bright Angel Trail

Section number Page

The county’s franchise transfer did not end the raeilroad’s
attempts ta chase Cameron cut of Grand Canyon. Testimony involving
the early suit questioning the county’s right to operate a toll road
reached the Arizona Supreme Court for the ninet ih time in
January, 1909, but the court ruled that Cameron had the right ta
collect tolls. The Santa Fe'’s strategy had shifted again, however,
this time to the validity of Cameron’s mining claims along the
trail. Testimony before the Grizona land office in 1906 was
forwarded to the Department of the Interior, which ruled in
February, 1909, that Cameron had not developed the mining sites,
thus, they reverted to Grand Canyon National Monument. In the
meanwhile, the Arizona Supreme Court gave the railroad another bit
of good news when it ruled that tax assessments on the Grand Canvon
spur could mot begin until 1909.

The Department of the Interior’s decision in 1909 had little
effect on Cameroan’s aperatiacns. Even if the decisian were legal and
enforced, it could have no effect on the operation of the Bright
Angel Trail as a toil road. Niles Cameron, C.C. Spaulding, and
Lannes Ferrall continued to collect tolls and run the tourist camps
despite the decision, and Niles continued (perhaos at an accelerated
pace) to perform regular trail maintenance and assessment work at
the mining claims. Meanwhile, the Ganta Fe did nat try to explait
the decision, but rather, chose to pursue construction of its own
road and trail west of the Bright Angel from Grand Canyon Village to
Hermit Basin.

In May, 1909, District Forester Arthur C. Ringland toured the
proposed raad and trail route with Santa Fe and Fred Harvey
officials, and quickly forwarded a special permit with his
andorsement on to Washington. The proposed “Scecial Use Permit to
the. Gamta Fe Land Improvement Campany" represented the federai
government's willingness to work with a large corcaeration to
eradicate the smaller, intractable. private operators within public
lands, as well as its early willingn an front man ta
accomplish bureaucratic aims, The ecific y gave the
Santa Fe contrel of the Bright Angel Trail——-nrope ty it had
absolutely mo right to give--and a right of way for a road and trail
to Hermit Basin, a hotel at that location, anid sever rim drives
which, incidentally, would pass over several of meron’ Ss mining
claims. The department’s cunning is revealed in the stipulation
that the vermit was subject to all valid claims, especially those of
the county and Cameron, and that federal assistance would not be
forthcoming in any 1 i battles that might ertainivd ensue. he
permit was. in fact, & statement of formal alliance betw the
federal government and the Ganta Fe, a blank check ¥ Iroad
fo roenstruct its awn tourist farilities, rid am For
the railroad to continue its leaal be at its



April 13, 2007 Architectural Resources Group
NV. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Site

The caretaker residence is located at Indian Garden in the Inner Canyon 4.5 miles below the South Rim
on the Bright Angel Trail (see Appendix E, Figure 8). It sits within a cluster of mature trees to the west
of the Bright Angel Trail, paired with another residential-scale building, the pump caretaker’s residence
of 1943, also known as the Rock House. Between the pair of buildings is a landscaped central court-
yard. Indian Garden is distinguished as one of the few sites within the canyon that is naturally visitor-
friendly, providing shade and its own water source from underground springs. The presence of trees,
grasses, shrubbery, gabion walls, and a creek bed give a distinct and unique character to the area (see
Appendix E, Figure 9, Appendix F, Figures 1-5).

Construction

The building is a one-story stone and wood cabin type of wood-framed construction and classic rustic
design. The original floors were constructed with Douglas fir. The structure is distinguished by single-
wall construction with jamb post furring, a wood-shingled gabled roof with a rubble masonry chimney,
and masonry piers and porch of native Kaibab limestone (see Appendix F, Figure 6). The building
rests on a stone foundation and has an asphalt shingle roof.

Exterior

The exterior finish is of vertical wood siding. The building’s distinguished features are the corner stone
buttresses, two of which remain. All four elevations have deep eaves with rafters visible on the east and
west elevations.

North Elevation

The elevation exhibits the typical building characteristics and serves as the principal entrance. The orig-
inal staircase of flagstone is extant and the porch has been extended to the west to accommodate the
1960 addition. The stair and porch are constructed with rough-hewn boulders of Kaibab limestone. The
elevation has one single-hinged door with a screen and two window openings. The pier at the northeast
comer is original and extant (see Appendix F, Figure 7).

South Elevation

The building’s south or rear elevation exhibits the typical building characteristics. The defining charac-
teristics are the original masonry pier at the southeast corner and the original roof gable to the east. Two
window openings puncture the rear elevation, one in the original side and one in the addition. There is
an attic-level louvered vent below the peak of the gable (see Appendix F, Figure 8).

West Elevation
This is the principal facade of the 1960 addition. This elevation is defined by a gabled roof, the angle of

Prysica, Description = 15



Wee Fgem 10-6006
® O8t8 Aparowel No 1026-0018
88)

United States Department of the interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

4a Bright Angel Trail

Section number Page

|

on tenaciously with the help of his political offices, It is aise
true that the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service. and Santa
Fe/Fred Harvey combine brought order and needed improvements to the
rapid development at Sauth Rim. The debate, however, cent ed an
the perceived rights of an individual at risk to’ an omnivorous
conglomerate, and later to a governmental agency reaching for
omnipotenc The question of wha if goed and who is bad in this
type of conflict depends on’ one views of a desired end justifying
arly means toward attainment. This history will not answer that
question, but attemots a more balanced account than is often given
to the question‘of control of the Bright Angel Trail.

The first question to be addressed is that of initial rights
to the Bright Angel Trail within existent public land laws of 1891,
the year that Pete Herry, et al, completed the trail to Indian
Gardens. Statutes in effect at that time and.since 1887 allowed
enterprising men willing to risk their own money to build roads and
trails through lands not already used for public purposes, and to
operate these transportation routes as toll roads for a period of up
to fifteen years. In 1891, after an expenditure of two months labor
and #500 cash, Pete Berry and his partners immediately filed on the
Bright Angel as a toll road, though contemporary accounts indicate
that they did not charge locals for its use throughout the 1890s.
Rather, they often entered into reciprocal agreements like that with
Sanford Rowe in 1892, whereby Rowe was allowed ta lead tourists down
the trail and Cameron and others were allowed to use the water
available at Rowe's Well.

Some two dozen men who worked on or used the trail in the
1899s testified in 19062 and 1903 that the original trail partners
were the acknowledged owners of the “Cameron Trail” throughout the
last decade of the nineteenth century. & few locals like Bucky
O'Neill, John Hance, and Martin EBuggeln argued through words or
actions that trail ownership was doubtful, but the presonderance ot
estimony of Cameron's friends as well as others who had nothing to
ain by lying ir that the oartners maintained the trail to
it their needs allowed others to use it at no cost, mainly
se ath t usage did mok ju fy a toll keeper.

wig

In 1991, the original frarichise to operate the Bright Angel

Trail expired and Fete Berry immed sought and was granted the
allowable ear extension from Ceconino County on January oF
ear. in early 1901 that the Santa Fe
med ho con i line Begun by Lombard, Goode. and

Company, Ralph Cameron quickly began ta secure total rights to the
trail. Soon er Fy nteand the mchise, Cameron bought out
his interest that of his ie ars Between March, 170%,



PPECLFICATIONS .
 Foundatan .

Piers of vizes as-thown, .
Milt LE Bite,
Cinders anchorad te piers with Bile bolts cath
snuks and. washers -

. vv tonemork ~
athe: -earnarejbate sebeps and: -chinaea hp es chown.
Rough: firksh jreqbhared serpace- native vtorre lald ta
‘cathent mortar. <cerapowed af Lpert Portland cement
2A 32 forks “ear
jagreke he painted Chis mockar colarged wigibly dorker

a sfone
Brickwork.

28525 commonbrick flee with minineny cement’
jelavtemad-opening €x6' from foundation he atti:
‘himble for sPove plae connector

aViawer Fleer. os
Aanslithie -eonerate, 14 besa li piaish, corfoce pee
ed with heaty chickemuireyand sloped fo
are tases: seme tax .as fovadeatior, fiaich 12 mi,
. ~Atashing.
. Lichatere shaun 2Bgauga gebanizad iron.
Carpentry and Millevarts

Mi traning unter and racgh carpentry choll ba beet
ee aaa el ee
A finish cwoadevsre shall be Mo, t. Common Fie
oy eat 8 vhall be figs gpart and covered
reap well te

“ingles wha be Cher A J Pili dB le weather
aoe fed every El course, with reshingla ridge: «
Poors, te be wingle and We. /-/tt AE Oregorn Fine,
hoards forexteryor exalts shall be ao PLE.
beards for partitioasshall be (k10"Sas.

| Boheme chal Bet PUP PHS,
Al ash hall be Yex2te, Mags Mickelugar Pine
tavements:. poring raG yh ‘glazda with tox, clear g/ass |
Window and door skraggs whall be fé-mash bronze
abe sat tn fh and 18 Prames respectively,
| Windewsartens tebe detachable’.
L Ait devarin shored. PEF (eg L, grooued.,

Kitehen ease Ncoenter shelf and 13 bck.
wood pana! oeetas
Back ofcase fo he TEFhned.
sae Herduard

urnivh and tackall all hardware both tree and
evhyide regained (in the complation of the

beikdings
wo Paurtr on

Mertarter woodwork cluding roof except sesh
shall besstaiied er gi 2 Cabotts,or equal, eraprore
whaln , colon a6 sele nee He superiatendant-

Vewh shall be primed and given 2 caots of Jaad and
ot! paint, calor os ee lekbed
Ail faterior woodwork shall be. primed and given

coaht af lead and al paidt, calor ay velacted|
AU THE looms shall recenve a, coat of pot insaed
eit After full penetration, Haraighy wie arg, |
wax and polteh,
Plombing

fitores es manvpectured crane 4
Mes. are from Crane. catalogue)

Phe follow
Eegont

mee B84E-P 1 site (AEM.
bowen Heed:
ord4o0-8
thea Rod:
: C-A#962-A size A20°K/"
| thowwer Drains
osam F8OO-£.
‘tkeheon Sinks | 3
1 CLM 250, 26020 ahh 2752 Agile ME
quik compression dooble 122 iyi earth ranean)
weeks, chine ever handles sailiging Spoor, *
VEE-IBF0° MP cask brace SP trap fe wall
with sscutcheon.
Range boiler:
38486, 24 gal, capoaityaxiva fvaug-

“Lilacacs
ae ae

fete sete

. i BAO"OL. Lane bee 0 OR»
SECTION.

aee/ey

fe
% ee: plan #

a

PRE" detsts
FE OG

idle coc cP?

LM 26 bea cer

“gfe
Garelpier Po solid,
Irate £2"

R ul
AN

seca

SAME -

i TERIOR LOR
steals : /'% /*

WS ZYPICAL WALL E .
HAM LOW. LETH LS

Seale:

a WIDE ELEVATION ~

wvea/ei: fo

fol di)

AL

shimmer

wih
Wee, brick

fo EH

SIDED Wale TER,

Seale

ETAL.

VECTION

~SRCTION AA

KITCHEN. CASE legs FO

A
ELEVATION ©

oF SLOWER |

veole }34*/

~oly.

(L008

oe
ea f GeevATION

Limemsions sane as.opter side

ff

 Conerate Piers.

ot

\
£4
FROMT: ELEVATION.

Rear stniter except ne door

wateele Mf" -

Dinensiobs. some. as other end:

cornert B

THE Pid se

Vaid poce #06"

Jeale
2 MH sash are, Sttmcat gig v0, detachable screen on outuidd .

base +

Ud, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR NATIOAL PEEK SERVICE|
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PURK.

WIRETAKERS CAB IND GARDEN.

DESIGNED BY LAMOSCAAR DIVISION.

| Boke Seg aA

Ene.



|

Grand Canyon National Park - Indian Garden Building #93
Apsil 13, 2007

Preliminary Code Analysis and Accessibility Evaluation

The following codes have been referenced for this analysis: the 1997 edition of the
Uniform Building Code; the 1997 Uniform Mechanical Code; the 1996 Uniform
Electrical Code; the 1994 Uniform Plumbing Code; and the 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
The 1997 Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC) has also been referenced to
determine alternative code compliant solutions for historic buildings.

Although not a building code, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal
civil rights law that govems accessibility to buildings for the disabled. National Park
Service (NPS) Director’s Order 28 requires all historic structures to be made accessible to
the highest degree for visitors and employees. Because the intent of the ADA is not
necessarily addressed in the building code, a review of a project pursuant to ADA
requirements is included in the following preliminary code analyses. The following
standards have been referenced for this analysis: ADA Accessibility Guidelines for
Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG), amended January 1998, and the Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standards (UFAS). Where there is a discrepancy between ADAAG and
UFAS, the NPS is required to follow the guidelines that provide equal or greater
accessibility.

The classification of historic buildings as qualified historic buildings is typically an
important step in the long-term preservation of historic character. Building codes, such as
the UBC, prescribe solutions to conditions based on new construction models. When
conformance with prevailing codes - such as the UBC - would adversely affect the
historic character of a qualified historic building, the UCBC may be invoked as a means
to preserve historic fabric and explore solutions that meet the intent, but not necessarily
the letter, of the UBC.

As indicated above, the following code analysis is preliminary. To facilitate future design
work, this code analysis attempts to cite all major ways in which the building does not
comply with prevailing codes. If the UBC and UCBC suggest that a condition may
remain subject to verification with the building official, the non-compliant condition is
typically noted and qualified.

The classification of program elements (uses) are as follows:
1932 portion: Visitor Contact Station (office)
(B occupancy under the UBC)
1960 addition: SAR Storage (S-2 occupancy under the UBC)

1) Occupancy Classification: Chapter 10 of the UBC establishes the available number
of occupants in the building, (a ratio referred to as occupant load) and Chapter 3 outlines
occupancy requirements. The following matrix excludes square footages for service areas

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP

Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc.



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence ° Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2002

Figure 12. The image illustrates the cabin’s interior roof framing showing the original part of the
Structure in the rear and the newer truss construction completed in 1960. ARG Photo dated May,
2000.

APPENDIX F



ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP

JS

|

» Y> Wy, 3 77 ss

OCOGCL COC RRRRG RRR Ca

SAY WNY SHOOPHOAOAY SS S WY \
NRNNNNNNNNN NNN NNN

(@\ SECTION - EXISTING CONDITIONS
af Scale ~

(4) EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING CONDITIONS (2 _ SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING CONDITIONS
St sca @ Sty scale D

ail is
i

—,

—r

i
ii
— =
{
Gr NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING CONDITIONS CIA WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING CONDITIONS.
apy, scale O SEY CAE O
DESIGNED: ‘SUB SHEET NO. TITLE OF SHEET DRAWING NO.
- OND —w4 sd} ""} INDIAN GARDENS — BLDG. 93
ee ELAN SxSIING g TONS DRAW : EXISTING CONDITIONS lexe] steer
SCALED teem TECH. ReMEW HSR “
4" s TO" —|
— __ PROJECT NO on 43/2001 GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK Jor =



Indian Garden Trait Caretaker’s Residence « Historic Structure Report « Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2001

Figure 15. This image represents the view looking from the living room into the kitchen. ARG
Photo dated May, 2000.

Appendix E



Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2002

Figure 3. Sketch for guest cottages at Indian Garden by architect Mary Jane Elizabeth Colter, dated 1916.
Although this project was never realized, Colter’s plans inspired the development of Phantom Ranch a few
years later. GCNPA Number 16682.

APPENDIX E



Sater remo xt scaromt No, 1086-2016

United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

. 8 17 Bright Angel Trail
Section number Page

From the 1890s through the late 1920s, residents of the
Arizona Strip north of Grand Canyan used the Bright Angel corridor
as the most efficient route to county seats at Flagstaff and
Kingman. As park development accelerated the north rim in the
1920s, the cerridor became an even more important and often used
link to park headquarters at Grand Canyon Village. Thi importance
wanec-with the completion of the Navajo Bridge across Marbie Canyon
in 1936, but never completely disaposared as some lacal residents
(particularly park rangers) preferred the twenty-mile walk or mule
ride to the more than two-hundred-mile automobile trip between -the
two rims. Air travel since the 1940s has further reduced the need
to use the corridor as 4@ subregional travel route, but some still
prefer this avenue.

Today, the Bright Angel Trail continues as an important link
in the transcanyon pathway, not only for the tens of thousands of
tourists who travel it for fun each year, but also for Fred Harvey
and National Park Service employees who provide support services ta
ailing hikers and the facilities at Indian Gardens and Fhantom
Ranch. This extensive local usage will continue as long as Grand
Canyon remains a national park.



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence * Historic Structure Report ¢ Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group April 3, 2002

cabins, offered meals, and boasted a phone line to the South Rim. Within the next few years he planted
cottonwood trees, dammed the creek to irrigate a garden and orchard, constructed several buildings, and
offered a pleasant overnight stay for tourists within the canyon. A letter from the National Park Service
dated July 26, 1922, explains the way visitors used Cameron's site:

In the past it has been the practice for the tourists from the Bright Angel Trail to stop at Indian
Garden, rest in the shade of the trees and perhaps eat their lunches and secure fresh water at this
point, and to make use of the toilet facilities which have for some time been provided back from
the Trail among the buildings on the Cameron claim.8

A 1917 map illustrates the extent of Cameron's development which included a kitchen, root cellar; rain
gauge, incinerator, toolshed, fields and gardens, laundry, toilets, and water supplies. Apparently, the suc-
cess of Cameron’s camp peaked in 1917. Shortly thereafter, reports characterized the area as "filthy and
disgraceful". By the 1920s, Cameron had abandoned the site and it was polluted, littered, and marred by
the tattered remains of the tent cabins. The NPS letter of July 26, 1922 continued:

This spring the toilet facilities were found to be very unsatisfactory and in a very unsanitary
condition, and an effort was made through the County Supervisors to have these privies put in
satisfactory shape.?

The site remained neglected until the National Park Service assumed control in 1927. Their first order
of business was to remove the tents and litter and install chemical toilets, but few other improvements
were implemented until the 1930s. 10

This chapter of Indian Garden history is linked to the power struggle between Cameron and the NPS,
significant in the history of the southwest and the Grand Canyon. The arrival of the NPS at the begin-
ning of the twentieth century was not welcomed.by all, especially those who had staked claims on the
land and worked it for decades, like Cameron. Theirs was the biggest struggle for control of the Canyon
and it had direct implications on the development of Indian Garden and the Bright Angel Trail. Ralph
Cameron wrestled with the Santa Fe Railroad, the U.S. Forest Service and the NPS for control of his
mining claims, Indian Garden and the Bright Angel Toll Trail. Cameron had long governed access
through the Canyon by controlling the Bright Angel Trail, charging tourists exorbitant fees. The dispute
with the NPS finally reached a climax in 1925, when Cameron fought the ruling that gave federal pro-
tection of the Canyon to the U.S. Forest Service and the NPS. The matter went before the Supreme
Court which had previously ruled against Cameron. Just as NPS Director Stephen Mather was prepar-
ing to confiscate Cameron’s properties, Cameron was elected U.S. Senator from Arizona. Cameron suc-
ceeded in complicating the situation, and holding up appropriations for the Grand Canyon National Park
and delaying improvements. The acrimony between Cameron and Mather was such that Mather consid-
ered resigning from the NPS in 1926 to run against Cameron for the Arizona Senate seat to "rid the

8 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

|

a, en ee ee ee eee



Indian Garden Trait Caretaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

‘April 13, 2001 “Architectural Resources Group

L Executive SUMMARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE DATA

Built in 1932, the former trail caretaker’s residence at Indian Garden on the Bright Angel Trail of the
Grand Canyon National Park is an excellent example of the classic rustic style architecture developed by
the Landscape Division of the National Park Service, under the direction of Thomas Chalmers Vint, in
concert with the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Originally built as a one-story, two-room stone
and wood-frame cabin for the trail caretaker, the building exhibits fine craftsmanship and incorporates
familiar materials from the landscape. The cabin's simple design was enhanced visually and fortified by
monumental stone corner piers, two of which are extant.

A small-scale rustic building, the former residence is in perfect alignment with the historical precedence
of construction at Indian Garden and it compares favorably with Wester tourist-oriented buildings that
have come before: small-scale temporary structures, tents, cottages, mule-barns, cabins, and cabanas.
The building's significance is derived as much from its location at Indian Garden, a site rich in history,
as from its construction. The inner canyon site has been long associated with native American tradition
and nineteenth century explorers and entrepreneurs who settled in the area, The Bright Angel Trail is
one of the most well. known footpaths in the world, used by over 150,000 hikers and mule riders annual-
ly. In addition, the building i is significant as a remnant of the Civilian Conservation Corps building cam-
paigns of the 1930s.

Now known as the SAR Cache Building, and used principally for storage of equipment, the structure sits
within a cluster of mature trees to the west of the Bright Angel Trail, and is paired with another residen-
tial small-scale building, the Pump Caretaker’s residence of 1943. Indian Garden is distinguished as one
of the few sites within the canyon that is naturally visitor-friendly providing shade and its own water
source from underground springs. At four-and-a-half miles below the South Rim, the site is a natural
stopping point for hikers and for mule trains, a long familiar symbol of the tourist industry at the Grand
Canyon. Though the area surrounding Indian Garden benefits from amenities both natural and NPS-pro-
vided, such as unparalleled scenery and convenient rest stops, it is, in general, somewhat haphazardly
organized and lacks focus.

The rehabilitation of this underutilized building provides an interesting opportunity to create a park pres-
ence below the rim and make much better use of the existing structure and site. Ideally, this pair of
buildings with a landscaped central courtyard could easily be transformed into an oasis, a purposeful
destination point for day trippers from the South Rim. The focus of the project wil] be geared towards
maintenance, repair and site development, rehabilitating the landscape, and providing shelter and shade
structures to cool the area.

Executive SumMARY 4



indian Garden Trait Caretaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon Nationat Park

‘April 13, 2001

Architectural Resources Group

Appendix E. Historic Photographs of the Residence at Indian Garden in
Chronological Order.



era rom enone (09 Apcrove! Ho, 1026-0018

United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

+ 8 Bright Angel Trail
Section number Page 7 °

B. The Bright Angeli Trail is significant under Criterion 6
for its association with Raloh Henry Cameron. Cameron was born in
Southport, Maine, in 1863, moved wast in 1881. and a ived in
Flagstaff with the @tiantic & Pacific Railroad in | an
intelligent man with boundless energy, he worked during the 188ts at
the local sawmill, as a railroad clerk. as manager d later owner
of a merchandise store (sold to the Babbitt brothers in 1889), and
aS agent for the Haywood Cattle Company. During these same years he
yan six thousand sheen on shares and built not onlv a fair amount of
capital for later Grand Canvon investments but also a reputation
within Yavapai County as a man of his word. Cameron’s reputation
increased during the 1890s as he helped form Coconino County in i@?l
and was appointed the caunty’s sheriff by the territorial governoar-~
a position he held throughout the decade.

During the last two decades of the nineteenth century, Cameron
developed extensive interests at the Grand Canyon‘s south rim.
Along with his brother, Niles, and Pete Berry, Cameron filed on the
Last Chance copper claim in 1890--one of the very few inner Canvon
mines that ever shipped ore and turned a profit. The following vear
he joined with others to finance construction of the “Bright Angel
Toll Road." By the first few years of the twentieth century he haa
attained control through mining and water claims of approximately
13,000 acres within the Canyon and along its south rim, establishing
the most formidable legal obstacie to federal control at Grand
Canyon.

Legal difficulties would escalate to political debates at the
national level as Cameron continued his success in politics. in
1904, his popularity earned his election as Chairman ot the Coconino
County Hoard of Supervisors, a position he used ta fight his battles
over Bright Angel Trail control and to garner local public sup ort
for his Canyon enterprises. As the Forest Service and Fred Harvey
combination gained strength, sq too did Cameron with fis election as
territorial delegate to Congress in 1909.

Cameron's popularity and the Reoublican landslide of 1720 gave
him a seat in the United States in 1921, a position he heid until
1927. From this vantage, Cameron raised the issue of public versus
private land rights to a new level. He served as an important
catal yst in conar ional debates over the power of the fledgling
i Park Service through his success at temporarily eliminating
Service pations from the national budget, an action that

a 1 leaders to the side of the Park Service and
trative strength. During tis tenure he also
vino County voters to defeat a measure that would
Angel Tr l to the fed gover rment .

its
Luenced Coce
1 the Brigt



OG Ferm Ioe0oe ‘O88 agorover Mo. 1026-001
Bo5) No. Topecota

United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

. iz ‘Bright Angel Trail
Section number

;

Page

The situation clearly called for stricter management. Cameron had
become an anachronism, & Single individual with rights but no real
solutions to the challenge of increased tourism. The success of the
idea he and others had conceived and developed had finally done him
ins but after two decades of incessant fighting agsinst larger foes.
he did mot grasp the larger picture. Ralph Cameron's bitterness
became the theme of the 1920-1925 period of Bright Angel history.

After 1920, Cameron carried his personal war against the
Department ‘of the Interior and the National Fark Service to tne
United States Senate. His election in that year illustrated his
extant local popularity and remaining influence despite his
unpopular stance on Grand Canyon development. In 19722, in a move
that can only be described at retribution against old enemies,
Cameron succeeded in temporarily removing the national park's
woefully inadequate operating funds from the Department of the
Interior's budget. Fortunately, the Santa fe and Fred Harvey
continued to pour millions into Canyon development in the early
1920s, lessening the impact of Cameron’s move and the early paucity
of funds. Meanwhile, in 1923, U.S. Attorney General Harlan F. Stone
through special assistant Harold Baxter finally evicted Cameron’s
employees from their decaying tourist facilities at Indian Gardens.
Cameron‘’s last major victory over his foes came in i924, when he
used the final measure of his influence to convince the voters of
Coconine County to reject the federal government's offer to buy the
Bright Angel Trail. This action convinced the National Park Service
to begin construction om the South Kaibab Trail-~the second major
Grand Canyon trail built to circumvent Cameron's interests.

Ralph Cameron lost his reelection bid to the senate in 1926,
left the disposition of the Bright Angel Trail to the county, and
retired to the East to lick his wounds. Ey that year, the Fark
Service completed the South Kaibab Trail, reducing the Bright
Angei‘s strategic value Coconina County reopened negokiations for
the trail’s sale in 1927, asking that the ¢ srak government
appropriate one million dollars to spend on @ new anproach road from
the National Old Trails Highway (J.5. Route 64) to the south rim.

Negotiations simce 1919 had revolved around just such a trade. but

had consistently been blocked by eron. Gince the Hriaht Angel
remained & mc popular trail than the South Esibab. the government
agreed to the new offer (for a lesser amount) and ownershins
transferred to the federal government on May 22, 1728.

Bebra Sutphen’s history of : Grandview Trail re is that
the fight for federal control of Grand Canyon r s and trails
ontinued inte the early 1940s. thus. the histeric context of public
versus private rights at Grand Canyon do not end with Ralph



‘\1B/D-Ss¥
raed Coney.

Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence
Historic Structure Report

G = NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING CONDITIONS
SCALE O

GRAND CANYON

National Park ¢ Arizona

SCA NNED
1 [31/2002

uma

7


Report * Grand Canyon National Park

April 13, 2007

Architectural Resources Group

TABLE OF CONTENTS

L

1.

ii.

Vil.

Vor.

Executive Summary and Administrative Data .........ss006 seeeneceeesensenenecsseceeenetewens [

Historical Background ...

Significance and Integrity Evaluation ..... eerrerrerees benceeceneecanensencecevenees seeeeoeee 13
Physical Description «.++++-ssesscecsereneeeseeetee Seren Weeeteeene de eeeweeecerccnncees convene LS
Conservation Issues -sessscsecsesseceesracecscenssses ae 19
Chronology of Development and Use «++++sseeeseesneee sees enceneeneeenereseees cerereerrs sees 21
Treatment and Use +++rsececerssssscececcencencescves Pe eaeeeeeeeenecasesrcesscees. seneseoenenen 23
Bibliography -s++++ssseseseseeeseeesseeeeee rer sescecceeces seeeneoees 29
Endnotes ..: ote n eee eeeseseceeaeees. ben dacecececrsccsccorsesese. 000 33

Appendices

Appendix A. Copies of original drawings of the Trail Caretaker’s Cabin at Indian Garden,
prepared by the Landscape Division of the NPS, dated 1932.

Appendix B. Existing Conditions Drawings of Plans, Elevations, and Section, by
Architectural Resources Group, dated April 13, 2001.

Appendix C. Drawings Illustrating Alternative Treatments by Architectural Resources
Group, dated April 13, 2001.

Appendix D. Code Analysis.

Appendix E. Historic Photographs of the Residence at Indian Garden in Chronological
Order.

Appendix F. Photographs of Existing Conditions.

Appendix G. National Register Nomination for the Bright Angel Trail, dated September
13, 1992. (Due to document length, only the Statement of Significance is
included.)

Appendix H. Consultant Reports.



indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s R

‘Apsl 13, 2007

X. ENDNOTES

1 Director’s Order

2 Information on the native inhabitants of the Canyon summarized from Michael F. Anderson’s Living
at the Edge.

3 Information on Spanish exploration of the canyon is summarized from Michael F. Anderson’s Living
at the Edge.

4 Information on Native American use and occupation of Indian Garden is summarized from Jacilee
Wray’s thesis, Havasupai Ethnohistory on the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park: A Case
Study for Cultural Resource Management in the National Park Service.

5 ibid

6. ibid

7 Information summarized from Bright Angel Trail Nomination Form for the National Register of
Historic Places, 1992.

8 Document held-in Grand Canyon National Park archives.

9 ibid ;

10 Bright Angel Trail Nomination Form for the National Register of Historic Places, 1992, Section 7, p.7
11 Albright, Horace. The Birth of the National Park Service, p. 176,

12 Information summarized from The Birth of the National Park Service by Horace Albright and Robert
Cahn, 1985. pps. 172-186.

13 Daily Silver Belt, 13 October 1924.

14 Bright Angel Trail Nomination Form for the National Register of Historic Places, 1992, Section 7,p.7
15 McClelland, p. 199.

16 ibid

17 Good, Albert H. Park and Recreation Structures. 1938

18 As noted in Specification on NPS drawings for Trail Caretakers Cabin at Indian Garden, 1932.

19 ibid

20 ibid

21 ibid

22 ibid

Enpnotes = 33,



}

Flack + Kurtz ine.

Indian Gardens Caretaker’s Residence
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

BUILDING ASSESSMENT
REPORT

Prepared for:

Architectural Resources Group
Pier 9, The Embarcadero

San Francisco, CA 94111

Prepared by

Flack+Kurtz Inc.

A WSP Group Company

343 Sansome Street

San Francisco, California 94104

August 11, 2000



tory bom Wena One aperowe Mo, 1038-0014

United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

14 Bright Angel Trail

Section number Page

Martin Buggeln began to offer trips down the Bright Angel
Trail by i901. Thomas Smith and Frank Cornette worked as trail
Quides tor Buggeln in 1903 and noted “many hundreds” of tourists in
that year. Cameron, toa, employed wranglers to lead trips down his
trail by 190 Tt is worth noting that although John Hance, Fete
Berry, and William Bass started their ouided tours down their own
trails into the Canyon long before Cameron and Buggeln came on the
scene, the railroad’s arrival instantiy focused tourist operations
at the Bright Angel Treil and usage immediately superseded thet of

“all other trails combined.

By the middle of i903, Ralph Cameron had completed Cameron’s
Hatel and Camps at the rim and Cameron’s Indian Garden Camp upon the
Tonto Flatform. His hotel registers for 1903-1907 indicate that he
initially captured a good market share of the tourist business from
Buggeln and the Santa Fe. In 1904 through i706, nearly two thousand
visitors registered annually at his hotels or tent camps, at rates
varying from £1,.50-$3.00 per night. Aside from revenues derived
from saddle stock, trail guides, tolls, and rooms, Cameron provided
meals, crim rides (one dollar and up), riding skirts (fifty cents),
and other sundries for his paying guests and trail users. In 1904,
Cameron could claim that business had never been better. During a
six month period in 1907 he collected 2,996 in tolls alone, and
after payment for trail maintenance and county (10%) and territorial
(2%) taxes, metted a toll read profit of $2,107.80.

Cameran’s business remained good into the ifvids, but the
amount earned provided little more than a modest living and could
not compere to Fred Harvey's operations after 19705. Gfter his
election to Congress in 1968 and in later years when he engaged in
other business enterprises, Cameron had to pay permanent employes
such ag Lannes Ferrall, manager of his rim hotel. and Niles Cameron
and Clarence €. Spaulding, managers at Indian Gardens. Employees
and interminable lawsuits drained his revenues and may account far
less money invested in trail maintenance by the lFits. in i9i5.
Cameron collected Mo in tolis, vet tourists complained that the
Bright Angel Trail was in pour condi

tion.

Since Cameron charged a ene dollar toll throughout ir
posses the trail, and pedestrians travelled for free. his
eallectians of 1715 suggest th more than 26,000 tourists per vear
used the traii by the middle i9id0s. This may represent the peak
number of tourists riding mies and horses down the trail durina the
historic period. After the National Park Service assumed control of
the trail and the Fred Harvey company Gained a monopoly on saddle
stock t ffic, usage continued during the 1930s at aopreximately
this leve Suvoerintendent Miner R. Tillotson noted in i that



indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group

April 13, 200%

shall be best quality Oregon pine of sizes as shown. All finish woodwork shall be No. 1 Common Fir.
Roof sheathing shall be 1” x 6” apart and covered with roofing paper well lapped. Shingles shall be Star

A Star laid [illegible word] doubled every Sth course with [illegible word] ridge. Floors to be single and
T&G Oregon Pine.”19

The specification continues, “all case shall be [measurement illegible] thick Sugar pine. Window and
door screens shall be [measurement illegible] mesh bronze wire set in [measurement illegible] frames
respectively. Window screens to be detachable. Ash drain board 11/4” thick grooved. Kitchen case to

have [measurement illegible] counter shelf and [measurement illegible] thick wood panel doors. Back of
case to be T&G lined.”20

With regard to paint, “all exterior woodwork inchiding roof, except sash shall be stained with Cabot’s or
equal creosote stain, color as selected by the Superintendent. Sash shall be primed and given two coats
of lead and oil paint, color as selected, All interior woodwork shall be primed and given two coats of
lead and oil paint, color as selected, all T&G floors shall receive a coat of hot linseed oil. After full pen-
etration, thoroughly wipe dry, wax and polish.”21

The drawing specified plumbing fixtures manufactured by Crane Co. for the lavatory, shower, kitchen
sink and range boiler.22

12 HisTORICAL BACKGROUND

|

ee oe ee, ees ee, ee ee, ee ee,


Indian Garden Trail Caretaker's Residence «+ Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group April x3, 2001

Figure 2. The image illustrates the relationship of the Indian Garden site to the inner canyon walls. The
rocky outcropping and jagged canyon wall profile in the distance provide a dramatic contrast to the cool,

Shady site. View is looking west from in front of the Trail Caretaker 's Residence. ARG Photo dated May,
2000.

APPENDIX F



soi”

ENGINEERS

Grand Canyon National Park Structural Assessment

Caretaker’s Residence — Indian Gardens

Existing Conditions

The Caretaker’s Residence is comprised of the 14’ x 24’ original building, built in 1932, and an addition
along the full length of the west side, added in approximately 1960. Plans for the original structure are
available, although none have been located for the addition. To attach the addition, two stone piers and
the wall closure at the side were removed from the original structure. The addition’s roof hip was placed
at a 90-degree angle to the existing roof hip. The newer roof framing was built directly over the older
framing, with only approximately four feet of the original sheathing being removed for access purposes
within the attic space.

The original structure is constructed of three parallel 4x6 wood girders, spanning front-to-rear of the
building, supported on 2x8x8 wood blocks on a series of concrete foundation piers. The concrete piers
are 8” square at the top of the pier. The piers should expand to a minimum of 18” square, according to
the original drawings. Five piers support the girders at the two exterior lines and four piers support the
interior girder line. The girders are anchored with a 5/8” diameter anchor bolt centered in each pier.

The floor is built of 2x6 joists at 16” on center, bearing on the 4x6 girders and supporting a tongue-and-
groove wood floor sheathing. At the roof line, a top plate of two offset 2x6 members supports the 2x6
roof rafters and 2x4 ceiling joists, both at 24” on center. The rafters are braced midspan with 2x6
diagonals and cantilever beyond the side walls. The roof is sheathed with straight, tongue-and-groove 1x
boards.

The exterior walls consist of a vertical 1x10 board and 1x3 batten system at the wall with a frame
comprised of 2x6 members at the exterior face. At the comers, full-height diagonal boards on the exterior
face provide lateral bracing. Where the two stone column piers were removed for the addition, these
diagonals were removed. At the back side, plywood sheathing was added around the window. At the
front entrance, a short diagonal exists in part of a single bay under the window adjacent to the addition.
This diagonal is not providing any effective bracing at its current location.

Two corners of the original building still retain the stonework columns, which appear to be the original
support points for the 2-2x6 plates supporting the roof framing. At the inside corners, the stonework
wraps around the board and batten exterior wall system. The stones are relatively large but of inconsistent
shape and size. All stones are grouted in place with a Portland cement mortar.

A brick flue chimney at the interior changes to a stone chimney above the roof/attic space. Although the
stones in the chimney are smaller than the column stones, their grouted construction is similar to the
stonework columns.

There are no construction drawings for the addition, although most of the framing appears similar in
nature. The roof rafters are 2x6 at 24” on center with 1x straight sheathing above. Based on the crawl



sare oso 0240 Aeorom No. 10Ree01e

Untied States Department of the Interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

Ss Bright Angel Trail

Section number Page

and February, i902, he spent five to six thousand dollars on trail
reconstruction and maintenance. By the middle of 1902, he built
Cameron’s Hotel and Camps at the Bright Angel trailhead--a two-story
hotel with adjoining tent cabins--and Cameron’s Indian Garden Camp
four and a half miles below on the Tonto Platform, His investment
in the trail, it seemed, was finally shout to pay some dividends.

Not content with whatever rights the toll trail might provide.
Cameron and his brother Niles began to ¢ile mining, mill, and water
claims at strategic points along the trail. The brothers filed
several claims near the trailhead, inciu 1g the Copper King before
1901 and the Cape Horn and Golden Eaghe in April, 17028. Cameron had
long ago secured William Ashurst‘s claims at Indian Gardens and had
since filed on other water sites in that locatior In dune, 1904,
he filed the Magician mining claim and Alder millsite at the base of
the Devil’s Corkscrew and the Wizard claim and Willow milisite near
the mouth of Fipe Creek (the adits of these claims are seen today
along the trail). There is no evidence that Cameron ever shipped
ore from these claims and the federal government later rejected his
attempts to patent the sites, yet liberal mining laws, assays of -up
to 12% copper and other trace metals, and evidence of modest ciaim
improvements would help tie up the locations and the larger trail
into the early 1720s. This illegal practice of filing claims for
ather than mining purposes was common among the early tourist
operators well versed in mining law, and much despised by Forest
Service personnel who knew full well why it was done.

&s Cameron secured contral over the Bright Angel trail route
and prepared for tourist operations, Martin Buggeln and the Santa Fe
were equally busy establishing tourist accommodations nearoy. in
dune, » Buggeln tought out J.W. Thurber’s interests in the
Flagstaff to Grand Canyon stage line and Bright Angel Hotel at the
rim. In September, i901, the railroad surveyed its twenty-acre
station site allowed by law and soon after built a cabin and
cent tents known as Bright Gngel Camp which Buggein cama t
manage. The survey and camp may have prompted Camerom to fil
Cape Horn and Golden & Claims which riapned the
the following year, igniting the first
eoman and the corpa gant.
railroad’s twenty-acre station, t z gue OT
wo claims, thus, Cameron, th na Mart.
i adjacent competitive tou at the head
Trail by the end of

Mm OF Bcane
camoek 1h iver

> wat
CUES. Tre

=

Th was perth
wouid Grunt, ais



ee ae he

‘on? ae’ ‘i’

: i

Raat

es ee

4
=

\

indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence

April 13, 2007

+ Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group

Appendix C. Drawings Silustrating Alternative Treatments by Architectural Resources
Group, dated November 2, 2000.



indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence « Historic Structure Report » Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group April 23, 200

Figure 6. The photo illustrates the Trail Caretaker 's Residence as photographed for a Maintenance Report, dated
September, 1946. The image shows the cabin before the addition of 1960 that required removal of two of the
buildings original four stone corner piers. Note the distinctive framing on the exterior of the structure, GCNP
Engineering Office - Maintenance Records.

Aprenoix E


Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence » Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2001

Figure 1. The image captures the character of the Indian Garden site against the steep walls of the
canyon. Shady and tranquil, the site is distinguished by leafy trees, benches, fountains, paths and low rock
walls. View is looking south into the center of the site with the Trail Caretakers Residence on the left, the
Rock House, on the right. ARG Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F



Architectural Resources Group Apuil x3, 2007

Figure 7. The image illustrates the plan of the Trail Caretaker’s Residence as prepared for a Maintenance
Report, dated September, 1946. The plan reveals the simple proportions and symmetry of the structure in its
original condition. Note the squared corners in plan, the exaggerated stone piers that gave the cabin a sense of
monumentality. GCNP Engineering Office - Maintenance Records.

APPENDIX E



form tonne
ay

G0 Approve! No, 10260019

Unlted States Department of the Interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

Section number _e_ Page 3

Bright Angel Trail

point, but not mich, since he retained his facilities and mining
claims along the trail. More importantly, he could not be too
unhappy with the county’s choice of tollkespers, since Ferrall was
Cameron‘’s brother-in-law, the manager of Cameron Hotel & Camps, and
for years thereafter one of Cameron’s closest friends. Cameron’s
sister, Louisa Ferrall, happened to be the Grand Canyon vostmistress
az well, a position she used to keep Cameron abreast of Sevelopments
while he was out of town, - :

The Santa Fe no doubt understood the Cameron-Ferrail
relationship which retained control of the trail, and immediately .
tried several end runs to break the monopoly. First, it requestad a
permit from the Bureau of Forestry to operate and control the trail.

“in effect trying to remove the trail from county jurisdiction. The

county learned of this request, wrote the Bureau to disregard it,
and ordered the county sheriff to protect the trail from outside
attempts to control it. When the Bureau refused ta issue the
permit, the railroad filed suit against the county contesting the
validity of Ferrall’s comtract and claiming the county had no right
to operate a toll trail. While this case awaited trial, Cameron
adroitly persuaded the Arizona legislature to pass the "Cameran
Bill,” which gave the county exactly that right. In & measure that
highlights the emerging political sides in the strugale, the
governor-~appointed by the federal government~-vetoed the bill on
advice of the Department of the Interior, and the legislature
elected by the people--unanimously overrode the veto.

Angry over the federal government’s interference and bia
business's attempts to dictate law in northern @rizona, the County
Board of Supervisors backed by the Cameron Hill changed its position
in 1907 and smoothed the way for transferring the trail franchise to
Ralph Cameron. Ferrall was under rable to the transfer
and Cameron sweetened the deal a little by offering to pay ten

percent of toll receipts ta the county. Gutraged at the proposed

transfer, the anta Fe countered with otfer to operate the trail,
provide insurance against trail accidents, and pay seventy percent
of receipta to the county. Despite this offer, tt board veted on

April 17, 1967, to give Cameron a new five-vear fra

‘esponding to critici in the Williams N
board Chairman Jesse Gre ty
tating that the railroad was simply trying to remove control from

Ss
the county and that the railroad’s offer was spurious since
Ferrall ’s contr had nearly four years left to run. Greag’s logic
was both thin and inconsistent, but the board’s votre assured
Cameron's trail control through 191s.



Indian Garden Traif Caretaker’s Residence -* Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

‘April 23, 2001

Appendix H. Consultant Reports.

Architectural Resources Group



Architectural Resources Group

Figure 1, The photo illustrates tent cabins at Cameron's Indian Garden
Camp, circa 1905. Note the absence of mature trees. GCNPA Number 15836
B.

Apel 13, 2007

ApPenoix E



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence
Historic Structure Report

prepared for the
National Park Service

prepared by

Architectural Resources Group
Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc.
San Francisco

GRAND CANYON

National Park « Arizona

United States Department of the Interior



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence « Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2001

Figure 14. View of the interior wall of the principal facade. Note original door at
right. ARG Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F

Wh


Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence «+

April 13, 2002

Appendix F.

Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Photographs of Existing Conditions.

Architectural Resources Group



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s 's s Residence + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

‘Architectural Resources Group April 23, 2007

options and requires a greater commitment on the part of the Park in establishing a visitor contact station
and associated ammenities.

Regardless of the alternative chosen, a comprehensive landscape development plan for the entire site,
discussing access from the Bright Angel Trail, bridging the creek bed, the lifecycle and planting of.
shade trees, drainage and site amenities, should be undertaken to give further direction to the design
phase of any proposed project.

28 TREATMENT AND Use

a we

me OE ee oe eee ee, ee ee, Le |

|
|
|


indian Garden Trait Caretaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group Aptil 13, 2001

mental soil build up along the south exterior wall.

Exterior Rehabilitation

Exterior rehabilitation should be undertaken to restore all of the damaged exterior surfaces that con-
tribute to and define the historic character of the building. Exterior elements that detract from the his-
toric character, such as aluminum sash windows, should be removed and replaced with elements more in
keeping with the original design, as evidenced by historic drawings and photographs.

Other exterior work should be limited to maintenance and replacement, in kind, of deteriorated historic
fabric. This work includes:

. Cleaning of exterior stonework with a restoration cleaner to remove biological growth and efflo
rescence.
. Minor stone repointing, taking care not to overpack the joints. As the mortar joints were histori

cally relatively deeply raked (1/2” - 1” deep), care should be taken to ensure that any new point
ing accurately replicates the original appearance. Sand and cement proportions should be veri
fied with a sample of the existing mortar prior to any repointing work.

. Renailing and caulking of exterior wood siding.

. Repainting of all exterior wood elements. If remnants of lead-based paints are found to be pre-
sent, rehabilitation work will be conducted accordingly).

: Reroofing with fire-resistant wood shingles.

. Windows sash should be fully stripped, primed, and backprimed. All sash and frames should be
repainted to. match the original color. All should be repaired to operable condition. All glazing
should be removed and reinstalled with new putty and back putty. All hardware should be reha
bilitated and replaced, in kind, where broken or missing.

Interior Rehabilitation

Few original historic interior finishes are visible, but some may remain beneath the added layers of gyp-
sum board sheathing and vinyl flooring. If possible, the original varnished fir floor should be rehabili-
tated. Interior gypsum board sheathing should be removed and the original single-wall construction
exposed on the interior. This work should be easy to accomplish if the 1960 addition is removed. If this
addition remains, it may be more difficult to restore these finishes. Or it may be necessary to refurbish

24 ‘TREATMENT AND Use

Oe ee ee ee ee ee

2 ee ee


ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP.

BRIGHT ANGEL TRAIL

DESIGNED: ‘SUB SHEET NO. TILE OF SHEET DRAWING NO.
WH cam INDIAN GARDENS — BLDG. 93
ORAWN SITE PLAN
: . -HSR no | eet
TECH, brid tS
4/13/2001 GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK a



indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence « Historic Structure Report ¢ Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2001

Figure 6. The photo is taken of the stone porch that runs along the west elevation of the Trail
Caretaker'’s Residence and below the door added in the 1960 works. It is thought that the porch and
other elements of the 1960 alteration re-use stones that were dismantled from two of the four original
corner piers. ARG Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F

Bn



fer om Joe

a8 pesceonec! Ha. TOReCOte

United States Department of the interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

Section number

é Bright Angel Trail

Page

ran tyoad's role, naweve not ag immediately clear to those at

rand Canyon. The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe controlled the
atl antic facific by this time as well as the Grand Canyon Railway
from Williams to the south rim. It also had a long standing,
symbiotic rélatianship with the do Harvey company, which operated
hotela and restaurants along the rails theaughe the west. &
early as May, 1902, the railraad‘’s dir Caer Ss to huild
grand hatel which Fred Harvey would over bs agelr
and Cameran hotels, bur found it canv @ to work
with Buggeln against Cameron while plans te whe Tovar developed.

The legal battles b m tentatively in 1902 with Cameron's
claims to the station site and the railroad’s challenoe to trail
ownership, but the battiec tegan in earnest in Gpril, 1903. when
Cameron imposed a toll on all trail users. Gince 1901, Buggeln’s
wranglers had been leading hundreds of tourists on daily trips down
athe Bright Angel, charging three dollars per day per horse and five
dollars per day per guide, sharing receipts with the railroad, and
paying nothing for trail use or maintenance, Cameron’s rates were
competitive at two dollars per day per horse (including a one doliar
toll for his customers) and four dollars per day per guide, but he
had to shoulder all trail maintenance costs. Cameron had been
itching to impose a toll all along, but prior to 1903, the
Department af the Interior had threatened to prosecute anyone who
attempted to charge a trail toll. By danuary of that year, the
agency had perhaps check with legal counsel since it informed
Cameron that he had, in ct, legal and exclusive rights to the
trail. Cameron wasted no time in greeting a toll gate, and the
OGga

in this first of many lawsuits, the jury decided that Cameron
did mot own the traii’s franchise (still in Berry’s name), and that
the franchise could not be transferred. Although the decision
forced Cameron to return. awnel ev, it had little effect on
operations since Berry acknowledg aS ry nor did it
disg fy the partnership from ing tolls. The railroad
immediately backed Buggein with injuriction anc another lawsuit
filed in May to eliminate the collection of tolis, but the d
curt in December, 1903, ruled in taver of the Cameron partners hip.
The partners came back with & lawsuit for damag incurred from the
seven-month imjumction and tried to collect the #5,000 bond Buggein
and the railroad had posted The legal war was engaged.

Th
to take them to

Cameron inter

railroad. perhaps a bit taken aback by a citizen willing
court, spears to have made a mave to buy out tne
eat this time. Fi ates ino

Lat =



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

‘Architectural Resources Group ‘April x3, 200

1961.
James, George Wharton. Arizona: The Wonderland. Boston: The Page Company, 1917.
James, George Wharton, Grand Canyon and How to See It. Boston: Little Brown & Company, 1910.

Manns, Timothy and Elizabeth Dillon Smith. 4 Guide to the Grand Canyon Village Historic District.
Grand Canyon Natural History Association, no date.

Mather, Stephen T. Progress in the Development of the National Parks. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1916.

McClelland, Linda Flint. Building the National Parks: Historic Landscape Design and Construction.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1998.

Merk, Frederick. History of Westward Movement. 1978.
Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973.

Newton, Norman T. Design on the Land: The Development of Landscape Architecture. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1971.

Olmsted, Frederick Law, Sr. “The Distinction between National Parks and National Forests.” Landscape
Architecture 6, no. 3 (1916): 115-16.

Pray, James Sturgis with Robert B. Marshall. “The American Society of Landscape Architects and Our
National Parks.” Landscape Architecture 6, no. 3 (1916).

Rifkind, Carole. 4 Field Guide to American Architecture. New York: The New American Library, 1980.

Spier, Leslie. Havasupai Ethnography. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural
History, 1928.

Swain, Donald C. Wilderness Defender: Horace M. Albright and Conservation. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1970.

Tishler, William, ed. American Landscape Architecture: Designers and Places. Washington, D.C.:
Preservation Press, 1989.

Tweed, William C., Laura Soulliere, Henry G. Law. National Park Service Rustic Architecture: 1916-
1942. National Park Service, Western Regional Office, February, 1977.

Whiffen, Marcus. American Architecture Since 1780: A Guide to the Styles. Cambridge: The MIT Press,
1969.

Wirth, Conrad L. Parks, Politics, and the People. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980.
United States Department of the Interior. National Register of Historic Places. National Register Bulletin

15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Revised 1995.
United States Department of the Interior. National Register of Historic Places. National Register Bulletin

30 BiBLIOGRAPHY

a ne ee ee ee ee ee).

rs y


Building Assessment Report Indian Gardens Caretaker’s Residence
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

IV. ELECTRICAL
A. ELECTRIC SERVICE

1. Existing Conditions
Electrical service to the building is provided via overhead lines by
APS at 120/240V, 1-phase, 3-wire. The service disconnect is a 3P-
100A circuit breaker which in turn feeds a 100A main panel.

2. Recommendations
The existing service equipment appears to be in fair condition but is

a candidate for replacement due to its age. Recommend
replacement.

The existing service capacity is adequate for the planned
renovation. The service point of entry can be relocated instead of
wrapping around the building.

B. POWER DISTRIBUTION

1. Existing Conditions

A single panelboard for lighting and receptacle circuits is located in
the building. Service to the panelboard is via overhead conduit
routing. The panelboard is rated at 120/240V, 1-phase.

2. Recommendations

The existing panelboard should be replaced with a new panel during
the renovation phase.

c. LIGHTING AND RECEPTACLES

1. Existing Conditions

Lighting consists mainly of surface mounted fluorescent light
fixtures.

Recessed wall mounted receptacles and telephone outlets are
located at various points to satisfy current equipment locations.

Flack + Kurtz Electrical
Ref. No.: $00.02260.00
August 11, 2000

|



April x3, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

country of the obnoxious senator.”!! Eventually Cameron lost all political power and was defeated in
the Arizona senatorial election of 1926.12

Plans for Tourism at Indian Garden

Cameron abandoned the camp at Indian Garden an, with the exception of the trees he planted, few tangi-
ble remnants remain of his influence. He was a notable individual in the history of the Grand Canyon,
the first to introduce visitor amenities and accommodations below the canyon rim, and instrumental in
steering the subsequent development of the area.

‘Years before Cameron’s dispute with the government was resolved, the Forest Service and the Santa Fe
Railway envisioned development of Indian Garden. Anticipating Cameron’s eviction, approvals for a
hotel built by the railway and designed by architect Mary Elizabeth Jane Colter were obtained in 1916.
Fred Harvey had hired Colter to design many of the Grand Canyon village buildings, beginning with
Hopi House in 1905. Colter, a native of Minnesota, received her architectural training in San Francisco
in the 1880s and worked for Fred Harvey into the 1940s. Colter’s buildings reflected both the natural
resources of the vicinity, including stone, and the building traditions of Native Americans linked to the
canyon. Her work was innovative in that it resulted in buildings that were in harmony with the sur-
rounding landscape, a philosophy that came to dominate the early designs of the National Park Service
as well. Colter’s design for the hotel at Indian Garden called for a central dining hall and individual cot-
tages of varying luxury (see Appendix E, Figures 3, 4). Though somewhat distinct style in style from
Phantom Ranch at Bright Angel Creek, the 1916 Indian Garden project later served as its prototype in
1922. Because the government could not obtain clear title to the land at Indian Garden, the hotel never
progressed beyond the planning stage.

Some years later, the Santa Fe Company returned to the notion of visitor accommodation below the rim,
planning yet another hotel at Indian Garden. A local newspaper, the Daily Silver Belt, ran an article
titled “Reported Santa Fe Will Build New Hotel at Indian Garden” in October, 1924 that read:

It is reported here that the Grand Canyon National Park officials have entered into negotiations
with Santa Fe Railroad Company looking toward the establishment of a new hotel in the Indian
Garden upon the Bright Angel Trail in the Grand Canyon. The Indian Garden constitutes the
only shady spot in the section of the Grand Canyon reached by the Bright Angel Trail... The
plans of the railway company it is reported include a hotel of sufficient size to accommodate
tourists wishing to remain in the Canyon for a night or longer. Arrangements will also be made
for a rest and recreational center in the shade of the Indian Garden for tourists during noon on
the way down to the river. The new hotel and resting grounds will provide a convenient place
for the tourists who do not care to take the trip to the river to remain until the evening when the
guides return to the rim... Indian Garden was planted by Senator Ralph H. Cameron many years
ago and the trees are now mature giving ample shade for an ideal resting place.... It is under-
stood that the new hotel to be built will be similar to the El Tovar,13

Historicat BACKGROUND 9



8 Form 106008
wey

United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

Section number

Gwe Acsrowe Wo 1024-0018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

8 Page 7 Bright Angeli Trail

such negotiations in March, 1904, but Cameron denied talking to the
railroad about a purchase. Eugqeein meanwhile filed another suit in
May, 1704, claiming that the partnership had never filed a trail
plat, made no statement af rec@ipts as required by law, nor oaid a
two-percenmt coumty tax. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled later in
the year in favor of the partnership.

Elected Chairman of the Coconino Board of Supervisors in 1904,
Cameron decided te use his political position te put the railroad on
the defensive. In that year, the board initiated a claim that the
railroad had not paid its taxes. The county ruled in September.
1905, that the railroad indeed should be on the tax rolls and owed
back taxes ta 1901. The Territorial Board of Equalization (Ralph
Henry Cameron, Chairman) determined the railroad’s tax to be #4,500
per mile, or approximately #300,000 per year for the Canyon spur.
‘The Santa Fe naturally filed a suit contesting the assessment, and
filed yet another suit to contest Cameron’s claim to the railroad
depot, previously mentioned, which resulted in a stalemate.

The year 1906 marked a shift in opposing forces as well as
battle strategy over Bright Angel control. In that year, Martin
Buggeln lost the will to fight and sold his interests including the
Bright Angel Hotel to the Fred Harvey company, which had campleted
the magnificent El Tovar Hotel the year before. Buggeln did not
lose his love for the Canyon, however, and in 1907 bought the oid
Hance place to the east where he ran cattle until his death in
1939. Typical of the power struggle as it developed in later years
the National Park Service would thwart Buggein’s attempts in 1925 to
stert a small tourist enterprise from his Hance holdings. yo that
year, he may have had reason ta regret that he had broken ranks with
his economic class in the sariy years to side with tig business.

With Buggein aut of the picture in 1906 and Fred Harvey

entrenched in his stead, the fight for control proceeded with
Sante Fe and Fred Harvey fightir their awn
Cameron made allies of Coconina County's cit

: as well as tho a i
ature to help balance th
‘deba ke focused om the county
&@ toll read and to whom it gave the

Board oF Supervis

The Berr vo franchi to the Bright Angel Trail expired in

January and the trail nominally reverted to Coconino County.
The Be fisors rejected Camerun’s amt to acquire the
franchise in his name. but awarded it to Lannes L. Ferrall. who was
reouired tc rail and allowed to keen j
percent oF the tolis. Cameroun lost some measure oF

maintain the



wera For 100006
#82) Ons Aporoval Wo, 1026-0078

United States Department of the interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

. 8 iS Bright Angel Trail
Section number... = Page

Cameron’s defeat. Still, the legal and political struggle over the
Bright Angel Trail reveals better than the later battle the fuli
range of maneuvers, bitterness, and duplicity entailed in this
conflict of nearly three decades. A longer history is possible, one
that more fully explores the National Park Service’s skillful
manipulation af the Fred Harvey company during the 1720s and 1930s,
but this aspect of ultimate federal control is developed within the
Grandview, South bab, and Hass trails’ nominations.

Tt may be difficult to helieve that while the debate raged
over public versus private control over the Bright Angel Trail,
tourists unaware of the storm followed its path to admire Grand
Canyon’s scenic splendors. A decade before the political debate
emerged, Sanford Rowe, operating from a base camp tive miles aorth
of the trailhead known as Rowe’s Well, began to lead tourist trips
from the south rim to the Tonto Flatform. Rowe developed a full
tourist enterprise in the 18905 and 1900s, including a livery in
Williams, a staqe line to the Canyon purchased from William Rass,
and a later automobile camp at Rowe’s Well complete with a coffee
shop, bar, and dance hali. Rowe was apparently the only man engaged
in tourist trips down the trail before the turn of the century.

Although prospectors had pioneered routes from the Tonto
Platform to the Colorado River by the late 1860s, Sanford Rowe's
tourists likely settled on a ride down to "Angel Flateau” (Plateau
Foint) for a quick glimpse of the river before turning back for the
south rim. With completion of the Bright Angel to the river in
1899, visitors might easily descend im a day, enjoying Indian ruins
along the west c fs of upper Salt Creek. the infamous
Corkscrew, and a leisurely stay at the mouth of Fipe Cree
trail ended at this point, but the more adventuresome could cross
the river in one of the crude canvas or wood scows in use by tt
turn of the century and venture up Bright Angel Creek. After
tourists might take the Bright Angel as as Salt Cree tren
continue xlong the Tonto Flatform to the poftf and ad srt ad
David Rust‘s trail (precursor of = lower South Kaibab
cross the river on Rust's cable car.



indian Garden Traii Caretaker's Residence * Historic Structure Report ¢ Grand Canyon National Park

April 13, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

ih Historical Background

Developmental History and Context

This section of the HSR outlines the people, events, and historic contexts associated with the structure.
Historic contexts are broad patterns of historical development in a community or a region that may be
represented by historical resources. Historic contexts can be identified through consideration of the
history of individual properties or groupings of properties within the surrounding area, The establishment
of historic contexts provides the foundation for decision-making concerning the planning, identification,
evaluation, restoration, registration, and treatment of historic properties, based upon comparative
significance. Historic contexts can be developed for all types of resources including, but not limited to,
buildings, structures, objects, sites and historic districts. The methodology for developing contexts does
not vary greatly with the different types of resources, and contexts may relate to any of the four National
Register criteria. At the core of historic contexts is the premise that resources, properties, or happenings
in history do not occur in a vacuum, but rather are part of larger trends or patterns.

The Canyon’s First Inhabitants

Humans have known the Grand Canyon, the major chasm of the Colorado River and its tributaries, for
thousands of years, Indigenous people have lived in the Grand Canyon for over 4000 years, with recent
evidence suggesting people may have been utilizing the canyon as long as 10,000 years ago. Grand
Canyon National Park is rich in cultural resources; the park records include 4,000 prehistoric and historic
sites, based upon intensive survey of approximately 2.5% of the entire park. Estimates of archaeological
resources within the park top 50,000 archaeological sites, prehistoric and historic, based upon the limited
sample survey that currently exists.

For thousands of years, people moved in and out of Grand Canyon, Jeaving behind evidence of their
passing. Thousands of dwellings, shelters, and agricultural terraces have been located, providing
evidence of ancestral hunters, gatherers and farmers living on both rims and in the inner canyon.
Campsites, rock art, house foundations, pottery, chipped stone, ground stone, and other artifacts remain to
help tell the story of these people and their lives within the canyon over the last 10,000 years.

A single portion of a Folsum point provides the only evidence to date of Paleo-Indian hunters within
Grand Canyon nearly 10,000 years ago. Although evidence for human occupation is limited, it is well
documented that Archaic peoples began utilizing the Grand Canyon over 4000 years ago. Split-twig
figurines, projectile points, campsites and rock art attest to archaic populations in and around the Grand
Canyon from ca. 3500 B.C. to 1 A.D. Though limited, archaeological materials suggest near continuous
occupations through the Archaic and Basketmaker (early A.D. to ca. A.D. 700) periods, moving directly
into the Puebloan period occupations (ca. A.D. 800 - 1300). Groups identified as representing both the
ancestral Puebloan peoples and Cohonina culture have been identified throughout the Canyon during
those time periods, gradually giving way to contemporary peoples. The Hopi, Zuni, Southem Paiute,
Havasupai, Hualapai and Navajo all left remains that have become part of the archaeological record.
These same people continue to use the canyon today for traditional and religious reasons.

Grand Canyon has been home to various groups of people for thousands of years. These people, both
native Americans and more recent Euro-Americans, have utilized the canyon as both a home and a place
linked to traditional practices, values and beliefs. To the Hopi and Zuni, the Grand Canyon represents
their place of origin into this world. For Hopi, it also represents the place where their spirits come to rest
after death. Although the Anasazi (Hisatsinom), or ancestral Puebloan people, migrated from the canyon
area, their descendants, the Hopi and Zuni, continue periodic visits.

For the Pueblo people, archaeological remains in the canyon provide evidence for their migration from
their place of origin to their present homes. For the Pai people (Hualapai and Havasupai), the canyon and
the river are the lands they have been entrusted to care for. The river represents the backbone. For the
Southern Paiute, the canyon represents a place given to them from the Creator to protect and manage,
including its water and natural resources. To the Navajo people, the Colorado River in Grand Canyon
forms a protective boundary on the western border of Navajo land.

Historical BACKGROUND 5



Nea Form 10-6008 0288 Aparovel Ho, 1026-0018

United States Depariment of the interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

ii Bright Angel Trail

Section number Page

the remainder along Pipe Creek. The syndicate purchasing the option
had plans for a hydroelectric piant above Pipe Creek to power its
mills, and a reservoir that would fill the Tapeats Narrows of Garden
Greek. This plan never materialized, but Cameron formed a company
of his own in i912 or 1913 to extract clatinum from some of these
claims.

With & burgeoning tourist traffic and increasing pressure in
the 1910s for promation of Grand Canyon to national park status,
neither the Department of Agriculture, Santa Fe railroad, Fred
Harvey company, nor the general public were anxious to see .
reservoirs, power plants, and actual mining operations taking place
in what had become the central corridor of Grand Canyon tourism. In
41913, the government stepped up its lawsuits in an attempt to have
the mining claims declared invalid. Cameron soid same of these
properties to the railroad in 1916, but varied lawsuits continued
until 1920 when the United States Supreme Court ruled most of his
claims illegal, and declared Cameron and his associates trespassers
in the one-year-old Grand Canyan National Park.

Although the Supreme Court had finally ruled on his claims,
the battle over Cameron’s presence and control along the Bright
Angel Trail was far from over. Still, Cameron’s alliance had
seriously eroded by 1920. The National Park Service replaced the
U.S. Forest Service as Cameron’s principal antagonist in 1919, and
brought fresh troops and a new enthusiasm to the fray. By this
year, most of the old-timers who held the public's support had
become just that: old, and no longer interested in carrying on the
fight. Pete Berry had bowed out of the struggle in i913, but not
before selling out with malevolent glee to William Randoloh Hearst
(another story). William Bass still controlled his pronertigs im
the western end of the park, but was actively looking for a buyer.
John Hance, Sanford Rowe, and Martin Buagelin had retired from active
combat. Niles Cameron, one of the more active if little known
players in the day-to-day struagle, had died in 1¥id. tne
eriginal minina-tourism entreprenzurs, only Cameron possessed the
vigor ta keep fighting.

Cameron’ chi allies--the people and government of Locorine
County-~hac around to tr advanta eesity af
a national park and the order it would bring to the chaos at Srand
Canyon Village Grand Canyon tourism nad exploded during the ta
1901 through 1920, and the advent of automobile tourism by th
latter year thr ened any kind of quality
enjoy at the new park. Traffic overtaxed the limit
trails, sanitation problems proliferated witn inadeau
facilities in the vicinity of the Briant Fr
Cameos atag and within the ca

informal



Building Assessment Report Indian Gardens Caretaker’s Residence

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

IL. HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING

A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION

In general the electrical and phone systems seem to be in good
working order and has been fairly well maintained over its
operational lifetime. There is no heating or ventilating currently
provided and the plumbing systems have been disconnected.

B. AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM

1

Flack + Kurtz

Existing Conditions

Originally there appears to have been a wood fired stove that was
used to heat the residence. Since the renovation the stove was
removed. The flue vent appears to have been left in place. There is
insulation in the attic, however the walls are probably not insulated.

Recommendations

It will need to be determined if heating is required for this building.
This will depend on it’s yearly use (could be closed during the
winter). Heating could be added by replacing the wood fire stove or
possibly adding electric resistance heating elements. Natural
ventilation would be provided by the existing operable windows.

Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning

Ref. No.: $00.02260.00

August 11, 2000

N

li -



indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence °

Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2007

Figure 8. The image illustrates the rear elevation of the Trail Caretaker 's Residence at Indian Garden.
The 1960 addition is visible to the left. Note the stonework of the corner pier and chimney both con-
structed in local native stone. ARG Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F



Architectural Resources Group April x3, 2001

Figure 4. The image illustrates the proximity of the gabion walls to the Trail Caretaker’s Residence at

Indian Garden. View is looking southeast from the space between the two structures. ARG Photo dated
May, 2000.

APPENOIX F


indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence « Hi:

toric Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Aptil 13, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Vv. CONSERVATION ISSUES

Exterior

Some damage to exterior surfaces, such as splitting and peeling of exterior wood siding, is evident.
Exterior stonework exhibits biological growth, efflorescence and staining, and minimal loss of mortar at
joints. Painted surfaces of exterior wood elements are flaking, including all window sash and frames. It
is likely that remnants of lead-based paint are present.

Aluminum sash windows are replacements, operable, and in fair working condition.

Interior
Almost all interior finishes, gypsum board sheathing and vinyl flooring, are replacements, The original
varnished fir floor may remain below vinyl flooring. Interior gypsum board sheathing has been installed

over original single-wall construction. Original finishes at the addition are assumed to be the extant
gypsum-sheathed stud walis and vinyl floors.

Flood Issues

The area is prone to flash flooding. The building cannot be used as a residence because the site rests in
a flood plain. A creek bed running along the east side needs to be bridged for safety and access to
amenities on the east side of Bright Angel Trail (see Appendix E, Figure 9).

Environmental Issues

Extraneous work at the site includes the removal of non-native blackberry plants and a plan to manage
the trees in the area, many of which are between sixty and ninety years old. At the moment, dead trees
and falling limbs are hazardous. In addition, there will be a need to provide shade structures in the near

future. Another consideration for future works is that the area abuts the habitat of the endangered Kanab
amber snail.

Conservation Issues 19



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence ¢ Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Archicectural Resources Group April x3, 200

Figure 5. The structure illustrated is the Stone Shelter at Indian Garden, Building 143 on the Bright Angel Trail,
located further into the canyon past the Trail Caretakers Residence. Date unknown, however it appears to be an
early photograph. The photo is dated sometime after 1936, the year that the structure was built by the CCC. Note
the presence of maturing trees, most likely planted during the Cameron era. GCNPA Number 7584.

ApPenpix E



Residence ° Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group April 13, 200

a

Figure 9. The image shows Indian Garden in a 1966 photo. The Trail Caretaker ’s Residence is in the background.
Foreground shows boulders, tree limbs and rubble washed into the creek bed. Rising waters and runoff are issues
for this site as it lies in a flood plain. GCNPA Number 10068.

APPENDIX E.



Wes Form 10-6004
Ben

United States Department of the .nterior
National Park Service

(O43 Aporoe Ko, 10260018

National Register of Historic Places

Continuation Sheet

8 10

Section number Page

Bright Angel Trail

The special permit exacerbe

ed the bitterness among the

locais, including the Cameroons, Fete Berry, and William Bass. Ration
Cameron fired off a letter to Chief Foregter Gifford Pinchot in
August, 19709, protesting that the Bright Angel, Grandview, Hance,

Boucher, and Hass trails

orotests,
injunctions,

the railroad moved ahead in

{all proprietary routes it should be noted)
were quite enough to service Canyon tourists.
requests for postponement,
and ensuing lawsuit,

Despite Cameron's
notices of trespass,
19il

with a macadamized road from Hopi Point through Cameron’s claims on

the rim, and
Hermit Trail in i912,
alternative to the Bright Angel
Station.

While the Santa Fe built its trail,

a trail down to Hermit Basin.

They completed the

thus opening the first viable trail
im the vicinity of Grand Canyon

the U.S. Forest Service

persevered in its attempts to remove smell operators and their

mining claims from Grand Canyon National Monument.
Clark, Acting Supervisor

1908, J.H,
complained that

Gne thing in certain....

As early as
of the Kaibab National Forest,

Very few if any of the mining claims

located along the Canyon were made for their probable mineral

value.

There seems to always be some other motive in locating

these claims, such as the acquiring of water rights which

would be hard to obtain

Clark referred ta the status of claims

proclaimed on January Yi, 1906,

Claims filed

2m the regular way.

within the monument,
after that date would

not be recognized, but existent claims already littered the rims and

inner Canyon,

later Department of the Interior’

developmental control. Cameron’
i aor , and a mineral
Pete Berry's Grandview Hotei
ounkry was
person that
ground."

in

After i9ioO,
fram direct resistance to
government to
longer contested the count

centered its efforts on disoroving fraudul

Cameron no doubt alarmed park ma
reported his developmental plans
reported that Cameron had struct
tina ~-Ffive of i

claims alone
inspector out to survey the area near
1910 correctly noted that
ll plastered up with fraudulent mining claims sa a4
wants to get anywhere or do anything cannoat cet

frustrating both the Department of Agriculture's and
goals to implement some form of

amounted ta same

"thre

any

the Santa Fe/ Fred Harvey interests backed of+
Cameron’
2 up the active fight.
‘s right to Qverate a toli

control and allowed the federai
Gince the government no
trail. it

t mining claims.

the Coconins Sug

Ss wi

19412 and 191i
aption deal
which were at



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

April 23, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

aL SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY EVALUATION

Statement of Significance

The Indian Garden trail caretaker’s residence is an excellent example of rustic park architecture as
developed by the National Park Service in the 1920s and 30s. It is a representative example of the park
service’s desire for a singular and aesthetically appropriate architecture for the national park system.
The building reflects the park service philosophy of incorporating elements of the natural landscape into
building design, using oversized stones which reflected the large scale boulders found throughout the
surrounding landscape.

This small-scale rustic building follows the historical precedence of construction at Indian Garden, com-
paring favorably with the structures that had come before: small-scale structures, tents, cottages, cabins,
and cabanas. The building’s significance is derived from its construction as well as its location at Indian
Garden, a site rich in history. The inner canyon site is associated with a long native American tradition,
and nineteenth century explorers and entrepreneurs who settled the area. In addition, the building is a
tempant of the Civilian Conservation Corps building campaigns of the 1930s.

Period of Significance

The years 1932 through 1960 mark the period of significance for the trail caretaker’s tesidence, when it
provided a housing function for rangers at Indian Garden. Alterations made after the period of signifi-
cance have altered its character-defining features.

Evaluation Of Integrity / Condition :

Eligibility for the National Register hinges on both significance and historic and architectural integrity.
Integrity is the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of
characteristics that existed during the resources period of significance. Integrity involves several aspects
including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. These aspects
closely relate to the resource's significance and must be primarily intact for eligibility. Integrity must
also, be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is eligible for inclusion in
the National Register.

Overall, the exterior of the trail caretaker’s residence retains a fair degree of integrity. It no longer
Serves its intended residential use. Rather, it serves primarily as equipment storage space for search and
Tescue ranger operations. Alterations made after the period of significance have doubled its size, tam-
pered with its character-defining features, and significantly changed the feeling of the interior. The
temoval of the two stone comer piers have dramatically changed the design concept and symmetry of
the building. The building’s setting amidst the presence of mature trees conveys a sense of the character
of the place.

SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY EvaLuaTiON == -13.



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2002

Figure 3. The image illustrates the gabion walls that mark the southern boundary of the immediate envi-
rons of the Trail Caretakers Residence at indian Garden. The rock walls measure approximately 5’ in
height and are constructed like a wire cage filled with stones to divert run-off and act to prevent damage
during flooding. View is looking southwest from behind the structures. ARG Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F



indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group “April 23, 200

The focus of the Historic Structure Report for the Indian Garden trail caretaker’s residence has been to
outline historical background and contexts; outline building developmental history, use, and alterations;
preparation and update of existing conditions drawings; conduct a condition assessment; and to develop
conceptual use plans and cost estimates. The document defines the elements that give Indian Garden its
architectural character and attempts to convey its significance.

The contents of this Historic Structure Report (HSR) are:

. a concise historic context associated with the building and its builders;

‘ a detailed chronology of building development including alterations and maintenance through
time;

° an evaluation of the period of significance, historic integrity, and historic significance of the
structure;

. a list of character-defining features;

. an evaluation of building conditions;

. structural and mechanical assessments; and,

. updated existing conditions drawings.

The historical research portion of the report is based primarily on existing historical source material at
the Grand Canyon National Park Archives and other materials made available by NPS. Several NPS
staff members of the Engineering and Maintenance divisions of the Grand Canyon National Park were
consulted regarding the maintenance history of the building. Additional secondary research was con-
ducted using materials within the libraries of the University of California at Berkeley, the library at the
Grand Canyon National Park, the library at the San Francisco office of the National Park Service, at sig-
nificant Bay Area research collections, and in the ARG library. The level of research requested for this
report was "thorough" — one of three levels of investigation (exhaustive, thorough, and limited) as
described by NPS Director’s Order - 28. "Thorough" research is defined by DO-28 as follows:

For historical studies this means research in selected published and documentary sources of
known or presumed relevance that are readily accessible without extensive travel and that
promise expeditious extraction of relevant data, interviewing all knowledgeable persons who are
teadily available, and presenting findings in no greater detail than required by the task

directive.

2 Executive SUMMARY

oe we ee ee ee ee ee ee ee


B. Statement of Significence

Certifying official has considered the significance of this property in relation to other propertias:
(nationally L]statewide Ctocatty

Applicable National Register Criteria [xJA [x]B Cie To

Criteria Considerations (Exceptions) [JA [Js (Je Clip Cle Clr [co

Areas of Significance (enter categories fram instruction: Period of Significan ignifi

Soli fieefeovernment tions) ‘eso-te SH90- 1891
Conservation 1898-1899
Entertainment /Recreation 7 1929-1932
Transportation 1938-1939

Cultural Affiliation
N/A

Significant Person Architect/Bultder

Cameron, Raloh Henry Pete Berry, et al 1890-1891
Niles Cameron, et al 1898-1899
National Park Service 1929-1939

State significance of property,. and justify criteria, criteria considerations, and areas and periods of significance noted above.

The Bright Angel Trail fulfills two of the four National
Register criteria as follows:

A. The trail is significant under Criterion A for its role in
the political debate involving public versus private control at
Grand Canyon. The initial saivos fired in the battle for Grand
Canyon control came less than a vear after the arrival of the Grand
Canyon Railway, and centered on ownership of the Bright Angel
Trail. Although this conflict eventually spread to all sections of
the Canyon, the most heated debate focused on this one trail through
the 1920s, long after most skirmishes in more remote sections of the
park had ended.

While the struggle between government, big business, and small
private operators raged, the Bright Angel Trail served as a primary
avenue for mining and tourism in the developing central section of
Grand Canyon. Mining interests at Indian Gardens and along the
Tonto Platform benefitted from (and prompted) construction of the
trail in 1890-1891. For more than a decade it served as the western
leg of an early network of trails (which included the Grandview and
Hance trails) built to transport mining materiel and supplies inte
the Canyon and mules burdened with precions ores out of the Canyon
to the south rim. As prospecting and mineral production declined.
the trail’s popularity among tourists increased, especially after
the railroad’s arrival in 1901. From that year until construction
of the South Kaibab Trail in the 1920s. the Bright Angel carried
nearly all tourist traffic within the central corridor. Even after
the South Kaibab construction and through the entire historic
period under consideration, the trail continued to carry more
tourists than any other trail within the park.

(4see continuation sheet



April x3, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Introduction to Federal Projects and Historic Preservation
Law: Participants Desk Reference. January, 1993.

Albright, Horace M., and Robert Cahn. The Birth of the National Park Service: The Founding Years,
1913-33. Salt Lake City: Howe Brothers, 1985.

Albright, Horace M., and Marian Albright Schenck. Creating the National Park Service: The Missing
Years. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999.

Anderson, Michael F. Living at the Edge. Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon Association, 1998.
Anderson, Michael F. and Debra Sutphen. National Register Nomination. Bright Angel Trail, 1992.

Carr, Ethan. Wildemess by Design: Landscape Architecture & the National Park Service. Lincoln and
London: University of Nebraska Press, 1998.

Chappell, Gordon. “Railroad at the Rim.” Journal of Arizona History. Spring 1976.

Cleeland, Teri A. The Cross Canyon Corridor Historic District in Grand Canyon National Park: A
Model for Historic Preservation. Master’s Thesis, Northem Arizona University, August, 1986.

Dana, William S. B. The Swiss Chalet Book. New York. W. T. Comstock Co., 1913.

Darling, F. Fraser, and Noel D. Eichhom. Man and Nature in the National Parks: Reflections on Policy.
2nd ed. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation, 1969.

Dilsaver, Larry M., ed. America's National Park System: The Critical Documents. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield, 1994,

Everhardt, William C. The National Park Service. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1983.

Foresta, Ronald A. America's National Parks and Their Keepers. Washington: Resources for the Future,
1985,

Good, Albert H. Park and Recreation Structures. Boulder: Graybooks 1991 (reprint of 1938 NPS ver-
sion).

Grand Canyon National Park Archives and Maintenance Records.
Grattan, Virginia L. Mary Colter: Builder Upon the Red Earth. Flagstaff: Northland Press, 1980.
Handlin, David P. American Architecture. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1985.

Hughes, J. Donald. n the House of Stone and Light: Introduction to the Human History of the Grand
Canyon. Denver: University of Denver and Grand Canyon National Park Association, 1997.

Ise, John. Our National Park Policy: A Critical History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,

BIBLIOGRAPHY == -29


April 13, 2001

indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Repo: * Grand Canyon Nationaj Park

Architectural Resources Group

Appendix G. National Register Nomination for the Bright Angel Trail, dated
September 13, 1992. (Due to document length, only the Statement of Significance is
included.)



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group April x3, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Figure I1. The image illustrates the roof configuration of the Trail Caretaker 5 Residence. From this angle,
the image also illustrates the orientation of the cabin toward the inner canyon. ARG Photo dated May,
2000.

APPENDIX F



7

April x3, 200

1988 Exterior rehabilitation work, including:

Removal of swamp cooler from north facade and restoration of casement window.

Painting of exterior utility boxes and conduit to match walls.

Painting of exterior wood.

Replacement of asphalt roof.

Resetting and pointing of loose stone.

Removal of interior wood stoves (2), flue at 1960 addition, wall heaters (3) and phimbing fix
tures.

Undated Alterations:

Front elevation altered - casement window removed/enlarged. Original door removed.

Original wood shingle roof replaced with asphalt shingles.

Aluminum storm sash added at interior.

Swamp cooler added at north elevation (this was removed in 1988 but the date of installation is
unknown).

Antenna installed/removed from northeast pier (removed after 1988).

22 — CrRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

ee ee ee: eee ae, ee oe eee a, ee


ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP

ACCESSIBLE
PATH OF TRAVEL

(E) SITE
SEATING

k-~ RETAINING WALL

é ‘ DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE "1 - REHABILITATION
Ax, SCALE Q)

© REHABILITATION:
EXISTING INTERIOR CONFIGURATION TO REMAIN
REHABILITATE MATERIALS AS NECESSARY

PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE ENTRY AND RAMP AT WEST
FACADE

KEY:

HEME ORIGINAL WALL

ACCESSIBLE
PATH OF TRAVEL

PROPOSED
ROOF

GF REMOVED
ADDITION —

ACCESSIBLE
DOOR AT
HISTORIC WINDOW
LOCATION

RAMP UP

12

I>

~---S-- ==

(2) DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE "2 - RESTORATION

Sp scale @

® RE

STORATION:

REMOVE BUILDING ADDITION @ WEST AND RESTORE
TO ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION -
REMOVE INTERIOR FURRING/GYP. BD. SURFACES AND
RESTORE SINGLE WALL CONSTRUCTION.
REHABILITATE MATERIALS AS NECESSARY

PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE ENTRY AND RAMP AT WEST
FACADE

2g

‘SUB {SHEET NO.

vats Po"

TE:
4/13/2001)

THLE OF SHEET
INDIAN GARDENS — BLOG. 93
DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

HSR

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

DRAWING NO,

‘SHEET

OF =



Architectural Resources Group

Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence * Histor!

Apzil 13, 2001

Figure 5. The image illustrates the paths that wind around and through the
site connecting the Bright Angel Trail to the two residences. The charmingly
overgrown paths, some paved in irregularly-shaped stones, some unpaved, are
a common feature. View is looking west toward the Rock House across the
principal elevation of the Trail Caretakers Residence. ARG Photo dated May,
2000.

APPENDIX F



April 13, 2005

the building with distinctly different interior finishes in the original portion from the addition. The orig-
inal finishes at the addition are assumed to be the extant gypsum-sheathed stud walls and vinyl floors.
Some configuration of interior spaces could be achieved by removing non-historic wall partitions.
Though the kitchen cabinets at the building’s east side are in the location of original cabinets, those
Temaining are not original and can be removed.

Additional measures needed to make the structure comply with current building codes are described in
the section that follows.

Requirements for Treatment

In concise terms, this text outlines applicable laws, regulations, and fumctional yequirements. Specific
attention is given to issues of handicapped accessibility, human safety, fire protection, energy conserva-
tion, and abatement of hazardous materials.

The rehabilitation design shall conform to NPS cultural resources policies and guidelines and will be
reviewed for compliance with the GMP, NEPA, Section 106 of the NHPA, and all applicable codes and
standards required by law and NPS policy. The building codes used for analysis include the 1997
Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC), and Uniform
Federal Accessibility Standards.

The treatments recommended in this report will have effects on the cultural resource; however, it is
intended that the treatments will result in benefits giving a higher level of preservation of the resource
than is now provided. Some proposed work will include actions that could be considered to have nega-
tive effects. One of the most important design criteria, however, is that the modifications be designed
to minimize these effects, both physically and visually. Those negative effects will be mitigated by pro-
viding an improved environment for the preservation of the building and the safety of its users. Further
evaluation will be necessary when the recommendations are developed to a level of design detail specif-
ic enough to definitively identify specific building fabric impacts.

Accessibility

To meet code requirements, an accessible path of travel needs to be provided to an accessible exterior
entry. NPS policy mandates that this building be made accessible. However, due to the remote location
of this site within the Grand Canyon, the site is, at present, a great barrier to those with physical disabili-
ties. For the sake of this study, we are limiting the discussion of access to the building only.

An accessible at-grade entry or ramp will need to be provided in any rehabilitation scheme. Due to the

altered nature of the west side of the building, it seems most appropriate to provide such access here. In
that way, the historic steps at the north elevation can remain unaltered.

TREATMENT AND USE 25



Building Assessment Report

Indian Gardens Caretaker’s Residence
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

ARTICLE

ith.
Iv.

Flack + Kurtz
Ref. No: $00.02260.00
August 11, 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

TOC



indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon Na’

Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2001

Figure 2. The Bright Angel Trail leads to Cameron's Indian Garden Camp in 1906. The image shows
makeshift buildings, tents and the beginnings of cultivated fields. View is looking toward the south. GCNPA
Number 3611 C.

Appennix E



weg for roast cn Aprons ho sone

United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

. 8 is Bright Angel Trail
Section number_____.—s Page

been as follaws: 1%
607." “Although annual
a few hundred in 1900 to
in 1937, trail usage
ough the 1930s.

“annual tesye) Calong the Bright Anaeij nh
3 B4-~ 17,4033 19S5--20,5153 1926~
Grand Lanyon visitation had multiplied
44,000 in 1919, 200,000 in 1929, and =
apparently ramained fairly constant th

The flurry of trail building gG reconstruction within Grand
Canyon’s central corridor between 1929 and 1939 enhanced the tourist
experience, offering better trails for stock and pedestrians as well
as better accommodations and a number of route alternatives. The
South Kaibab Trail offered a shorter route to the river, better
vistas, and a more direct crossing to Bright Angel Creek, tuk alsa a
steeper descent without water along the way. er 1936, as today,
rangers recommended a descent along the South Kaibab, a stroli along
the Colorado River Trail, and an ascent up the Bright Angel.
Improved camp facilities at Indian Gardens and watered rest stops
along the trail further recommerided continued use of the Bright
Angsi. In recognition of its continued importance to Grand Canyon
tourism, the Department of the Interior in 1961 designated the
Bright Angei--along with the the North Kaibab, South Kaibab, and
Colorado River trails--as a National Recreation Trail within the
National Trails System. The Fark Service since the 19305 has
maintained it and the other central corridor trails to the highest
standards of Grand Canyan trail maintenance.

Os.

The Bright Angel Trail route is one of many paths within Grand
Canyon used by Havasupais and their. predecessor ess inner
Canyon resources from the south rim. Few trails. tbowever,. allow a
narrative continuum from Indian to European-& usage. The
close relationship between early pioneer Willi and his
Havasupai meighbors provides an unbroken his
in the Ba Trails momination. Similar nar » if mot a cia
white-Indian relationship. are found for Havasupai use of the Briant
angel Fault as x transportation route between the south rim and tne
Tonta Platfarm.

Fhygical evidence of a Havasupai trail has been identified in
the descriptive section of this nomination. Written records as well
oral history document use of this trail within
Havasupai onal migrations. Curtis McClure, who
first visited Indian Gardens as one of the original trail builders
im 1896,



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2002

Figure 10. The image illustrates the path that parallels the north-running creek bed and the Bright
Angel Trail to the left of the photo. The path skirts the east elevation of the Trail Caretakers Residence.
View is looking south. ARG Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F

hme mw we me me eC


8 Form 10.004
eta

United States Department of the interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

. 16 Bright Angel Trail
Section number

Page

there were evidences in existence at the Indian Gardens
showing that at some time previous, some cultivation of the

ground had been carried on by someone Landi it apoarently had

been burned of f two or three times....

George Wharton James, an ardent Grand Canyan promoter with extensive
personal knowledge of the Havasupais, noted that “a certain family

of the Havasupais used to farm in a crude way.on this spot," and
that remnants of their irrigation ditches remained in the early

1890s. He added that the Havasupais as iate as i900 could give the

names of the prehistoric families that had. rights to this inner
Canyon site (and other Canyon sites). Park Superintendent Miner

Tillotson identified this family as that’ of Big Jim, who remembered

his family’s occupation as far back as the 1940s and lived at the
gardens and atop the south rim well into. the twentieth centurv.

Pete Rerry and others who built the first Eur opean-American
trail in 1890-91 had similar transportation goals in mind. Until
1690, prospectors had used John Hance’s early trail to access the
Tonto Platform. William Ashurst‘’s discovery of promising ore

deposits at Indian Gardens in the late 1880s prompted the search for

&@ more direct supply and ore shipment route to the south rim, thus
accounting for the trail’s canstruction. Almost immediately,
Sanford Rowe found the Bright Angel a convenient way to bring his
Paying guests down to the Tonto Platform. After 1899, the trail
became the favored path for tourists des cending as far as the
river. These transportation uses have been described above within
the contexts of mining and tourism.

Tt is at first difficult to imagine that a trail built for
pedestrians and saddle stock could serve as a major bregional
transportation route well into the age of automobiles. but the
Bright Angel Trail served this purpose until the late 23.0 In
1902, Fran is Matthes constructed a rough trail from
through Bright Angel Creek to the river, th
the Bright Angel Trail, establishing a tran
avenue immediately superseded the Pass trai ae the ¢ red route
because the Grand ryen Railway spur, arriving at the head of the
Bright Angel the year before, aliowed a comfortable ri
the Atlantic & Pacific tr s at Williams and to anv destinat
from that town. “Uncle Dee" Wooley recognized the potential in
when he and others formed the Grand nyon Transpartatian Company
and financed his son-in-
ad the cross
corridor had ha
a cable system i
crossing with

in combination with
won corridor. This

at the river. Since the i8os,
arded crossinas in fragile punt
4907 and th ark Service fu
spension bridges in i921 and 1

travel
+ but Rus
her secured the

north rim

-, to imorove the aorth trail
s along the
installed



EN

indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence

istoric Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

April 13, 2001

Appendix A. Copies of original drawings of the Trail Caretaker’s Cabin at Indian
Garden, prepared by the Landscape Division of the NPS, dated 1932.
(Original copy quality is poor.)


Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report » Grand Canyon National Park

April x3, 2002 Architectural Resources Group

value in tourism than in mining.

Indian Garden, Home to Havasupai

The difficulties of settlement in the arid climate of the southwest were well understood by pioneers and
natives alike. Like Havasu Springs, Thunder River, and Roaring Springs, all several thousand feet
below the canyon's rim, Indian Garden benefited from underground springs, one of the few water
sources in the region. For centuries, the Havasupai and other tribes seasonally occupied Indian Garden
for its springs, level lands suitable for agriculture, and nearby sheltering caves. In 1830, families who
had been driven away from other areas began to cultivate the land at Indian Garden. A principal motiva-
tion for settlement at Indian Garden was to farm, but the site also yielded salt and red clay used to make
paint for trade with the Hopi. The Havasupai traded the paint and salt along with tanned hides, dried
figs and mescal for jewelry, rugs and moccasins from the Hopi. The Hopi were known to come to
Indian Garden to trade and to perform ceremonial dances.4

The domiciles at Indian Garden were principally cave shelters formed in cliff dwellings, though the
Havasupai are known to have lived in conical earthen homes and simple frame cabins in other parts of
the Grand Canyon. In 1917 the cliffs at Indian Garden were described as having cave houses and dug-
outs as living quarters for the Supai Indians, the tribe which formerly inhabited this spot.>

The 1938 park master plan notes cliff dwellings at lower Indian Garden beneath the Tapeats Sandstone
west of Garden Creek. Typically, the Indians would cache their harvest in the walls of the Grand
Canyon. These dwellings at Indian Garden contained six or more rooms and several food caches. Many
of the cliff dwellings and food caches ascribed to the Anasazi and Cohonino are the same ones later used
by the Havasupai, a further indication that Indian Garden was in use in ancient times.

The first European-Americans to live and work along the Bright Angel Trail at the end of the nineteenth
century used the resources of the area in much the same way as the Havasupai did for access into-the
canyon and to obtain water. A group of miners, Pete Berry, Niles Cameron, Robert A. Ferguson, Curtis
H. McClure, and Millard G. Love, constructed a trail from the south rim to the Tonto Platfonn at Indian
Garden to access mining claims. Early in 1891, Berry and Cameron measured the new trail and record-
ed the "Bright Angel Toll Road” with Yavapai County. This segment of the trail ran from the South Rim
to Indian Garden.?

Ralph Cameron and the Indian Garden Camp

By 1903, Ralph Cameron, an early canyon entrepreneur and brother of Niles Cameron, came to an
agreement with the Havasupai living at Indian Garden that allowed him to establish a camp for tourists,
"Cameron's Indian Garden Camp”(see Appendix E, Figures 1, 2). He purchased existing water rights
and filed several mining claims to assure his rights to the site. Cameron's camp consisted of seven tent

HisTORICAL BACKGROUND 7



Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2001

Figure 4. Drawing titled “Floor Plans of Stone Cottages” proposed for Indian Garden by architect Mary Jane
Elizabeth Colter, dated November, 1916. The cottages were to be part of a larger hotel development at Indian
Garden in 1916, but were never built. GCNPA Number 16713.

APPENDIX E



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report - Grand Canyon Nationat Park

“Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2007

Many of the tribes who claim ancestral ties to the Grand Canyon continue to use the park. Salt and

hematite are collected from the locations along the river by all tribes, and certain plants are collected for
traditional and medicinal purposes throughout the park. Pine nuts are still collected by Indians and non-
Indians. One small group of Havasupai continues to live approximately one mile west of Grand Canyon
Village in Supai Camp. Most Havasupai today earn their living from tourism, ranching, and wage labor.

Both spiritually and physically, the canyon remains of great importance to the local native peoples: it is
a holy place, an object of pilgrimages, a symbol of legends, and a home place. Today, the reservations
of the Hualapai, Havasupai, and Navajo tribes include parts of Grand Canyon National Park; the Paiute
and Hopi reservations are nearby. Each of these tribes is linked to the history of the Canyon, from early
times to present day involvement.2

European Exploration

During the early Spanish period, both the Hualapai and Havasupai were relatively unaffected. The first
few Spanish soldiers and explorers to encounter the canyon were Jed by Garcia Lopez de Cardenas from
Francisco Vasquez de Coronado’s expedition of 1540-15423 Cardenas and his men arrived at the South
Rim of the Grand Canyon in late September of 1540 with the assistance of Hopi guides: Finding the
land arid and difficult to traverse, the Spaniards left the canyon and its surrounding plateau lands to
native tribes and were not seen again in the immediate area until the 1770s. More concerned with chart-
ing the New World and understanding the geography of the region, the Spanish they were awed by the
canyon as a barrier, not for its. scenic beauty, and focused instead on more easily-habitable regions.

American Westward Expansion

American trappers, fur traders, and frontiersmen scouted the area in the early nineteenth century, but
tended to avoid the treacherous, unforgiving and still uncharted depths of the canyon. Like the Spanish
before them, they saw it as an impediment to their hunting and trapping activities. In 1848, much of the
territory was still unexplored. The course.of the Colorado River had never been surveyed and the
canyon did not have an established name. In 1869, Major John Wesley Powell, a geologist and explorer
from Illinois, organized several expeditions to charter the river that cut through the canyon. Powell's
expedition appears to have been the first organized expedition of white men to successfully navigate the
Colorado River through the canyon and opened the way for further settlement.

Despite Powell's success, the American frontier came late. Rugged topography and a hot, arid climate
deterred settlers. Consequently, those who came were mostly men without families in search of wealth:
ranchers, settlers, and mining prospectors. These men arrived in Arizona in the 1870s in such huge
numbers that the population quadrupled. Hundreds of mining claims were staked, but mining meant
overcoming prohibitive difficulties: such as, lack of water; insufficient trails; packing out the ore on bur-
ros; and, finally, paltry deposits. Some mining prospectors saw that their trails arid land had greater

6 HisToRICAL BACKGROUND



Grand Canyon National Park - Indian Garden Building #93
April 13, 2001

occupied or used by the occupants of the major rooms; these spaces include circulation
(corridors and staircases), toilet rooms, and closets. The rooms discussed below are
shown on the building plans. Based on the table below, the total occupancy load for the
1932 portion is 3 occupants. The total occupancy load for the 1960 addition is 1
occupant.

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP

Architects, Planners & Conservators, {nc.

|



Indian Garden Trail Ca

‘aker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report « Grand Canyon National Park

April 13, 200% Architectural Resources Group

Vi. CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

This section summarizes the physical construction, modification, and use of the historic caretaker’s Tesi-
dence at Indian Garden. It also includes information on any major maintenance and rehabilitation cam-
paigns, The information presented is based on historical documentation with corroboration from first-
hand observation and limited materials analysis. Changes to the building for which chronological docu-
mentation is not available are noted and explained at the end of the chronology.

Chronology of Use

The building was constructed in 1932 for use as a residence by the caretaker of the Bright Angel Trail.
It is not known at what date the structure discontinued its use as a residence, but it can be assumed that
it was some time after 1960. Today, the building serves primarily as equipment storage space for search
and rescue ranger operations. It is possible that the building has been used to fulfill other functions over
time, but no records have been found with more specific information.

Chronology of Development / Alterations
1932 Building constructed during the months of September, October.

1950 Repairs in the amount of $8,262.00 were undertaken due to damage caused by a flood in
August 1948. Work included:
removal and replacement of a portion of the interior walls; tepainting of the interior;
and replacement of floor covering and cook stove.

1960 Two-room addition constructed at the west side of the original building. The two original stone
piers at the west elevation were removed and the stones reused to construct a stone porch at the
west side.

1981 Interior remodeled during the winter months by the Young Adult Conservation Core (Y.A.C.C.).

Extent of work is undocumented, but it is assumed that all extant interior partitions and gypsum.
board finishes were installed at this time.

CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE 21



dian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

“Architectural Resources Group ‘April 13, 2001

Character-Defining Features

Elements from the surrounding landscape have influenced the building design. The low-pitched roofs
mask the size of the structure so that it sits harmoniously among the trees. Following is a list of features
that contribute to the rustic character of the trail caretaker residence at Indian Garden, capitalizing upon
natural forms and indigenous materials to fashion a distinct character that links the building to its site.
These are typical elements that came to define the rustic park architecture of the Park Service. These
features are not listed in any order of importance-each in its own way is an equally important compo-
nent of the building’s design.

. One-story stone and wood-frame cabin building type, well-proportioned to its site

. Rustic design in the classic early NPS style incorporating local materials and deferring to the
landscape

° Exterior wood frame plank siding, running vertically

. Coursed rubble masonry of native Kaibab limestone

. Battered monumental comer stone piers (2 of original 4 extant)

. Gabled roof, finished with wood shingles

° Exaggerated eaves and sheltering roofs

. Coursed rubble masonry chimney

. Use of rough-hewn boulders of Kaibab limestone on front stair

. Principal staircase of flagstone

. Mature, shady trees

° Inner-canyon location

. Gabion walls

° Views of canyon walls in distance

. Low rock walls, stone fountains, and paths

. Picnic tables and benches

14 SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY EVALUATION

ee ee ee ee ee eee oe es ee,


rk
April 13, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Administrative Data

Historic Name: Trail Caretaker's Residence

Common Name: SAR Cache Building

Park Structure Number: Building 93

Location: At Indian Garden on the Bright Angel Trail, Inner Canyon, Grand Canyon National
Park, Coconino County, Arizona
USGS Map - Williams Quadrangle
UTM easting 437600 northing 1847600

Cultural Resource Data

Work on the historic Bright Angel Trail was completed by the CCC in 1939, though the trail had been
used by native peoples for millennia. In 1992 a National Register of Historic Places nomination was
prepared for the Bright Angel Trail with the adjacent structures, including the trail caretaker's residence,
considered as contributing structures. This nomination has not yet been submitted, but the Park Service
considers the Bright Angel Trail eligible and it is treated as such.

The original drawings for this building were published in the 1986 master's thesis of Teri A. Cleeland,
The Cross Canyon Corridor Historic District in Grand Canyon National Park: A Model for Historic
Preservation. No copy of the drawings is currently held in the Grand Canyon National Park Archives at
the South Rim, however, a copy should be placed with that collection. There are only a few historic
photographs of this site within the collection of the Park Archives. The Park Archives collection is an

appropriate location for these items. The image from the maintenance records should be included in the
Park Archives collection.

The information presented herein provides the basis for evaluating future alterations that may be pro-
posed for the building at Indian Garden and will aid in the rehabilitation of this significant park structure
and site. The building at Indian Garden has not been well-documented in the past. No significant new
information regarding the architectural significance of the building has been found. The project team
has developed a more thorough analysis of the structure’s place within the context of rustic architecture.

This report addresses necessary improvements to the conditions at Indian Garden, focusing on the build-
ing, its site and its history.

Executive SUMMARY 3



Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2001

Figure 17. The image illustrates the relationship of the inner canyon location of Indian Garden as the first
stop for hikers descending into the depths of the canyon. The distant views into the canyon are a charac-
teristic feature of the site. View is looking north from the Trail Caretakers Residence. ARG Photo dated
May, 2000.

APPENDIX F



chitectural Resources Group ‘Aptil 13, 2001

Human Safety (Egress)

The building currently conforms to most requirements of the UBC and UCBC (refer to the code analysis
section of this document). Non-compliant historic stone steps and landings will have to be exempted
from code by the local building official.

Fire Protection

The building is not currently equipped with a fire detection system, and is unsprinklered. The installa-
tion of a sprinkler system is not required by code, but it is NPS policy to sprinkle historic buildings
when they are rehabilitated. According to NPS Director’s Order 50B, section 12, article 12.2.4.6,
"..buildings undergoing renovation... will have automatic sprinkler system protection and automatic fire
detection.” Due to the practical problems of a remote location and limited access to water, the use of a
pressurized water tank or another type of automatic suppression system may be considered. Depending
on the degree of restoration of interior finishes, sprinkler pipes may be concealed in the attic. - While the
Indian Garden area is not often subject to freezing temperatures, a dry-pipe system is recommended.
Flush type sprinkler heads should be acceptable. The best option for fire protection requires further
study.

Energy Conservation

This building, originally heated by a single wood stove, does not currently have any mechanical heating
or cooling systems. None are desired at this time. As this will not be a regularly-inhabited building, it
is believed that natural ventilation, through operable windows, is adequate for the summer months.
Though a wood burning stove could be reinstalled and attached to the extant historic flue in the kitchen
for winter heating, the Park has banned the use of all wood. buming stoves due to air pollution. The use
of a pellet stove could be investigated if winter heating becomes an issue. It is not known if the existing
stud walls are insulated. R-19 insulation is visible in the attic above the addition. If the interior sheath-
ing at the walls is removed (to expose the original single-wall construction), it will not be possible to
insulate the walls, The walls will, however, be extremely thin, allowing air to easily flow through them;
the building will basically be an enclosed shade structure. Insulation can be maintained in the attic
space to prevent solar heat gain through the roof.

The existing, historic sash are single-glazed and are not weather stripped. They do have interior alu-
minum storm sash, believed to be added at a time in the past when the building was continually occu-
pied. Due to the proposed treatment of the building as a shade structure, it is believed that weather-
stripping and interior storm sash are not necessary. Insect screens should, however, be added to allow
for a insect-free environment with natural ventilation during warmer months.

In general, all of the utilities are aged and need to be upgraded. The existing electrical service (overhead
from a nearby pole) is adequate, but should be neatly rerouted so that it doesn’t run along the exterior of
the building beneath the eaves (its current route). A single main disconnect should be installed to

26 TREATMENT AND Use

|

mn Oe ee ee ese ee oe, eee oe, ee ee: a,


Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group ‘April 13, 2007

The Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Park Service at the Grand Canyon

When the Grand Canyon became a National Park in 1919, the National Park Service Landscape
Engineering Department teamed up with the Santa Fe Railroad and the Fred Harvey Company to plan
development in the park. The National Park Service plan for the Grand Canyon Village Area was adopt-
ed and implemented in 1924. However, most development within the park occurred between the years
1933-1942 when the Civilian Conservation Corps arrived at the Grand Canyon. During the New Deal
CCC Program, a steady supply of labor enabled a building boom in most parks. CCC crews built much
of the developed areas in the Grand Canyon area. Their fine craftsmanship and use of natural materials
characterize the labor-intensive CCC buildings; the style is often referred to as NPS Rustic.

The buildings at Indian Garden exemplify the type of structures designed and constructed in this period.
The CCC recruits did extensive trail work during these years, re-grading and re-routing the Bright Angel
Trail and reconfiguring one-and-a-half miles of switchbacks of the old trail. In addition, the CCC crews
built the extant Bright Angel Trail shelters: the Three-Mile Resthouse (1935) Mile-and-a-Half
Resthouse (1936) the River Resthouse (1936) and, Indian Garden Resthouse (1937) (see Appendix E, .
Figure 5).

Design of the Trail Caretaker's Residence at Indian Garden and the Cabin Building Type

When the CCC arrived in the Canyon in the early 1930s, they assisted the Park Service in accomplishing
further clean-up work from the Cameron era and constructing several new structures at Indian Garden,
including the trail caretaker’s cabin. They removed three of Cameron’s wood-framed structures and his
1906 stone building, reusing the stones in the construction of the caretaker’s trail cabin (see Appendix
E, Figure 6).14

Copies of original signed drawings attribute the design. of the residence to the NPS Landscape Division.
The signatures are not legible but the date of the design indicates that Thomas C. Vint, as Chief of the
Landscape Division, would have approved the plans. Vint (1894-1967) is considered one of the two
most influential landscape architects in the history of the National Park Service and was instrumental in
developing the design philosophy for park architecture-a unifying use of materials and siting to high-
light the building’s relationship to its natural surroundings. Vint was credited with refining the defini-
tion of non-intrusive design, fostering younger architects of the park service, and stipervising the build-
ing of residences, lodges, and resort buildings, particularly the “log, stone and rustic construction”!3
associated with park rustic architecture of the Landscape Division. Vint described the work of the
Landscape Division:

The work of the Landscape Division...is a different character than the general practice of the
landscape profession. Although landscape work predominates in the work, it merges into the

10 HisTorIcaL BACKGROUND

_ a 2 o_o

oo, 2 ee.

_ a en oe eo, oe


April 13, 2002 Architectural Resources Group

39: Researching A Historic Property. 1991.

Wray, Jacilee. Havasupai Ethnohistory on the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park: A Case Study
for Cultural Resource Management in the National Park Service. Master’s Thesis, Northern Arizona
University, August 1990.

BisuiocrapHy = 31



As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our
nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water
resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural
values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor
recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their
development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in
their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for
people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.

NPS D-554, April 2001


Building Assessment Report

Indian Gardens Caretaker’s Residence
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

I.

Flack + Kurtz

INTRODUCTION

A.

GENERAL

The Indian Gardens Caretaker’s Residence is located just off the South Rim
on the Bright Angel Trail in Grand Canyon National Park, The site
elevation is approximately 3,500 feet above sea level.

The residence was originally constructed in 1932. Since then an addition
has increased the size of the building to approximately 860 square feet. Its
current use is as an emergency supplies storage area. The plan is to

renovate and restore the building to provide shelter and a destination point
for hikers.

This report provides a basic assessment of the building's HVAC, plumbing,
fire protection and electrical systems. The Teport is based on a review of
available building drawings, pictures provided by ARG and a verbal
description of existing conditions by ARG based on their site visit on May
17", 2000. The estimation of the future viability of existing systems is
based solely on the information provided above. The walk through was
limited to the observation of visible equipment only. Equipment was not
tested or operated for functionality, nor were hidden areas exposed or
inspected.

Recommendations related to code issues are based on the current versions
of the Uniform Building, Electrical, Fire, Mechanical, and Plumbing codes.

Introduction

Ref. No.: $00.02260.00
August 11, 2000



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Apzil 13, 2002 ; Architectural Resources Group

field of architecture. We have little use for landscape men whose experience is limited to the
planting of shrubbery and allied to landscape work. There is little planting done within the
National Parks and what is done is limited to the transplanting of native shrubs and trees, so the
general commercial stock is not used. The work has to do with the preservation of the native

landscape and involves the location and construction of communities, buildings, etc. within an
existing landscape.!6

The residence at Indian Garden epitomizes the type of construction, design, and siting issues that most
concerned Vint and the Landscape Division. A small-scale cabin articulated with massive native stone
piers and tucked into the trees was the perfect choice for Indian Garden. The design for the original trail
caretaker’s residence began with a simple vernacular cabin. Based on a variation of the cabin building
type, the design was distinguished by the use of coursed rubble masonry of native Kaibab limestone in
the form of battered corner stone piers. The exterior wood framing and plank siding, shingled gabled
roof and exaggerated eaves, are typical features of NPS cabin architecture. The interior consisted of two
principal rooms, a kitchen and a communicating bedroom with a small closet in the southeast corner and
a toilet and shower room in the southwest corner (see Appendix E, Figure 7).

The trail caretaker’s residence is notable for its remote, rustic feeling, a refuge at the base of the Bright
Angel Trail. In his 1938, three-volume edition of Park & Recreation Structures, Albert H. Good, an
architectural consultant to the National Park Service, noted:

Among buildings which have come to be regarded as on occasion justified within our present
conception of a natural park, the cabin alone has the favorable advantage of long familiarity to
us in woodland and meadow. So accustomed are we to survivals of frontier cabins dotting the
countryside that we have grown to look upon them as almost indigenous to a natural setting. Of
all park structures, those cabins which echo the pioneer theme in their outward appearance,

whether constructed of logs, shakes or native stone, tend to jar us the least with any feeling that
they are unwelcome.!7

Copies of the original 1932 NPS drawings and specifications provide information about the building as
it was originally constructed (see Appendix A). The original drawings show that the building rests on
concrete piers. The specification states that the foundation girders are anchored to piers with bolts with
nuts and washers.

With regard to stonework, the specification calls for “stone comers, base, steps and chimney rough fin-
ish weathered surface native stone laid in cement mortar composed of 1 part Portland cement and 3 parts

sand. Joints painted with mortar colored slightly darker than the stone.”18

The flue was carried out in brick plastered in cement. Flashing was specified to be 28 gauge galvanized
iron. The specification for the carpentry and millwork stated “all forming lumber and rough carpentry

Historica. BAcKGRounD 11



ESHA

ENGINEERS

Grand Canyon National Park Structural Assessment _

space access point, it is reasonable to assume that the floor framing is similar in nature to the original
portion of the structure.

The walls of the addition appear to be of 2x4 stud construction with either 1x vertical boards or plywood
at the exterior face and 1x3 vertical battens.

Recommendations

The existing building appears to be in relatively good shape. Although the exterior paint is peeling, the
wood is not visibly deteriorated or damaged. The remaining stonework is intact, without missing stones
or excessive loss of grout.

If the addition remains, it should be verified that the addition’s walls are adequately tied to the original
building’s front and rear wails to transfer lateral loads for the full structure, since some of the diagonal
bracing has been removed. Adequate support of the original roof at the corners where the stone columns
were removed should also be verified.

If the addition is removed, the diagonal bracing at the exterior of the original walls should be replaced or
an alternate system should be installed, such as plywood sheathing at the interior face of walls. The
building should be restored to its original construction detailing.

Work for either of the above conditions would be considered adequate under the provisions of the 1997
Uniform Building for a building in seismic zone 2B. The occupancy of the building is not expected to
change substantially.



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence * Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group

Figure 13. This image is representative of the use of the former Trail
Caretakers residence as storage. Note gypsum walls and ceiling and ceil-
ing-mounted flourescent light. ARG Photo dated May, 2000.

April 13, 2001

APPENDIX E



a ene ne. tes

Fm saa
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form

This farm is for use In nominating or requesting determinations of aligibility for individual properties or districts. See instzuctions in Guxtelines
for Comptating National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16). Complete each item by marking ‘'x" in the appropriate box or by entering
the requested information. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter N/A" for “not applicable.” For functions, styles, materials,
and areas of significance, enter only the categories and subcategories fisted in the instructions. For additional space use continuation sheets

{Form 10-9008). Type all entries.

i. Name of Property
historic name Bright Angel Trail
other names/site number Bright Angel Toll Trail; Cameron Trail

2, Location

street & number Grand Canyon National Park L_Jnot for publication
City, town Grand Canyon Village ° La vicinity
state Arizona ‘code AZ county Coconino cade AZ005, zipcode 86023
3. Classification
Ownership of Property Category of Property Number ot Resources within Property
(CI private [1 buildingte) Contributing Noncontributing
{_] publictocat Cldistrict 7 8 __ buildings
{—] pubtic-State (site 3 sites
[3] pubtic-Federat {3 structure 1 structures
[_Jobject objects
1 8 Total
Name of related muttipie property listing: Number of contriputing resources previously
Grand Canyon, Arizona Historic Trails & Roads listed in the National Register 0.

4, State/Federst Agency Certification

As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,as emended, | hereby certify that this
[nomination [J request for determination of eligibltity meats the documentation standards for registering properties in the
National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements est forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
in my opinion, the property (ma) meets Cldoes not mest the National Register criteria. (7) see continuation sheet.

Signature of certifying official Date

State or Fedaral agency and bureau

in my opinion, the property {Imests CJdces hot meet the National Register criteria. CIsee continuation sheet,

Signature of commenting or other official Date

State or Federai agency and bureau

5. National Park Service Ceriliication
|, hereby, certify that this property is:
Centered in the Nationa! Register.
{[}See continuation sheet.
Lcetermined eligible for the National
Register. [_]see continuation sheet.
{"]eetermined not eligible for the
National Register.

{]removed trom the National Register.
{_Jother, {explain:)

Signature of the Keeper Date of Action


Caretaker’s Residence ¢ Historic Structure Report « Grand Canyon National Park

Architectura] Resources Group April 13, 2002

which is less acute than that of the original part of the building. The gable is punctured by a louvered

vent to the attic. The elevation is not symmetrical; the door sits to the north and two windows flanking
it are of different sizes. The door opens onto a stone porch, comprised of stones from the disassembled
piers. An opening to the building’s crawlspace is located on this elevation (see Appendix F, Figure 9).

East Elevation

The building’s long east elevation looks to the Bright Angel Trail. This elevation exhibits the typical
building characteristics and, of all elevations, most retains its original aspect due to the two extant cor-
ner piers. The masonry chimney, a character-defining feature, punctures the roof on the east side. There
are three window openings, one to the kitchen and two to the rear bedroom. The grade slopes down to
the north on this side (see Appendix F, Figure 10).

Roof
The roof configuration is of that of a cross-gable reflecting the intersecting gables of the original con-

struction and the addition. Originally wood-shingled, the roof is now sheathed with asphalt shingles
(see Appendix F, Figures 14 and 12).

Interior

The interior, originally consisting of two rooms on the eastern side, a kitchen and a bedroom, is finished
with sealed wainscoting. The residence was originally equipped with a gas cooking range, electric
refrigerator, oil space heater and window shades. Water was heated with coils in a wood-burning range.
Originally, the building had a cold water connection but that was capped in recent decades.

At present all interior finishes, gypsum board sheathing and vinyl flooring, are replacements. The origi-
nal vamished fir floor may remain below the vinyl flooring. Interior gypsum board sheathing has been
installed over original single-wall construction. Original finishes at the addition are assumed to be the
extant gypsum-sheathed stud walls and vinyl floors (see Appendix F, Figures 13-16).

Alterations

In 1960 a two-room addition at the west side of the original building altered the structure so that its
envelope doubled in size. As a consequence of this work, the two original stone piers at the west eleva-
‘tion were dismantled and the stones reused to construct a stone porch at the west side.

An interior refurbishment in 1981 included the addition of interior partitions. Gypsum board finishes
were installed at this time. Another campaign of rehabilitation occurred in 1988 which included exterior
rehabilitation work, the restoration of casement window, re-painting, roof replacement, re-pointing of
loose stone, and the removal of interior wood stoves and other features.

16 Prysicat DescrIPTION

Se Le ee oe ee ee ee, ee ee ee ee ee, ee ee: ee;



United States Department of the Interior



|

Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Apuil 23, 2001

Vi. = TREATMENT AND UsE

introduction

This narrative discusses and analyzes the ultimate treatment and use of the structure as defined by the
Grand Canyon National Park. Recommended treatment in general is to preserve the extant historic
materials and features, but not to arbitrarily restore missing features unless they are highty characteristic
and in need of treatment for other reasons, such as severe deterioration. Any proposed rehabilitation.
associated with new use will be carefully considered so that existing character-defining features of the
Site and buildings are maintained.

The program for this building remains to be fully defined. Preliminary descriptions of the proposed pro-
ject describe its use not as a visitor contact station, but rather a controlled access point. The exact pro-
grammatic requirements of such a station are unknown, but the goal is to provide a cool, shady place at
the Indian Garden area where people can picnic or rest or enjoy views of the Canyon walls (see
Appendix F, Figure 17). It is also desired to give day hikers a destination that is closer to the rim than
Plateau Point; a place that they can visit, view interpretive exhibits, and return back to the rim. Because
there is at present no real destination before Plateau Point, many hikers overestimate the duration/stress
of their exercise and are unable to hike out of the canyon on their own. By creating an Indian Garden
destination, it is hoped that visitors to the canyon can have an enjoyable mid-tength hike and will not
overexert themselves.

Preliminary design discussions have explored the idea of removing the 1960 addition and restoring the
building to its 1932 form. Such work would limit the enclosed size of the building, but would allow for
expanded outdoor rest areas (at the courtyard between this building and the adjacent Rock House).

While the building’s exact interior program is not defined, it is assumed that no mechanical services will
be needed. Plumbing service will need to be re-established for a new fire sprinkler system. Limited
electrical and telephone services will remain. See Building Assessment Report in Appendix H for fur-
ther discussion. The park is not concerned with security measures at this structure which, most likely,
will be unlocked and unstaffed. This project will include extensive site and Jandscape work; in order to
meet the preliminary program requirements it will be necessary to create a cool, relaxing outdoor space
for visitors. This would extend from the present courtyard to the west of the building, bounded farther
west by the adjacent rock house. Another goal is to provide clear directional Signage and access over
the creek to the structure. A comprehensive landscape development plan should be undertaken in future
design phases to fither define these issues. Site drainage is also an issue that will need extensive-inves-
tigation. The building is located in a flood plain and the adjacent stream has been known to overflow
during the winter. Further, the terrain slopes directly into the south side of the structure, leading to detri-

TREATMENT AND Us. 23



indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence ¢ Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group April 13, 2001

iS
«
s - ,
= vo@ q
5 now H
3 52) iq
= 2 g ¥ |
S tu
e ra) “il ©
o
leet 6
<
oO ba} 1
<
[2]
a
=z °
<x
a °
4
=
=
a
~ aia
? gas
= a-o2
~aee = MSae
Se@ag~ ses. 8
CARR ec ESESS
o ESSeseeree
e~ “S342
SZ Bee FX GBEwe
pes) eee % & sue
@ es25_.8-:8 2 3
3 O e223 55" 22
” Wo «885822. 456
& + sS&ESsSS5S 85
rs eacdrercgzead
a,” e°
i ° wm QS Ss
w Sanrnatnnor
°
2
¢
L. ao

Figure 8. Plan of Indian Garden and the Bright Angel Trail from Terry Cleeland’s 1986 thesis enti-
ded “The Cross Canyon Corridor Historic District in Grand Canyon National Park: A Model for
Historic Preservation.” In the plan the Trail Caretakers Residence (Building 93) is referred to as the
“Ranger Station.” GCNP Engineering Office - Maintenance Records.

Appennix E



Building Assessment Report

Indian Gardens Caretaker’s Residence
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

Recommendations

Light fixtures should be replaced with new energy efficient lighting
systems where possible. Magnetic ballasts should be assumed to
contain PCB’s and disposed of in accordance with all applicable
rules and regulations

D. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM

1.

Flack + Kurtz

Existing Conditions

There is no fire alarm system currently installed.
Recommendations

The current occupancy use group does not require a full fire alarm

signaling system. Smoke detectors should be provided to provide
spot coverage and protection for life safety.

Electrical

Ref. No.: $00.02260.00

August 11, 2000

OS



Indian Garden Trall Caretaker's Ri

lence + Historic

April 13, 2007

Appendix B. _ Existing Conditions Drawings of Plans and Elevations by Architectural
Resources Group, dated November 2, 2000.



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence * Historic Structure Report « Grand Canyon National Park

April 13, 2007 Aschitectural Resources Group

Additional undated alterations include the modification of the front elevation, enlarging the window,
removal of the original door, replacement of the original wood shingle roof with asphalt shingles, and
new aluminum storm sash.

Electrical/Mechanical/Plumbing
See Building Assessment Report in Appendix H.

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 17



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Atchitectural Resources Group April 13, 2001

Figure 9. The image illustrates the asymmetrical west elevation of the Trail Caretaker ’s Residence at
Indian Garden, the principal elevation of the 1960 alteration. This elevation looks toward the Rock
House and forms a “wall” of the central clearing between the two buildings, logical location for an
open space for benches, picnicking or repose. ARG Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F



Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence * Historic Structure Report » Grand Canyon National Park

“Architectural Resources Group

Project Team

Client
National Park Service
Denver Service Center
P.O. Box 25287
Denver, Colorado 25287
Paul C. Cloyd, Architect, Engineer

Grand Canyon National Park

P.O. Box 129

Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023
Harold Gibbs, Program Manager
E. Joanne Wilkins, Park Architect
Mark Law; Ranger
Chuck Sypher, Ranger

Consultants

Architectural Resources Group, principal preparers

Pier 9, The Embarcadero

San Francisco, California 94111
Stephen J. Farneth, FAIA, Project Principal
Bruce D. Judd, FAIA, Associate Project Principal
Bridget Maley, Project Manager, Historian
Wendy Hillis, Architectural Designer
Katherine T. Petrin, Conservator and Historian
Rebecca Anicich, Editing and Production

Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing

Flack + Kurtz Consulting Engineers

343 Sansome Street

San Francisco, California 94104
Allan J. Montpellier, PE.

Structural Engineers

SOHA

550 Kearney Street, Suite 200

San Francisco, California 94108
Karin N. Kuffel

Acknowledgments

Sara T. Stebbins, Research Librarian, Grand Canyon National Park
Mike Quinn, Museum Collection, Grand Canyon National Park
Colleen Hyde, Museum Collection, Grand Canyon National Park

NPS Indefinite Quantities Contract Number
1443CX200098016
Task Order: 29

4 Executive SuMMARY

‘April 33, 200

ee ee ee, ee ee, eee ee oe, ee


Building Assessment Report Indian Gardens Caretaker’s Residence

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

il, PLUMBING

A. DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM

Existing Conditions

There is no water service for this building.

Recommendations

Water service is available nearby at some adjacent building.
However, the NPS does not desire any domestic water service to
this building.

B. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM

1

Existing Conditions
There currently is no fire protection in the building

Recommendations

Wall mounted fire extinguishers are recommended.

C. SANITARY AND STORM SYSTEM

1.

Flack + Kurtz

Existing Conditions
There currently is no sanitary or storm service to this building.
Recommendations

No recommendations.

Electrical

Ref. No.: $00.02260.00

August 11, 2000



mmHeHeeHmHmH mH Emel LeU Ce

Indian Garden Trail Garetaker’s Residence + Historic Structure Report +

April 13, 2002

Appendix D. Code Analysis.

Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group



Grand Canyon National Park - Indian Garden Building #93

Aptil 13, 2001
Area and Occupancy Matrix
occ. |
LOAD
(SQ.ET/
AREA occ.) | NO.OF | OCCU-
ROOM(S) (SQ. FT) USE OCCS. | PANCY
1932 structure 349 office 349/100 3 B
1960 addition 289 storage 289/300 1 8-2
Allowable Area / Height Matrix
ALLOWED ALLOWED
AREA HEIGHT / PERMITTED
ACTUAL | (Type V-N (Type V-N OR NOTIN
BUILDING OCCUPANCY, AREA Const.) Const.) BUILDING
Caretaker B/S-2 638 8000 2 Permitted
Residence

2) Type of Construction: The existing construction is type V, non-rated, as defined in

Chapter 6 of the UBC.

The following is a preliminary code analysis of Building #93, addressing only major code
issues that have a bearing on facility planning issues and including suggested resolutions

to broad code issues:

UBC INCLUDING LIFE SAFETY/DISABLED
ACCESS REQUIREMENTS

RESOLUTION OF CODE ISSUES

Exit should swing in direction of travel

UCBC 605.2 states that this can be excepted for |
historic buildings.

Handrails required at exterior stairs

UCBC 405.1.2 states that handrails are not required
for (e) stairs having less than 4 risers. Stairs at both
doors have 3 risers.

Landing at doors should be 44” min. in direction of
travel (UBC 1993.3,17)

{E) stone landing at front door is 30”. A waiver will
have to be granted by the local code official due to
the rustic and irregular nature of the stone landing
(and entire site).

UCBC 405.1.1 allows for (e) treads and risers of
and dimension. However, there can only be a 3/8”
max. difference from tread to tread or riser to riser.

(E) stone risers and treads vary by more than 3/8”. A
waiver will have to be granted by the local code
official due to the rustic and irregular nature of the
stone steps.

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP

Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc.