Grant-Kohrs Ranch Administrative History

Superintendent Peterson got things moving by working with regional and service center staff to prepare an environmental assessment to evaluate the various proposals and their potential impacts on resources. Included was a presentation of the three alternatives for developing the public entrance to the site. Peterson scheduled a public meeting at the court house in Deer Lodge for March 26, 1975, to afford local residents an opportunity to express their views. When it came time to discuss the now touchy issue of where to construct the park entrance, members of the Deer Lodge Chamber of Commerce quickly proved the truth of Con Warren's suspicions. Spokesman Ben Bailey readily concurred that the plan "providing for a walkway underpass at the railroad tracks is the most economical and much the fastest to accomplish." But, he went on to explain the town's need for the vehicular underpass preferably on Milwaukee Avenue, or father north on Rainbow Avenue, largely ignoring the real issue at hand -- the park's requirements. Revealing the true motive, Bailey concluded by offering the opinion "that the Rainbow underpass is the most practical," adding that it was the Chamber's intention "to make every effort to bring this about to the benefit of all in our community." A second Chamber member echoed this opinion, saying that, "The overpass at the Milwaukee is the one we'd all like to have. [38]

Two other individuals then spoke up, revealing that the Chamber did not necessarily speak for the entire community. One person representing the Friends of the Earth, an environmental group, offered the candid opinion that the town's need for such an overpass had existed long before the arrival of the National Park Service and that the agency should not be in the business of building roads for municipalities. "I personally don't think the Park Service should have to pay for the road," echoed another westside resident. ".... the town has had a need for the access for a long time and if the town hasn't come up with it yet it is not the Park Service's fault." [39]

Peterson proceeded to make a determination shortly thereafter. On April 28 he notified Regional Director Lynn Thompson that despite the urgings of the Chamber of Commerce, "We must select alternative D.3" [the Highway 10 access]. He based his decision on several practical reasons. First among these was the exceedingly remote chance that the Service could obtain, much less justify, the estimated $2 million for the town underpass. Additionally, the highway entrance would be easier for visitors to find, and it would have the least impact on both the ranch and its ecological integrity. As Peterson put it, this was "the only feasible route if we are to have any chance of opening this season." [40]

On May 15, 1975 the Park Service announced its choice to the public, softening the town's disappointment with the assurance that every effort would be made to open the ranch by late in the summer. The new entrance would include a visitor contact station and a parking lot east of the tracks, and a quarter-mile pathway to the ranch complex, via a pedestrian underpass. [41] Much remained to be done, though. Further planning and design, archeological assessments, and other park development needs to provide for public visitation, would in fact delay the opening of the site for two more years. (Those aspects are addressed in later chapters.)

Superintendent Peterson appreciated the delicate position the Service was in and knew that visible progress had to be demonstrated at the park. The community was restless and growing ever more pessimistic over the seemingly endless delays with getting the park on an operational footing. Nevertheless, Peterson used the media and local club meetings to skillfully articulate the Service's dual mandate for "making areas available to the public for its use and at the same time preserving the sites for the future." [42] In the weeks following the public meeting, he demonstrated good faith by following through on commitments to coordinate with the Denver Service Center (DSC) to prepare plans and specifications for a parking lot. Working along parallel lines, the Rocky Mountain Regional Office backed him with procurement support in letting a contract for the construction of the entrance. [43]

Back at Deer Lodge, Peterson and DSC Historical Architect Peter Snell located and purchased two old ranch buildings that would have to suffice for a visitor contact station and rest room facility until permanent buildings could be funded. All of these facilities, in fact, were considered to be temporary, since further planning would be necessary to determine long-term staffing and visitor needs for the park. [44]

Visitor contact station (left) and restrooms (right) during construction.
(Courtesy Grant-Kohrs Ranch NHS)

Temporary or not, it was progress. Peterson's common sense strategy of relating well with the community and doing his best with what little he had effectively stifled the public criticism of the Service. Through his efforts, the townspeople came to better appreciate the enormous challenges the park faced and became much more understanding of the NPS position. "It's been a typical year in the life of a new and growing Park Service area," Peterson reported at the end of 1975. "We have been short of everything and at times things looked impossible . . . We will get into operation soon and will start to reap some of the rewards of Park Service work to accompany the sweat and frustrations [of] getting there." [45]

With the selection of an entrance site on Tract E, opposite the Powell County Fair Grounds, Superintendent Peterson faced an urgent need to re-evaluate the initial development concepts for the ranch. An access on the southern boundary of the site between the railroad and Clark Fork, as originally envisioned, called for visitor parking on the west side of the railroad right-of-way. Now, placing the main gate on the east side of the park demanded a means of getting visitors safely across two parallel sets of railroad tracks. A pedestrian underpass already seemed a foregone conclusion, yet this was contingent upon permission being granted by both the Milwaukee and Burlington Northern railroads. Peterson's skills as a negotiator would be put to the test in surmounting this hurdle, one that would further postpone public visitation to the site.

A second planning team assembled at Deer Lodge in May, 1976. Team leader Jim Massey, on the DSC staff, wanted to meet at the site to allow close concert with the park staff, which by this time Peterson had succeeded in expanding to include interpretation, maintenance, and administration components. This new planning effort would be founded on more realistic conditions now that the park was actually gearing up.

Likewise, the new General Management Plan (GMP) format adopted by the NPS took a comprehensive approach intended to "provide the . . . very best management action document which will serve the short and long range needs of the park, while guiding preservation and use." [46] To do this, Massey put together an interdisciplinary group including the park staff, as well as DSC Research Historian John Albright, and Nan Rickey, a DSC specialist in historic furnishings and curatorial management.

This new team re-shaped the interpretive premise upon which planning would rest. Whereas the first master plan had defined the objective in terms of recreating "the historic mood and way of life . . . of this early cattle ranch," and gave only a nod to the story of the cattle industry, the 1976 team placed great emphasis on providing the visitor with "an understanding of the evolution of American cattle ranching, from open range to early farm-ranch cattle raising . . . ." This change in direction undoubtedly stemmed from the team's composition, a group heavily weighted with trained historians. The new plan also would be based on a decision not to restore the site to historic times, because the era of active operations extended from the mid-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries. It was thought that the various types of buildings and architectural styles would benefit the interpretation of evolving cattle operations. The team did, however, recognize that the open range era could not be adequately addressed at the site because the home ranch was only the headquarters of an operation that extended over a vast area of Montana and Idaho. Therefore, that part of the story would be dealt with through audio visual presentations and exhibits. [47]

Although the first master plan had generally outlined classifications for land use within the boundaries of the site, the GMP team subdivided the area into "management zones" dedicated to specified uses. This was intended "to guide future management, use, and development of the park's lands and resources" to avoid conflicts and degradation of the inherent nature of the area. The core zone, of course, was the area immediately surrounding the historic home ranch buildings west of the railroads. A sizable buffer around this encompassed the hay meadows to the north and west. The all-important visitor use sub-zone was delineated in the southeast corner of the property. Significantly, the city park parcel that had so influenced the access issue, was deemed to be of no further use to the park and it was recommended that this 26-acre parcel be excluded by a boundary adjustment. [48]

The plan recognized the temporary nature of the existing contact station moved in by the park staff. It was recommended that these old buildings be replaced as soon as possible by a modest-sized new structure designed for the purpose that would be compatible with the historic ranch buildings. The permanent facility was to be located "near the site of the present temporary facility and parking area." [49] To reduce the visual impacts by development near the park entrance, the team recommended that consideration be given to adaptively restoring the "red barn" still in use by Con Warren. If and when his holdings could be acquired, the barn would provide ample space for the park administrative headquarters and maintenance operations. [50]

The plan also emphasized the continued use of the historic structures. Wherever possible those uses should reflect "the buildings' last useful function" in the ranching operation. This would in turn dictate the period to which individual buildings were to be restored or preserved "in a working condition." The team identified bunkhouse row (HS 2), the thoroughbred barn (HS-15), and the ice house (HS-5) as the major structures to be restored to their 1930s appearances, while the ranch house itself (HS-1) would reflect the zenith of its architectural development and importance as the ranch headquarters during the 1900 - 1920s period. It was also stressed that the grounds around the buildings in the historic zone should not be kept too clean, and therefore out of character with a working ranch. [51]

The need for a suitable curatorial facility where objects could be treated and, if necessary, stored in environmentally stable conditions was an early consideration advanced in this GMP. There was no preferred location expressed in the plan, though it was implied that it would lie within the park boundary. The team was wise enough to recommend that the issue be addressed by professionals in the museum field. [52]

The team concluded its work by recommending that several studies be undertaken to generate basic data useful in guiding future management of Grant-Kohrs. Perhaps the highest priority was for a compilation of historical research data, which resulted in a comprehensive historic resource study authored by John Albright. By the time the study was completed, it had been expanded to include the Kohrs-Bielenberg biographical information and the architectural data research identified by the planning team. Also suggested were a study to evaluate the historic landscape and a ranching operations plan.

As it happened, "Pete" Peterson did not remain at Grant-Kohrs Ranch long enough to see the completion of the plan he had initiated. His steady-hand at the helm of the ranch during trying times had been noticed at higher levels in the NPS. A proven administrator, Peterson was selected for the Departmental Manager Trainee Program and three years, almost to the day, after his arrival Peterson left for a new assignment in Washington, D. C. He did, however, have the pleasure of hosting the official opening of Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site just prior to his departure.

Despite the compressed schedule outlined for developing the GMP, team leader Massey also left his position, accepting a transfer to another agency shortly after the site visit. A draft was completed in December 1976, but afterwards the plan languished for lack of attention. It was some time before Massey's successor, Benjamin Brandt, took up the reins of the project and became familiar enough with the details to lead the effort to completion. [53] Meantime, a change in superintendents at the park probably contributed to the loss of momentum as well. Consequently, the final GMP was not approved until February 1980.

Thomas G. Vaughan followed Peterson into the superintendency at Grant-Kohrs Ranch NHS, arriving in the latter part of October 1977. Vaughan came from a more traditional ranger background than had his predecessor. A graduate student in anthropology, he had served as a seasonal archeologist-interpreter at Mesa Verde National Park in 1966. He subsequently worked for a private museum in Hawaii before eventually returning for another stint at Mesa Verde. After almost giving up on the possibility of a permanent NPS career, Vaughan was eventually selected as a ranger intake and, after attending basic training, was assigned to City of Refuge National Historical Park, back in Hawaii. He later moved to Haleakala as a district ranger and later still to Point Reyes as assistant chief naturalist. His introduction to park management came with a hitch as superintendent at Hubbell Trading Post NHS on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona. After spending three enjoyable years there, Vaughan applied for the superintendency at Grant-Kohrs and was selected to fill the job. [54]

One of his first challenges was to pick up the reins of the planning effort. Although the approved version of the plan differed little from the draft, it nevertheless reflected Vaughan's varied background, especially with agricultural landscape concerns not unlike those he had encountered at Hubbell. An important aspect common to both was the recommendation that additional lands within the designated boundary be acquired in fee ownership by the NPS. There were two reasons for this. One of the mandates for the area was that it be operated as a working ranch. It became all too apparent that the acreage (216.79) owned by the Service simply was too small for any sort of meaningful stock raising program for public education. In addition, many undesirable uses of the easement lands still held by Warren could not be adequately controlled, despite the covenants provided in the agreements. These were strong motivations for management to work toward purchasing the additional acreage. [55]