B09_A1_Attach_13_Ahwahnee_CLR_2011_0001.pdf

prepared for

National Park Service/ Yosemite National Park & Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts at Yosemite prepared by

AECOM

Architec tural Resources Group, Inc .

Cultural Landscape Report March 2011

AECOM

March 2011 Cultural L andscape Report

PROJECT TEAM

Client Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts at Yosemite National Park Service, Yosemite National Park

Principal Preparers

AECOM

410 East Water Street, Suite 600 Charlottesville, VA 22902

150 Chestnut Street San Francisco, CA 94111

Rob McGinnis, Historical Landscape Architect, Project Director Rachel Evans Lloyd, Historical Landscape Architect, Project Manager Adriane Fowler, Historical Landscape Architect Jessica Mauzy, Landscape Designer Laura Bandara, Landscape Designer Courtney Spearman, Landscape Designer Jennifer O’Brien, Graphics Lynn Frederico, GIS Specialist

Architectural Resources Group Pier 9, Th e Embarcadero San Francisco, CA 94111

Stephen J. Farneth, FAIA, Project Principal David Wessel, AIC, FAPT, Principal Conservator Katherine Petrin, Architectural Historian, Project Manager Kitty Vieth, Historical Architect Mary Slater, Architectural Conservator Shayne E. Watson, Architectural Historian, Graphics Heidi Y. Granke, AIA, Historical Architect Katharine Untch, AIC, Conservator Kelly Wong, Conservator Mike Lovato, Project Designer, Graphics

Provost & Pritchard 2505 Alluvial Avenue Clovis, CA 93611

Dave Norman, Civil Engineer

Degenkolb Engineers 235 Montgomery St. Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94104

Loring Wyllie, Jr., Senior Principal, Structural Engineer

Mechanical Design Concepts, Inc.

1060 W. Sierra, Suite 101 Fresno, CA 93711

Stephen Becker, P.E.

O’Mahony & Myer, Inc.

4340 Redwood Highway, Suite 345 San Rafael, CA 94903

Pieter Colenbrander, Principal, Electrical Engineer

Acknowledgements Paul Rogers and Brenna Lissaway, Yosemite Archives Barbara Beroza and Miriam Luchans, Yosemite Museum Collections Linda Eade, Yosemite Research Library Jan Herman, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Department of the Navy Kinzie Gordon, Project Manager, Yosemite National Park Dave Humphrey, Branch Chief, History, Architecture and Landscapes, Yosemite National Park Amy Hoke, Historical Landscape Architect, Yosemite National Park Daniel Schaible, Historical Landscape Architect, Yosemite National Park Sueann Brown, Historical Architect, Yosemite National Park Lisa Acree, Botany Program Manager, Yosemite National Park Laura Kirn, Branch Chief, Archeology, Yosemite National Park Niki Stephanie Nicholas, Ph.D., Resource Management and Science Division Chief, Yosemite National Park William Kuhn, Ph.D., Landscape Ecologist, Yosemite National Park Jeanette Simons, Historic Preservation Offi cer and American Indian Tribal Liaison, Yosemite National Park Cathy Gilbert, Historical Landscape Architect, NPS Pacifi c West Regional Offi ce, Seattle Kimball Koch, Historical Landscape Architect, NPS Pacifi c West Regional Offi ce, Oakland Devon Rothell, DNC Compliance Manager Brian Fulce, DNC CIF Project Manager iiiAECOM

PA RT 2

T R E ATM E N T

Introduction II-1 Preservation Philosophy and Treatment Approach II-1 Treatment Guidelines II-2 Land Use II-2 Vegetation Management II-2 Historic Viewsheds II-3 Visitor Access and Accessibility II-3 New Design and Sustainability II-4 Historic Structures II-4 Temporary Barriers and Screening Structures II-4 Management Zones II-5 Recommendations II-7 Zone 1: Entrance/Arrival II-7 Zone 2: Hotel II-14 Zone 3: Meadow II-20 Zone 4: Cottages II-24 Zone 5: Woodland II-27 Recommendations for Future Research II-29

TA BLE OF C ONTENT S

I N T RODU C T ION

Management Summary vii Historic Overview vii Scope and Methodology viii Scope of Work Landscape History Existing Conditions Documentation Analysis and Evaluation Treatment Methodology Project Kick-off Meeting Background Research and Data Collection Field Investigations Landscape History Existing Conditions Documentation Evaluation of Signifi cance Comparative Analysis Treatment Study Area Boundary x Summary of Findings xiii

PA RT I

SI T E H I STORY

Introduction I-1 Prehistoric and Early Historic Overview I-1

(ca. 7500 BCE - ca. 1833 AD) Early Contact and Development in Yosemite Valley I-3

(ca. 1833-1863) Development of Yosemite National Park and its Concessions (1864-1924) I-5 Design and Development of Th e Ahwahnee (1925-1942) I-11 Navy Occupation (1943-1945) I-24 Post World War II to Present (1946-2009) I-29

E X I ST I NG C ON DI T ION S

Introduction I-34 Overview of Yosemite Valley I-34 Th e Characteristics of Th e Ahwahnee Study Area I-38 Natural Systems and Features I-38 Spatial Organization I-41 Land Use I-43 Topography I-45 Vegetation I-47 Views and Vistas I-51 Buildings and Structures I-55 Circulation I-62 Small-scale Features I-67 Archeological Sites I-71 Condition Assessment of Landscape Features I-72

A NA LYSI S A N D E VA LUAT ION

Documentation of Historical Signifi cance I-78 Other Potential Areas of Signifi cance 1-79 Proposed Period of Signifi cance I-79 Comparative Analysis of Historic and Existing Conditions I-80 Natural Systems and Features I-80 Spatial Organization I-80 Land Use I-81 Topography I-81 Vegetation I-82 Views and Vistas I-84 Buildings and Structures I-84 Circulation I-88 Small-scale Features I-90 Integrity Assessment I-92

Table of Contents iv AECOMTable of Contents

March 2011Cultural L andscape Report

B I B L IO G R A P H Y

APPENDIX A

Inventory of Landscape Resources

APPENDIX B

Historic Plant Lists

APPENDIX C

Memorandum of Th e Ahwahnee Development to Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., 1927

APPENDIX D

Park Planning Documents

VOLUME II APPENDICES

APPENDIX G

National Register Nomination, Th e Ahwahnee Hotel (1977)

APPENDIX H

National Historic Landmark Nomination, Th e Ahwahnee Hotel (1987)

APPENDIX I

National Register Nomination, Yosemite Valley (2006)

APPENDIX J

Historic Photographs in Chronological Order

L I ST OF F IG U R E S

Figure 1. Th e Ahwahnee, located in Yosemite Valley.

Figure 2. National Register nomination boundary.

Figure 3. National Historic Landmark nomination boundary.

Figure 4. Th e Ahwahnee developed area, within the Yosemite Valley Historic District.

Figure 5. Th e Ahwahnee study area boundary.

Figure 6. Indian villages in Yosemite Valley.

Figure 7. Th e Sentinel Hotel, late 1890s.

Figure 8. Lamon’s fi rst cabin.

Figure 9. A map of the Yosemite Valley roads and structures, c. 1880s.

Figure 10. Plat of land leased to J. B. Cook, Chris Jorgensen, and Coff man and Kenney on the future site of Th e Ahwahnee, c. 1890- 1920s.

Figure 11. Road map showing Yosemite Valley roads, including Royal Arch Road and LeConte Road c. 1919.

Figure 12. 1864-1924 period plan.

Figure 13. View of Th e Ahwahnee from the southwest, with cliff s to the north.

Figure 14. Plot Plan of the Ahwahnee Hotel Grounds, by Olmsted Brothers, Consulting Landscape Architects.

Figure 15. Planting Study for Approach Drive, Ahwahnee Hotel, 1930.

Figure 16. Planting Scheme for Brook, 1929.

Figure 17. View to Half Dome from the west, c. 1943.

Figure 18. View northwest towards Th e Ahwahnee.

Figure 19. Wildfl ower planting plan, Fall 1928.

Figure 20. Irrigation Modernization of Waterline System, 1942.

Figure 21. View east along Ahwahnee Road towards the porte cochere,

c. early 1930s.

Figure 22. View towards port cochere across refl ecting pond construction, c. 1931.

Figure 23. Guests playing croquet, c. 1930s.

Figure 24. Guests horseback riding on meadow south of Th e Ahwahnee,

c. 1930s.

Figure 25. Th e tennis courts, c. 1930s.

Figure 26. Th e golf course, c. 1934.

Figure 27. Detail from a lighting plan of Th e Ahwahnee grounds, c. 1931.

Figure 28. View through woods to cottages, c. 1930s.

Figure 29. A cottage with terrace c. 1930s.

Figure 30 Th e Ahwahnee gate house sign, c. 1930s.

Figure 31. Meadow plantings on the west of the hotel, c. 1943.

Figure 32. 1925-1942 period plan.

Figure 33. Th e commissioning of the hospital, 1943.

Figure 34. Aerial view of Th e Ahwahnee during the Navy occupation, c.

1943.

Figure 35. A typical Navy building, c. 1943-1944.

Figure 36. Sailors playing golf, c. 1943-1944.

Figure 37. Sailors playing volleyball, c. 1943-1944.

Figure 38. Navy buildings in the meadow west of the hospital, c. 1944.

Figure 39. 1943-1945 period plan.

Figure 40. Yosemite Valley map showing trails and roads, c. 1964.

Figure 41. Plan of the swimming pool and east stair, 1964.

Figure 42. Plan of the proposed parking space additions, 1965.

Figure 43. View of a cottage with its terrace and plantings, c. 1948.

Figure 44. Plan of Th e Ahwahnee grounds, 1970.

Figure 45. Landscape maintenance zones.

Figure 46. 1947-2009 period plan.

Figure 47. Th e Ahwahnee study area, 2009 Figure 48. Photographic station points map.

Figure 49. Natural Systems and Features.

Figure 50. Spatial Organization.

Figure 51. Land Use.

Figure 52. Topography.

Figure 53. Vegetation.

Figure 54. Views and Vistas.

Figure 55. Buildings and Structures.

Figure 56. Circulation.

Figure 57. Small-scale Features.

Figure 58. Representative landscape features in good condition.

Figure 59. Representative landscape features in fair condition.

Figure 60. Representative landscape features in poor condition.

Figure 61. Shrubs planted at terraces.

Figure 62. Golf course.

Figure 63. View towards Yosemite Falls from the refl ecting pond.

Figure 64. View towards the hotel from the meadow.

Figure 65. Historic view towards Yosemite Falls.

Figure 66. Historic view towards Half Dome.

Figure 67. Stamped concrete terrace.

Figure 68. Plan of Refl ecting Pool at Ahwahnee Hotel.

Figure 69. Th e entrance road.

Figure 70. Th e Ahwahnee entrance sign at the gate house.

Figure 71. Parking lot lights.

Figure 72. Comparative analysis.

Figure 73. Management zones.

Figure 74. View towards Yosemite Falls.

vTable of ContentsAECOM

Figure 75. Historic view to Yosemite Falls from refl ecting pond.

Figure 76. Ahwahnee Road.

Figure 77. Refl ecting pond drawing and paths today.

Figure 78. Stencil of metal eagle.

Figure 79. Concrete half-logs along Ahwahnee Road.

Figure 80. Drawings for historic lights in the parking area.

Figure 81. Non-contributing features.

Figure 82. Zone 1: Entrance/Arrival treatment plan.

Figure 83. Area of bare lawn what will require re-seeding or re-sodding.

Figure 84. Historic photograph showing areas of trimmed and tall grasses near the hotel, and existing conditions photograph showing bare and undiff erentiated grasses.

Figure 85. Historic and existing vistas.

Figure 86. Stamped concrete paving at terrace.

Figure 87. Zone 2: Hotel treatment plan.

Figure 88. Historic meadow condition.

Figure 89. Area of invasive blackberry.

Figure 90. Vines and tree branches at tennis court fence.

Figure 91. Historic view towards hotel from meadow.

Figure 92. Zone 3: Meadow treatment plan.

Figure 93. Character of the vegetation at the cottages.

Figure 94. Peeled log sign post.

Figure 95. Zone 4: Cottages treatment plan.

Figure 96. Saplings in woodland area at south edge of meadow.

Figure 97. Zone 5: Woodland treatment plan.

LIST OF PHOTO G R A PHS

Photo 1. Merced River.

Photo 2. Steep banks along the Merced River.

Photo 3. Royal Arch Creek.

Photo 4. Unnamed intermittent drainageway.

Photo 5. Talus slope.

Photo 6. Meadow.

Photo 7. Mule deer.

Photo 8. Dark, narrow entrance road.

Photo 9. Screening trees in the parking area.

Photo 10. Garden area near the hotel.

Photo 11. Lawn and pool at east wing of Th e Ahwahnee.

Photo 12. Enclosed wooded space at cottages Photo 13. Open meadow surrounded by trees.

Photo 14. Swimming pool.

Photo 15. Tennis courts.

Photo 16. Tent cabins.

Photo 17. Service yard.

Photo 18. Storage building at the cottages.

Photo 19. Storage east of the cottages.

Photo 20. Royal Arch creek channel.

Photo 21. Small intermittent drainageway.

Photo 22. Constructed drainage channel.

Photo 23. Earthen plinth on western side of Th e Ahwahnee.

Photo 24. Earthen berms in meadow.

Photo 25. Pines and cedars along Ahwahnee Road.

Photo 26. Giant sequoias at the parking area.

Photo 27. Aspens near the refl ecting pond.

Photo 28. California allspice at the terrace.

Photo 29. Wildfl owers and ferns at the pool.

Photo 30. Wildfl ower plantings at the fl agpole clearing garden.

Photo 31. Clipped lawn near the east terrace.

Photo 32. Taller grasses and blackberry.

Photo 33. Meadow ringed by pines and cedars.

Photo 34. Evergreen trees and understory shrubs at the cottages.

Photo 35. Th ick understory plantings at the cottages.

Photo 36. Evergreen trees and volunteer understory vines and shrubs.

Photo 37. View to Yosemite Falls from Ahwahnee Road.

Photo 38. View to Royal Arch Cascade.

Photo 39.View to Yosemite Falls from west wing of Th e Ahwahnee.

Photo 40. View to Half Dome from Th e Ahwahnee.

Photo 41. View to Royal Arches from the meadow.

Photo 42. View to Yosemite Falls from the meadow.

Photo 43. View to Half Dome from the meadow.

Photo 44. View to Th e Ahwahnee from the meadow.

Photo 45. View to Royal Arch Cascade from the cottages.

Photo 46. View to Ahwahnee Bridge from the cottages.

Photo 47. View to cliff s from the cottages.

Photo 48. Stone gate house.

Photo 49. Bus stop shelter.

Photo 50. Wood bridge at refl ecting pond.

Photo 51. Refl ecting pond.

Photo 52. Porte cochere.

Photo 53. Th e Ahwahnee.

Photo 54. Concrete terrace.

Photo 55. Concrete pool terrace and swimming pool.

Photo 56. Wood fence at service yard.

Photo 57. Service yard.

Photo 58. Mechanical building.

Photo 59. Bridge 1.

Photo 60. Bridge 2 Photo 61. Bridge 3.

Photo 62. Bridge 4.

Photo 63. Tennis courts.

Photo 64. Cottage.

Photo 65. Cottage.

Photo 66. Flagstone cottage terrace.

Photo 67. Concrete cottage terrace.

Photo 68. Concrete paver cottage terrace.

Photo 69. Accessible concrete cottage terrace.

Photo 70. Concrete pad at service/storage area.

Photo 71. Dormitory.

Photo 72. Constructed drainage channel.

Photo 73. Tent cabins.

Photo 74. Ahwahnee Road entrance.

Photo 75. Arrival circle.

Photo 76. . Bicycle path.

Photo 77. Bridle path.

Photo 78. Central parking area.

Photo 79. Valet parking area.

Photo 80. Concrete sidewalk near bus shelter.

Photo 81. Paving at refl ecting pond.

Photo 82. Asphalt path to dormitory.

Photo 83. Unpaved fi re road.

Photo 84. Asphalt path leading to cottages from hotel.

vi AECOMTable of Contents

Photo 85. Flagstone path to meadow.

Photo 86. Unpaved paths in meadow.

Photo 87. Asphalt paths at cottages.

Photo 88. Unpaved service road.

Photo 89. Unpaved valet parking area.

Photo 90. Gate house sign.

Photo 91. Signs, trash receptacle, post and rope fence, and bollard light.

Photo 92. Wayside exhibit.

Photo 93. Concrete half log curbs.

Photo 94. Small boulders.

Photo 95. Granite curbs.

Photo 96. Post-and-rope fencing.

Photo 97. Wood site furnishings.

Photo 98. Planter box.

Photo 99. Light post at parking.

Photo 100. Building mounted lights.

Photo 101. Bollard light.

Photo 102. Dumpster.

Photo 103. Bicycle racks.

Photo 104. Wood tree grate.

Photo 105. Water fountain.

Photo 106. Upright log posts.

Photo 107. Flagpole.

viiIntroductionAECOM and manipulating the Merced River. Indians that remained in the Valley participated in this new European American economy, as their traditional resource base had been taken from them. In the 1850s and 1860s, many prominent Americans, including John Muir and Frederick Law Olmsted Sr., became deeply involved in the political movement to preserve Yosemite.

Th e late 19th century and early 20th century witnessed a sometimes sharp confl ict between public, private and tribal interests in Yosemite Valley. State and federal governments, private landholders and leaseholders began a management campaign that favored the opening of the Valley for growing numbers of visitors and tourists.

Yet the thread of concern for the protection of the Valley’s natural characteristics—its views, water, cliff s, and woodlands—remained active throughout this period.

Th rough the 1860s, Yosemite Valley’s reputation as a scenic wonder of the world continued to grow, but land preservation did not slow economic growth and development driven by the burgeoning tourism industry. In 1864, Abraham Lincoln signed the legislation establishing a grant of land, the Yosemite Grant, to the state of California for the preservation of over 36,000 acres. In 1890, Yosemite was designated a National Park. In 1905, aft er years of struggle to develop access to the land and to resolve land claims, California ceded the Yosemite Grant back to the federal government and it became a part of Yosemite National Park.

In 1925, the newly formed Yosemite Park and Curry Company (YP&C Co.), encouraged by the National Park Service, hired Gilbert Stanley Underwood and Co. to design and build a “fi rst-class hotel” in Yosemite Valley. Th e design of the building and surrounding landscape emphasized the spectacular views of the cliff s and waterfalls, and took advantage of its location in a meadow at the eastern end of the Valley by using the enormous cliff s as a backdrop for the hotel. Th e president of the YP&C Co., Donald Tresidder, cited Th e Ahwahnee (opened in July, 1927) as a means to promote an elite vacation experience in Yosemite. Its landscape design was informed by the rustic style that was being established at this time

Ahwahnee study area described in the CLR includes approximately 35 acres.

Part II goals for treatment include protecting and preserving the natural and cultural resources within the historic landscape and ensuring the landscape at Th e Ahwahnee is safe, accessible, sustainable, and sensitive to the natural and cultural history of the site. Th e primary treatment is rehabilitation of the landscape to meet contemporary needs. Th is CLR addresses cultural resource protection by providing appropriate cultural resource treatment guidelines and recommendations for Th e Ahwahnee study area.

Historic Overview Th e Ahwahnee landscape has provided a backdrop for centuries of human occupation. Th e isolation, incredible beauty, and richness of the animal and plant resources made the Yosemite Valley a good location for the permanent and seasonal communities of American Indians. Archeological evidence—supplemented by oral tradition—of this prehistoric occupation in Yosemite Valley is found in the Valley and within the study area, and supports the long story of human interaction with the landscape at Yosemite. Within historic times, a mixed tribe of Yosemite Indians occupied Yosemite Valley. Th ey called the Valley Ahwahnee (Awani), meaning “deep, green valley” or “deep, grassy valley,” and were known as the Ahwahneechee, meaning those who live at Ahwahnee.

Th e Indian village of Wis’-kah’lah was situated in the current location of Th e Ahwahnee. Th is village and others were destroyed in 1851 when the Mariposa Battalion raided the Valley in pursuit of the Yosemite Band with the intent of relocating the Indians to reservation lands.

By 1855, word had reached San Francisco of the majesty of the Yosemite Valley, and in the same year, the fi rst tourist party was organized to visit it. Subsequently, tourism established rapidly in the Valley, and within a year the fi rst hotels were constructed. In addition to tourists, settlers began to move there, bringing livestock, clearing trees, plowing the Valley fl oor for crops, planting pasture grasses, I N T RODU C T ION

Management Summary AECOM has prepared the following Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) Part I and Part II to support rehabilitating the historic landscape of Th e Ahwahnee, currently managed by Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts at Yosemite (DNC) and the National Park Service (NPS). Th e CLR, along with the Historic Structures Report (HSR) prepared concurrently by Architectural Resources Group, Inc. (ARG), will inform the near-term Rehabilitation Plan for Th e Ahwahnee, as well as long-term management of the property’s cultural resources. Th e Ahwahnee is a part of Yosemite National Park in the Central Sierra Nevada, California. Covering almost 1,200 square miles, Yosemite National Park has attracted visitors for more than 150 years for its spectacular scenery and history, and Th e Ahwahnee was developed to capitalize on the immense popularity of the park. Th e CLR documents the physical changes in the study area over time and its existing conditions in order to evaluate the signifi cance of the site, to undertake analysis of its features and systems, to assess integrity of the site, and to establish the means and methods for preserving and rehabilitating the historic landscape.

Several goals have been identifi ed for the CLR. Part I goals include proposing a period of signifi cance and boundary for the study area.

Th e current National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nomination (1977) and the National Historic Landmark (NHL) nomination (1987) for Th e Ahwahnee classify the property as a “building” and do not include an evaluation of the hotel’s historic landscape design except as the setting for the hotel building. Th e Yosemite Valley Historic District (YVHD) nomination (2006) addresses cultural landscape signifi cance throughout the Valley, and provides additional information about the contributing landscape features within Th e Ahwahnee developed area. Th is CLR discusses the signifi cance of the Th e Ahwahnee; proposes a new period of signifi cance that is consistent with the information in the three nominations; and proposes a study area boundary that includes the full extent of the cultural landscape and encompasses all of the features identifi ed as contributing features in the YVHD nomination (2006). Th e viii AECOMIntroduction

Treatment

• Defi ne the appropriate treatment approach for the project area.

• Develop treatment recommendations that address the management and maintenance of cultural landscape resources in the project area as well as the appropriate inclusion of new design interventions that provide for continued visitor use, accessibility, and interpretation of the signifi cant cultural landscape.

• Prepare a treatment plan to illustrate the proposed recommendations.

Methodology Th e standards used to create the CLR were the A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Technologies (1998) and the Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline, Chapter 7- Management of Cultural Landscapes published by the NPS; these guides provide information on the appropriate content and format for the preparation of a CLR. Additional documents used to guide the CLR include:

• http://workfl ow.den.nps.gov/staging/5_ProjectPlanning/CLR_ standards.htm

• Th e Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (1996)

• National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation

• National Register Bulletin 18: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes

Project Kick-off Meeting On April 27, 2009, the project kick-off meeting convened and included personnel from DNC, NPS, ARG, and AECOM. Th e kick-off meeting agenda included information about project scope, objectives, coordination, schedule, communications, information gathering, and compliance process and procedures.

Th e preparation of the CLR for Th e Ahwahnee included the following tasks:

Landscape History

• Research primary and secondary source materials relating to the cultural landscape history of the project area.

• Prepare a narrative history that documents the cultural landscape’s historic context and development.

• Prepare historical period plans.

• Compile a bibliography.

Existing Conditions Documentation

• Complete a fi eld survey to inventory and document existing conditions in the project area.

• Update the existing survey to create an accurate planning-level base map.

• Complete site photography to support existing conditions documentation.

• Create a photographic station point map documenting the location and orientation of existing conditions photographs.

• Prepare a condition assessment for the existing landscape features and systems.

Analysis and Evaluation

• Determine the extent of the cultural landscape, henceforth referred to as the study area, and map the proposed boundary using park GIS standards.

• Describe current signifi cance information for the cultural landscape, recommend a proposed period of signifi cance.

• Create an inventory of existing cultural landscape features and systems with a description of their contributing value.

• Prepare a narrative comparative analysis of the cultural landscape’s remnant historic features.

• Prepare a comparative analysis map that documents the location of contributing and non-contributing landscape resources.

by Underwood and “landscape engineers” Charles Punchard, Daniel Hull, and Th omas Vint, and practiced by fi rms such as Olmsted Brothers and landscape gardener Carl Purdy. Despite the luxurious character of the hotel and landscape, visitation to the hotel slowed in the years leading up to World War II.

On June 25, 1943, Th e Ahwahnee was commissioned by the U.S. Navy as the U.S. Naval Convalescent Hospital, and by July of 1943 the hotel was suffi ciently modifi ed to accommodate its fi rst patients. Th e Navy undertook substantial changes in the study area, which were quickly reversed when the Navy departed in 1945.

According to the NRHP nomination, NHL nomination, and the YVHD nomination, the property is signifi cant primarily for its design and for its association with the development of the tourism and concessions industry in California.

Th e recommended period of signifi cance for the study area is 1925- 1942, which represents the time period when the major design and construction of the hotel and landscape was completed. Most of the landscape implementation was completed by 1932, and the rustic period in Yosemite Valley was largely concluded by 1942. Despite the fact that the Navy occupation of the hotel is outside the proposed period of signifi cance, the history of the Navy’s use of the study area represents an important and unusual period in Th e Ahwahnee’s history.

Scope and Methodology Scope of Work Th e scope of work for the CLR calls for completion of Parts I and II as identifi ed in the April 2009 scope of services requested by the National Park Service and DNC. Th e scope of work requests an updated description of the cultural landscape boundary using the previously defi ned developed area boundary as a starting point; and a well-defi ned period of signifi cance, supported by the signifi cance evaluation.

ixIntroductionAECOM

Treatment Th e CLR establishes the appropriate treatment approach for Th e Ahwahnee study area using the established criteria in Th e Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes and through discussion with the National Park Service and DNC. Th e treatment approach, guidelines, and recommendations are based on NPS treatment standards as well as described park management policies and goals.

Background Research and Data Collection AECOM shared research and data collection responsibilities with ARG to provide the necessary information to complete the CLR. Historical research in support of Th e Ahwahnee CLR built on previous documents including Th e Ahwahnee HSR (1997) the Yosemite Valley CLR (1994) and the YVHD nomination (2006). ARG undertook archival research at Yosemite National Park, University of California, Berkeley, and the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Pacifi c Region in San Bruno, CA to support the HSR and CLR; the information collected at the archive included historic maps, photographs, and planning documents, as well as other primary source data. AECOM also undertook archival research at the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Department of the Navy, in Washington, DC. Th e planning documents included the General Management Plan (1980), the Historic Resource Study (1987), and Th e Ahwahnee Landscape Maintenance Plan (1996), among others. Books providing background information on the site were purchased at Yosemite National Park. AECOM used NPS internet sources for maps and other historical and planning information.

Field Investigation From April 27 through April 29, 2009, AECOM personnel undertook fi eld investigations at Th e Ahwahnee. Th e fi eld investigation included photographing the existing conditions of the site and recording the location of the photographs on a station point map. Additional notes about conditions at the site were recorded on a base map. A brief interview with Ahwahnee staff member Diana Marquez was conducted on April 26, 2009. Site walk-overs were undertaken with the project architects of ARG and the project engineers of Provost & Pritchard to assess the condition of various landscape features. On August 28 through August 30, 2009, AECOM personnel undertook GPS mapping of the study area boundary.

Landscape History Using primary and secondary source historical background information, including maps, photographs, and narratives, AECOM created a historic landscape narrative that documents the chronology of landscape change, the historic context of these changes, the design intent at the site, and the important individuals and events at the site. Th is narrative is accompanied by fi gures documenting historic photographs and historic maps. Historic period plans were created to support the narrative.

Existing Conditions Documentation Landscape features and systems are documented in the CLR using the framework established in A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports:

Content, Process, and Techniques. Th e existing conditions discussion is organized by landscape characteristics. Th e documentation of the site was accomplished through existing conditions base mapping, fi eld investigations, and photographic documentation of features.

Photographs of representative landscape features are included with the narrative and referenced in the text.

Evaluation of Signifi cance Th e proposed signifi cance information was based on previous signifi cance evaluations as well as from research and analysis undertaken for this report. Th e NRHP nomination (1977), the NHL nomination (1987), and the YVHD nomination (2006) provided a baseline of information for the signifi cance evaluation.

Comparative Analysis Th e CLR includes a comparative analysis of the landscape that examines the relationship between the historic landscape during the period of signifi cance and the landscape as it exists in 2009.

Th e CLR focuses primarily on extant features and their dates of origin. Th e comparative analysis establishes which features survive from the period of signifi cance; it establishes a basis for an integrity assessment; and it documents the similarities and diff erences between the historic and existing conditions in order to provide a foundation for treatment. Th rough the comparative analysis, the CLR documents whether the landscape features contribute to the signifi cance of the landscape, do not contribute to the signifi cance of the landscape (i.e. post-date the site’s period of signifi cance), are missing from the period of signifi cance, or are undetermined. Th e YVHD nomination (2006) provided the baseline for the list of features that contribute to the signifi cance of Th e Ahwahnee developed area.

x AECOMIntroduction

Study Area Boundary Th e Ahwahnee is located in the Yosemite Valley of Yosemite National Park, California, just east of Yosemite Village (Figure 1). Th e study area boundary includes land depicted in the NRHP nomination (1977), in the NHL nomination (1987), and in the YVHD nomination (2006) developed area. A new study area boundary was documented for this report that includes the entire cultural landscape and all of the features described in the YVHD nomination (2006).

Th e NRHP nomination (1977) described the property as a 35-acre site that included the hotel, dormitory, cottages, meadow, and associated parking areas. Th is boundary (Figure 2) stretched to the river and bicycle path on its southern border. However, the NHL nomination (1987) proposed a site of only 9.5 acres that excluded the cottages, the dormitory, and the majority of the meadow, and stated that it included the gate house, though the actual boundary as it was drawn does not accurately depict the gate house location (Figure 3). Th e YVHD nomination (2006)Ahwahnee developed area included the full length of Ahwahnee Road (Figure 4), as well as land east of the cottages that included the Navy-era concrete foundation.

Th e study area documented in the CLR includes Th e Ahwahnee, eight multi-unit cottages and a storage building, the dormitory, the stone entrance gate, the meadow, Royal Arch Creek, natural and constructed drainage channels, and other structures and landscape features (Figure 5).

Th e study area, as defi ned in this report, begins on its northwest corner at the stone gate house and proceeds east along the foot of the talus slope. At the eastern edge of the valet parking area, the boundary shift s southeast to follow the eastern edge of the unpaved parking and service road. Th e eastern edge of the site boundary is located at the large concrete pad that now serves as a storage area.

Th e boundary curves around at the concrete pad to the south and west, and follows the service road to an unnamed intermittent drainageway. Th e boundary turns south at this drainageway until it reaches the Merced River where it follows the river’s north bank until it reaches the Ahwahnee Bridge. At the bridge, the boundary turns Figure 1. Th e Ahwahnee, located in Yosemite Valley. (Source: Adapted from “Yosemite National Park.” Harpers Ferry Center, 2003.)

west and follows the bicycle path. Just west of the tennis courts, the boundary turns north and follows a wooded edge until it passes the dormitory. Th e boundary turns west again and follows the southern side of the bicycle path parallel to Ahwahnee Road until it reaches the gate post at the northwest corner again.

xiIntroductionAECOM

Figure 2. National Register nomination boundary (1977). Figure 3. National Historic Landmark nomination boundary (1987).

Figure 4. Th e Ahwahnee developed area within the Yosemite Valley Historic District.

xii AECOMIntroduction

Figure 5. Th e Ahwahnee study area boundary.

The Ahwahnee Cultural Landscape Report

Study Area Boundary not to scale

Note: Th is fi gure documents the NRHP (1977) and NHL (1987) boundaries as they were drawn in the nominations;

however, these boundaries do not include landscape areas described in the narrative boundary descriptions. Th e narrative description of the boundaries includes the full length of Ahwahnee Road to the stone gate house.

xiiiIntroductionAECOM

Although it was not included in the scope of work to provide information supporting an update to the NHL nomination, the CLR recommends that the NHL nomination be updated to include the evaluation of the cultural landscape, to update the list of contributing features, and to include the entire cultural landscape as part of a proposed district.

Summary of Findings According to guidelines provided by the NRHP, discussed in greater detail in Analysis and Evaluation of the CLR, Th e Ahwahnee is signifi cant under Criterion A for its association with the development of national parks and the concessions industry, and under Criterion C for its embodiment of NPS rustic-style architecture and landscape architecture. Its signifi cance under Criterion D is addressed in the Yosemite Valley Archeological District nomination; a Traditional Cultural Property nomination is planned for the Valley as well.

Th e Ahwahnee demonstrates integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association for its proposed period of signifi cance (1925-1942). Changes to the landscape aft er the period of signifi cance have somewhat diminished the integrity of the study area; however, no changes have resulted in a major loss of integrity and Th e Ahwahnee continues to convey the signifi cance for which it was nominated.

Th e recommended treatment approach for the property is rehabilitation because Th e Ahwahnee retains integrity yet must undergo alterations, primarily due to the need for accessibility compliance and enhanced sustainability. Recommendations in the CLR provide guidelines for both ongoing and long-term sustainable management of the historic designed landscape at Th e Ahwahnee.

Treatment goals for Th e Ahwahnee study area are to:

• Preserve resources that contribute to the signifi cance of

Th e Ahwahnee developed area as established in the YVHD nomination (2006) and that maintain the historic character of Th e Ahwahnee National Historic Landmark.

• Accommodate contemporary hotel operations and programmatic needs, including universal accessibility, within the framework of preservation and appropriate rehabilitation.

• Promote integrated resources stewardship through sustainable maintenance practices.

PART 1

I-1Site HistoryAECOM

PA RT I

SI T E H I STORY

Introduction Th is section focuses on the physical development and historic context of Th e Ahwahnee beginning with a summary overview of the prehistoric period and proceeding through the design and development of the hotel. Th e narrative divides the site’s evolution into separate periods refl ecting major trends and events that aff ected the physical appearance of the cultural landscape. Th e periods include:

• Prehistoric and Early Historic Overview

(c. 7500 BCE- c. 1833 AD)

• Early Contact and Development in Yosemite Valley (c. 1833-1863)

• Development of Yosemite National Park and its Concessions

(1864-1924)

• Design and Development of Th e Ahwahnee (1925-1942)

• Navy Occupation (1943-1945)

• Post World War II to Present (1946-2009) Th e narrative is supported by historic maps, photographs, and period plans.

Prehistoric and Early Historic Overview

(c. 7500 BCE - c. 1833 AD) Th e Ahwahnee study area has provided a stunning backdrop for centuries of human occupation. Th e isolation, the incredible beauty, and the richness of its animal and plant resources made the Yosemite Valley a good location for permanent and seasonal communities of American Indians. Archeological evidence and oral traditions of this prehistoric occupation in Yosemite Valley are found throughout the Valley and within the study area, and support the long story of human interaction with the landscape at Yosemite.

Archeological data suggests that human occupation occurred in the Yosemite Valley by the pre-Archaic period (prior to 7500 BCE), but oral tradition maintains a much older occupation. Late pre-Archaic

(c. 7500-6000 BCE) artifacts found in streamside archeological contexts include lithics (such as obsidian points) indicating a focus on hunting.1 Th e paleoenvironmental conditions brought on by climate change resulted in habitat and species diversity that provided a broad range of resources for American Indians. By 5000-2000 BCE there was widespread though still sparse occupation of the Yosemite Valley, likely refl ecting brief seasonal visits by various groups of hunter-gatherers. Evidence of human occupation during this period at Th e Ahwahnee site includes numerous lithics, possibly representing a seasonal camp.

Th e Late Archaic period (c. 1200 BCE – 650 AD) saw a change to intensive land use by large, dense populations in Yosemite Valley. Th e future site of Th e Ahwahnee was a locus of human occupation in the Yosemite Valley during this period, as evidenced by archeological sites found there.2 Artifacts (many associated with the Crane Flat Complex) include an array of stone tools and weapons, bowls, and beads, some associated with burials that follow patterns similar to those found throughout Central California in this period. Distribution of artifacts indicates that this society was non-egalitarian. It is possible that some of the occupants of Yosemite during this time were Great Basin people moving in from the east, though cultural boundaries within the Valley have not yet been identifi ed.3

From 650 AD to 1500 AD, the Tamarack Complex, typifi ed by smaller, single-component sites, displaced the larger, sedentary Crane Flat type of settlement.4 Fires appear to have been common during this period, leading to theories that many were anthropogenic. Both naturally occurring fi res and those started by humans would have benefi ted people by expanding oak habitat and stabilizing meadow margins, resulting in a larger potential acorn harvest—a staple food in the area.5 Ethnographic evidence for the use of anthropogenic fi re as a land management strategy by American Indians suggests that vegetation conditions in Yosemite Valley were manipulated by humans over approximately the last 650 years.6

1 National Park Service (NPS), Historic Structure Report: Th e Ahwahnee (HSR), pre-pared by Page and Turnbull (San Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of Interior, 1997), 116.

2 NPS, HSR, 116.

3 NPS, HSR, 117.

4 NPS, HSR, 118.

5 NPS, HSR, 118.

6 NPS, HSR, 118.

During late prehistoric and early historic times, inhabitants of the Yosemite National Park area included the Central and Southern Sierra Miwoks, along with Mono Paiute, and Yokuts.7 Within historic times, a mixed band of Yosemite Indians occupied Yosemite Valley.

Th ey called the Valley Ahwahnee (Awani)—meaning “green valley” or “grassy valley”—and were known as the Ahwahneechee, “those who live at Ahwahnee.”

Th e Yosemite area’s isolation, beauty, and abundance of game, fi sh, edible plants, and water made it an ideal haven for early peoples.

Th ere the Yosemite Indians hunted grizzly and black bears, deer, elk, and smaller mammals such as rabbits and grey squirrels. Th ey also caught several bird species and trout. Th e native population gathered greens and bulbs in the spring; seeds and fruits in the summer;

acorns, nuts, and manzanita berries in the fall; and mushrooms in the late winter and early spring. Black oak acorns, the preferred starch of the California Indians’ diet, occurred in the Yosemite region in abundance.8

A hunting-fi shing-gathering economy was dominant in the late prehistoric period. People moved between large, dense, permanent settlements along rivers, and seasonal special-use camps scattered in upland areas. Permanent settlements were large and densely populated, comprised chiefl y of cedar bark sided houses and semi-subterranean dwellings. Indians also used fi re to manage the landscape along with other native landscape management practices which resulted in the black oak groves and open meadows.

Horticultural practices enhanced the characteristics of culturally important plants, such as those used for basketmaking, to promote desired characteristics.

Yosemite’s native peoples, by the beginning of the 19th century, were increasingly aff ected by the incursion of European and European American explorers and settlers into the region. While direct contact with the Yosemite Indians did not occur until the mid-1800s, the

7 Linda Wedel Greene, Historic Resource Study: Yosemite: Th e Park and Its Resources.

A History of the Discovery, Management, and Physical Development of Yosemite National Park, California (Yosemite, CA: Department of Interior, 1987), 2-6.

8 NPS, HSR, 116 and 118.

I-2 AECOMSite History tribes were aff ected indirectly through the appearance of displaced groups of refugee Mission Indians and the possible introduction of smallpox, measles, and other European diseases that quickly decimated native populations throughout California.9 According to accounts in 1800, such a disease affl icted the residents of Yosemite Valley. As a result, for a time the Yosemite abandoned their villages and went to live with neighboring tribes.10 Several villages were destroyed in 1851 when the Mariposa Battalion militia raided the Valley in pursuit of the Yosemite Band with the intent of relocating the Indians to reservation lands. Th e Valley remained uninhabited for a few years until Tenaya, the son of a headman of the Yosemite who had grown up among the Monos along the eastern base of the Sierra, decided to return to the deep, grassy Valley that had been his family’s home. Collecting the remnants of his father’s people and some scattered members of other tribes, he reoccupied Yosemite Valley with this group in about 1821. Tenaya’s band lived peacefully in Ahwahnee for several years.

In the mid-19th century, the village of Wis’-kah-lah stood in the vicinity of Th e Ahwahnee.11 Occupied by the Yosemite Indians as late as 1898, it was described as “a large summer camp on a northward bend of the Merced River, a little west of Royal Arches.”12 Th e village was ideally situated to take advantage of resources, with easy access to the Merced River, to adjacent meadow and woodland, and to granite in the nearby cliff s of the northern Valley edge. At that time at least 36 Yosemite Indian villages existed throughout the Yosemite Valley, some of which were year-round and some seasonal (Figure 6).13

Th e Yosemite Indians built several kinds of structures in their settlements. Th ey framed umachas, conical-shaped winter dwellings, with several long poles covered with slabs of incense cedar or pine bark. As late as the 1920s, a few of those structures could still be 9 NPS, HSR, 119; and Greene, Historic Resource Study, 2.

10 Greene, Historic Resource Study, 2.

11 NPS, HSR, 3 and 16.

12 NPS, HSR, 119.

13 NPS, Yosemite Valley Cultural Landscape Report (CLR), prepared by Land and Com-munity Associates (Denver: NPS Denver Service Center, U.S. Department of Interior, 1994), 2-69.

found in use in Yosemite. Impermanent conical brush shelters suffi ced in summer. In association with the dwellings, villages contained large, semi-subterranean dance/assembly houses, 40 to 50 feet in diameter, dug to a depth of three or four feet. Sweathouses— circular, earth-covered, and between six and 15 feet in diameter— also commonly appeared in village areas. Chukahs, granaries for acorn storage, consisted of four tall incense cedar poles supporting elevated basket-like structures that held acorns. Remains of small, conical grinding houses made of bark slabs have also been found

MT.

Figure 6. Indian villages in Yosemite Valley noted by Lafayette Houghton Bunnell in 1851. Th e general location of the future Ahwahnee is shown in the red outlined area. (Source: Bunnell, Discovery of the Yosemite, and the Indian War of 1851 which Led to that Event, 1892.)

archeologically. Some of the village sites in Yosemite Valley stood closer to the north wall than to the river, enabling them to take full advantage of the winter sunshine; this situation indicates possible occupation during at least part of the winter months.14

14 Greene, Historic Resource Study, 9-10.

I-3Site HistoryAECOM

Early Contact and Development in Yosemite Valley

(c. 1833-1863) Th e Sierra Nevada range stood as a barrier to westward exploration, extending generally northwest-southeast along half of what is now the state of California’s eastern boundary. European contact occurred later here than many other parts of North America due to the relative remoteness of the Yosemite Valley and its surrounding rough topography.

In 1833, Joseph Walker led a party up the Sierra Nevada’s steep eastern escarpment and into the Yosemite region, between the Tuolumne and Merced Rivers; although not confi rmed, his party were likely the fi rst European Americans to view Yosemite Valley. In 1848-49, when gold was discovered in the foothills of the Sierra, settlers and miners streamed into central California from the coast. Th eir appetite for land and gold resulted in escalation of physical, oft en armed, violent confl icts between European Americans and the American Indian tribes of the Sierra Nevada.15

In 1851, U.S. Indian Commissioners began to meet with California tribes to seek agreements to establish designated reservations. While some cooperated, others, including the Ahwahneeche, refused to consider leaving their Yosemite Valley homeland and hoped to stave off the invaders. In response, the state legislature authorized the governor to proceed with local action.16 During the confl ict known as the Mariposa Indian War, the Mariposa Battalion militia of 200 men led by John Savage entered the Valley in pursuit of Yosemite Indians they believed had raided Savage’s trading posts.17 Th is 1851 event is generally considered the “discovery” of the Yosemite Valley by European Americans. Finding the Valley virtually abandoned, the battalion destroyed dwellings and acorn granaries.

Th roughout the 19th century, American Indian settlements remained a part of Yosemite to some degree, including permanent year-round villages in Merced Canyon; summer villages, such as Wis’-kah-lah, which were occupied May-October; and small seasonal camps for 15 Greene, Historic Resource Study, 16.

16 Greene, Historic Resource Study, 18-19.

17 Greene, Historic Resource Study, 17-18.

hunting, fi shing, and gathering.18 However, the Yosemite Indians were marginalized, and most were forced out of the area and onto reservations as European-American settlement and control over the land increased and solidifi ed. For more than a century, Yosemite Indian tribal descendants continued to live in the park area, gaining employment with park concessioners and the federal government.

Th e last known Yosemite Indian settlement in the park was removed in 1969.19

By 1855, word had reached San Francisco of the majesty of the Yosemite Valley, and the fi rst tourist party was organized to enter the Valley, led by James M. Hutchings, publisher of California Magazine.20 Th ese highly advertised trips created a new understanding of the geography of the mountainous areas near the Valley, and contributed to the public’s understanding of its scenic qualities.21 Indeed, published descriptions of scenic majesty piqued the interest of audiences in the East, seeding a national base of support for the preservation of Yosemite.22 Landscape painters and those engaged in the fl edgling fi eld of photography also depicted Yosemite’s wonders, capturing the imagination of Americans through images seen by countless viewers in exhibits throughout the U.S. In addition, these images were used to support the preservation eff ort when a case was made before the U.S. Congress to pass the Yosemite Act.23

Tourism established rapidly in the Valley aft er…