Santa Fe National Historic Trail - Pilot Program for Evaluation Guide

National Trails
lntermountain Region

National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Santa Fe National Historic Trail

OMB Control Number 1090-0011

Evaluation Guide
High Potential Sites and Segments
Santa Fe National Historic Trail

Recommended by:

Date
Approved by:

Superintendent, National Trails lntermountain Region

Date

BACKGROUND
The National Trails System Act (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) was passed October
2, 1968, establishing the Appalachian and Pacific Crest Scenic Trails, and a decade later
was amended to include National Historic Trails (NHTs). The Act has been amended
numerous times over the years as new trails are added to the system, but the
requirement that NHTs have identified High Potential Sites and Segments has remained
consistent throughout. The Act offers the following definition for a High Potential Site:
1) The term "high potential historic sites" means those historic sites related to
the route, or sites in close proximity thereto, which provide opportunity to
interpret the historic significance of the trail during the period of its major
use. Criteria for consideration as high potential sites include historic
significance, presence of visible historic remnants, scenic quality, and relative
freedom from intrusion.
However, the Act is not specific as to what qualifies as “close proximity”, how to
measure “scenic quality”, or what is to be used as a baseline for “relative freedom from
intrusion”. The Act goes on to define a High Potential Segment as:
(2) The term "high potential route segments" means those segments of a trail
which would afford high quality recreation experience in a portion of the route
having greater than average scenic values or affording an opportunity to
vicariously share the experience of the original users of a historic route.
The definition for High Potential Segments draws on even more subjective measures
than that for High Potential Sites, making consistency and transparency difficult. How do
we define or quantify “high quality recreation”, what is the average for “greater than
average”, what is meant by “vicarious experience”? Even the term “high potential” is
somewhat confusing, as the Act doesn’t specify a desired finished or final status for
these places.
In seeking to answer these questions it would be logical to refer back to what the Act
cites as the purpose of High Potential Sites and Segments (HPSS), but no clear picture is
offered in this regard. The Act specifically calls out the role of HPSS in two situations: the
acquisition of non-federal land (federal dollars can only purchase HPSS) and in the
Department of Transportation’s 4f review process (NHTs are generally exempt from
review except in the cases of HPSS and archaeological resources eligible for the National
Register). But in an operational sense, HPSS have been used to guide land management
decisions, administrative strategies, priorities for preservation, and interpretive
1

developments. Because HPSS are used in such a broad manner, it is important that how
they are identified is consistent and defendable.
Please note that the evaluation of whether a given site or segment merits high potential
status is an administrative action not subject to NEPA.

DEFINITIONS*
The National Trails System Act uses the phrase “high potential” in reference to a certain
class of historic sites and route segments. The use of the term “potential” implies that
the resulting list is somehow draft or temporary, and more specifically the potential for
change at sites and along segments over time suggests that any HPSS list must reflect a
current snapshot of sites or segments that meet established criteria. There are actions
that could degrade a trail resource to the point that it no longer merits high potential
status just as there are actions that could elevate a resource to high potential status. For
instance, building a shopping mall directly over a high potential site and paving a square
mile area around it would degrade the site to the point that it has lost all visible historic
remnants, scenic quality, and is certainly not free from intrusion. But a historically
significant site could also be improved upon to remove intrusive features and enhance
the vicarious experience to such an extent that it may then qualify as a High Potential
Site. The world is not static and our assessment of NHT resources must be capable of
reflecting this.
The Act offers several criteria by which sites or segments may be evaluated for high
potential status, but it isn’t clear what these criteria mean or how they should be
applied. Much of the ambiguity stems from the availability of multiple definitions for
some key terms (remnant, scenic values) and a lack of adequate explanation in the Act
for others (vicarious experience, relative freedom from intrusion). This evaluation guide
was crafted using the following definitions:
Remnant – human-made items, defined as something that remains, or is left behind and
a usually small part, member, or trace remaining. By this definition, landmarks (e.g. Pilot
Peak, La Bajada, or South Pass) are not remnants but swales, ruts, inscriptions and
artifacts are.
Scenic Value – Drawing from the spirit and intent of NHT designation, the critical
aesthetic or visual qualities of a landscape are those that are similar to the historic
appearance of the trail and its setting, connecting people to the historic landscape and

2

facilitating a vicarious experience of trail travel. More specifically, the visual elements
that reflect an action, event, or episode (i.e. the experience of the historic trail) are the
scenic values that we seek to preserve. Thus we use the word scenic in the sense of
“representing an action, event, or episode” as opposed to the more common use in
reference to “beautiful” or “pretty”.
Vicarious Experience – vicarious is defined as experienced in the imagination through
the feelings or actions of another person. A vicarious experience does not require a
person to be physically present at a given site or segment.
Intrusion – defined here as an inappropriate or unwelcome addition, with the baseline
for appropriateness stemming from the period of significance for a given trail. For
example, if low, green shrubs were dominant on that site during the period of
significance but currently the site is dominated by a different species of low, green
shrubs there would be no intrusion. Conversely, if the site is now dominated by giant
redwoods the “new” species would be seen as an intrusion as it would be an
inappropriate addition to the site in reference to the period of significance.
Site – the location of an event or activity which took place in a static location (e.g. camp,
water source, trail decision point, grave, resupply point, etc.)
Segment – a portion of trail that conveys a sense of movement through a particular area
on a designated national historic trail alignment

*Definitions appearing in italics were quoted or paraphrased from multiple online
resources, including oxforddictionaries.com and merriam-webster.com

3

SITE OR SEGMENT?
Part of evaluating high potential status for a given resource is determining which one of
the two high potential place categories, sites and segments, it best fits. It is not always
immediately apparent whether a resource should be nominated as a site or nominated
as a segment. As such, some guidelines have been developed to assist with this decision.
First, examine the evaluation criteria for sites and the evaluation criteria for segments. If
a given resource fits one set of criteria better than the other, use that criteria’s high
potential category (either site or segment) as the resources high potential category. For
example, if the resource best fits the evaluation criteria for segments, consider this
resource a segment and nominate it as a High Potential Segment.
If there is uncertainty in the evaluation criteria that best fits a given resource, score the
resource using the evaluation criteria for sites and score the resource using the
evaluation criteria for segments. Compare these two scores and nominate the resource
under the category that gives it the highest score.
An additional guideline for determining whether a given resource is a site or a segment,
is that sites are static, whereas segments are meant to convey a sense of movement.
While the length needed to convey movement will differ from person to person, in
general, segments should have at least a half (0.5) mile of continuous National Historic
Trail. Note, there is flexibility in this guideline. If a given resource best fits the evaluation
criteria for a segment, and there is enough information about the resource to fulfill the
requirements of the nomination package (page 21), but the resource is less than a half
mile in length, please contact our office for guidance on the resource’s high potential
eligibility.
Finally, it may also be difficult to determine where a proposed High Potential Segment
begins and ends. A general guideline to assist with this decision is to use the scores of
Criteria 3 and 4. Both criteria require the segment be evaluated in half mile intervals and
require the number of the best scoring option be recorded for each of these intervals.
Pay attention to these half mile scores. A large deviation in scores between two
adjoining intervals is a potential indicator of a segment’s start and end points.

4

CRITERIA AND SCORING
Specific criteria listed in the Act are used to evaluate a given resource’s high potential
status. Within the Act, stated criteria for High Potential Sites include specific attributes
such as historic significance, presence of visible historic remnants, scenic quality, and
relative freedom from intrusion. Drawing from this statement, we use the following
criteria for evaluating High Potential Sites: 1) confidence of location, 2) historic
significance, 3) opportunity to interpret the trail’s significance, 4) visual similarity to
historic landscape, 5) inappropriate non-visual intrusions, and 6) the presence of visible
historic remnants.
Stated criteria for High Potential Segments are more broadly defined and include a high
quality recreation experience in a portion of the route having greater than average
scenic values or affording an opportunity to vicariously share the experience of the
original users of a historic route. Drawing from this statement we use the following
criteria for evaluating High Potential Segments: 1) confidence of location, 2) high quality
recreation experience, 3) opportunity for vicarious experiences, 4) visual similarity to
historic landscape, and 5) inappropriate non-visual intrusions.
These criteria are used to evaluate a given resource’s high potential status. The
presence or absence of each criteria, and their quality, allows a resource to be scored,
which, in turn, provides an objective measurement. High potential status is evaluated
based on the results of this score.
As such, all resources nominated for high potential status must first be scored. To obtain
a score for a given resource, the first step is to decide if the resource is a site or if it is a
segment. Use the guidelines on the previous page to assist with this decision. If it is
decided the nominated resource is a site, then the next step is to evaluate and score the
resource using the criteria for High Potential Sites, listed on pages 7-14 of this guide, and
the “High Potential Sites Matrix” (separate document). If it is decided the resource is a
segment, then the next step is to evaluate and score the resource using the criteria for
High Potential Segments, listed on pages 15-20 of this guide, and the “High Potential
Segments Matrix” (separate document). The next, and last, step in obtaining a
nominated resources score is the same for both sites and segments. Take all of the
resource’s criteria scores and add them together. The total is the resource’s final score.
It is important to note for the scoring process, each criteria is weighted evenly, although
some criteria are split into two parts with the average being used as the criteria score. In
addition, every aspect of the evaluation criteria is in reference to how the nominated

5

site or segment fits into the period of significance for the Santa Fe National Historic Trail
(hereafter referred to as “the Trail”). Finally, evaluation and scoring is to be done for the
current conditions of the nominated resource.
Nominating a resource for high potential status requires more than just submitting the
resource’s score and corresponding Matrix document. The nomination package for the
resource must also include supporting documentation, maps, photographs, and other
items. A full list of what is needed in the package, and information about submitting it, is
listed in the “Nomination Package” section of this guide (page 21).
At this time, proposed new High Potential Sites and Segments have priority. Review of
existing High Potential Sites and Segments, listed in the Comprehensive Management
Plan for the Trail, may be undertaken at a later date. For reference, this plan, and its list
of High Potential Sites and Segments, can be found on the Trail's website on the
"Planning" webpage.

6

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR HIGH POTENTIAL SITES
Criteria #1 Confidence of Location
There are varying levels of documentation associated with the Trail and with its
individual components (events, places, resources etc.). Because high potential resources
are allocated significant amounts of time, money, and other resources it is important to
gauge how well the location of the nominated resource will stand up to scrutiny. This
criteria is not in reference to a site’s proximity to the Trail or the accuracy of the
mapping method, but rather in reference to the confidence that the purported event
took place at the proposed location. This criteria’s scoring is made relative to the
amount of documentation available for the Trail and includes the nominator’s
assessment of the state of consensus (or lack thereof) within the community of people
knowledgeable about the Trail. Documentation can be of any form including, but not
limited to, oral history, written sources, and archaeological data. This criteria has five
scoring options, select only ONE of the following:
Criteria #1 Question: How well documented is this site’s historic location and
what is the Trail community’s confidence in this location?
1 – Minimal documentation and contested location
● Resources meriting this score are those with relatively little documentation
and the location is contested within the Trail community
2 – Minimal documentation and uncontested location
● Resources that would net this score may have only relatively little
documentation but the location is not contested in the Trail community
3 – Some documentation and uncontested location
● This score would be appropriate for those resources that have average to
slightly less than average documentation but the Trail community does not
contest its location
4 – Some documentation and generally accepted location
● This score would be appropriate for those resources that have average
documentation and the Trail community agrees that the location is supported
by the documentation
5 – Well documented and widely accepted location
● This score is reserved for those resources with greater than average
documentation and the Trail community widely accepts that the location is
supported by the documentation

7

Criteria #2 Historical Significance
Eligibility status for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is not a
requirement for a site to be considered a High Potential Site. This criteria seeks to
capture how influential or noteworthy the proposed site is in relation to the Trail. For
your convenience, the periods of significance for the Trail are provided in Appendix A.
This criteria has five scoring options, select only ONE of the following:
Criteria #2 Question: How noteworthy is the site in relation to the Trail?
1 – Not historically noteworthy
● In this instance the site may be historic or even historically significant in its own
right, but has no significance that pertains to the trail during the Trail’s period of
significance.
2 – Historically present but not associated with the Trail
● This rating is appropriate for sites that were present during the trail’s period of
significance but played no functional role in the trail itself. Good examples are
structures that would have been in the viewshed of the trail but were not actually
(or rarely) visited or used by travelers on the trail.
3 – Historically associated with the Trail
● Sites in this category were clearly associated with the trail in some way but did
not especially standout in the experience of the trail user.
4 – Critical location and/or location of critical events for some Trail users
● Critical is defined here as “of, relating to, or being a turning point or especially
important juncture”. Major water crossings, wayfinding features, milestones, and
historical events are all examples of what would qualify as “critical” for this
criteria. The term “some users” is also key for this score, as not every critical
location or event affected the experience of all trail users.
5 – Critical location and/or location of critical events for majority of Trail users
● This criteria is the same as the previous but with the key difference lying with
how many trail users were affected by the location or event.

8

Criteria #3 Opportunity to Interpret the Trail’s Historic Significance
The Act states that High Potential Sites are those which provide an opportunity to
interpret the historic significance of the trail during its period of major use (as defined in
the Trail’s planning document). An opportunity to interpret is based on the story to be
told and the means of telling that story. This criteria seeks to evaluate how well the site
speaks to the story(ies) of the Trail and the means (i.e. logistics and resources available)
of telling that story. There are five scoring options for Part A and Part B, select ONE
score for each part and enter the average for the final score for this criteria.
Criteria #3 Question- Part A: How well does the site convey administrator
established, Trail-related themes?
1 - Site story(ies) do not convey Trail themes
2 - Site conveys Trail themes, but there is no specific site story
3 - One story that is specific to the site conveys one Trail theme
4 - Multiple specific-to-the-site stories convey one Trail theme or one specific-to-the-site
story conveys multiple Trail themes
5 - Multiple specific-to-the-site stories that convey multiple Trail themes
Criteria #3 Question-Part B: What is the sites current means (ability) to
present interpretive stories?
1 - Future potential to present an interpretive story
2 - Means to present an interpretive story identified
3 - Means to present an interpretive story in planning document
4 - Means to present an interpretive story in development
5 - Means to present an interpretive story already exists

9

Criteria #4 Visual Similarity to Historic Landscape
This criteria seeks to quantify how similar the visual setting of the site is today to the
visual setting during the period of significance. Visual similarity to the historic landscape
can be a key component in facilitating a vicarious experience, interpreting the history of
the Trail, and contributes to a high quality recreational experience.
It is important to note that the similarity of the setting is being evaluated, not whether it
is identical in every way. The landscape is always changing, but not all changes detract
from the historical setting. For example, a farmhouse built last week has the potential to
be evocative of a farmhouse that was present during the trail’s period of significance. It
is also important to note that the degree of similarity is also being evaluated, it is not a
presence/absence criteria. The baseline for comparison in this criteria is a high level
summary of the landscape, not a comparison to very specific details as one might find in
a trail diary.
It’s helpful to think in terms of percentages or dominance for this criteria. For example,
a barb wire fence may extend from one end of the viewshed to the other, but it may not
necessarily take up a large percentage or otherwise dominate your attention. If you are
nominating a landmark please select the point that provides the best view of the
landmark from the trail for use in this analysis. Use the illustrations below as general
guidelines for this criteria’s two analysis areas (Specific Location and Viewshed).
In order to provide a more accurate evaluation of visual similarity, this criteria is broken
into two parts. Both parts (Part A and Part B) use the same five scoring options listed
below. Select one scoring option for part A and one for part B; then, average of these
two scores. This is the final, single score for this criteria.
Criteria #4 Question- Part A: How visually similar is the site’s specific location
today to its appearance during the Trail’s period of significance?
Please note that nominating party is responsible for designating and defining what
constitutes the “specific location”.
Criteria #4 Question- Part B: How visually similar is the site’s entire viewshed
today to its appearance during the Trail’s period of significance?
Please note that the “viewshed” for 3B is defined here as everything that can be seen
(360 degrees) from the perspective of the “specific location” excluding elements within
3A.
10

1 – No similarities to the period of significance
● There is nothing to be seen that is similar to the period of significance. Likely
to apply only to very urban, heavily industrialized, and/or heavily developed
settings.
2 – A few visual elements are appropriate to the period of significance
● The casual observer can identify a few visual elements appropriate to the
period of significance, but the view is otherwise overwhelmed by elements
that are not appropriate.
3 – Roughly half of the visual elements are appropriate to the period of significance
● There is a good mix of elements similar to period of significance and dissimilar
to period of significance, with neither category being visually dominant.
4 – Most visual elements are appropriate to the period of significance
● There may be a few elements that are not appropriate to the period of
significance, but they are minor and not overly distracting.
5 – Visual elements are virtually indistinguishable from the period of significance
● The casual observer would not be able to tell the difference between setting
during period of significance and setting today.

Figure 1. Landmark setting analysis areas

11

Figure 2. Site setting analysis areas

12

Criteria #5 Inappropriate Non-Visual Intrusions
What visitors hear, smell, and feel can affect the quality of their experience. This criteria
seeks to round out the quantification of how closely the setting reflects that of the
period of significance. Please note that missing non-visual elements from the period of
significance do not lower the score. Do not include temporary intrusions (e.g.
construction). If you are nominating a landmark please select the single best point on
the trail for use in this analysis. This criteria has five scoring options, select only ONE
score for each part and enter the average for the final score for this criteria.
Criteria #5 Question- Part A: How often are non-visual intrusions (such as
sounds and smells) inappropriate to the period of significance experienced at
the site?
1 – Continuous non-visual intrusions
2 – Frequent non-visual intrusions
3 – Periodic non-visual intrusions
4 – Rarely occurring non-visual intrusions
5 – No non-visual intrusions
Criteria #5 Question- Part B: How intense are the non-visual intrusions
experienced at the site?
1 - Significantly distracting
2 - Distracting
3 - Somewhat distracting
4 - Not distracting
5 - Not present

13

Criteria #6 Visible Historic Remnants
Historic remnants can play an important role in facilitating a vicarious experience and
are called out specifically as desirable attributes within the Act. While it is ideal that the
historic remnants would be from the period of significance and in their original location
(in situ) other historic remnants can serve the same function. It should be noted that
remnants may be located within a display (indoors or outdoors) or “in the field”.
Remnants are defined as man-made items: “something that remains, or is left behind”
and “a usually small part, member, or trace remaining”. By this definition, landmarks
(e.g. Pilot Peak, La Bajada, or South Pass) are not remnants but swales, ruts, inscriptions
and artifacts are. Note: landmarks may be nominated as sites themselves, and also may
factor into the Criteria 4 (visual similarity) for adjacent sites and/or segments. This
criteria has five scoring options:
Criteria #6 Question: What kind of visible historic remnants are present at the
site, if any?
1 – No visible historic remnants
● There are no historic remnants visible. There may be sub-surface historic
remnants, but in order to score higher than a “1” the remnants must be
visible
2 – Only non-Trail related or not from period of significance visible historic remnants
● There are remnants visible but they are either not from the period of
significance or they are not related to the trail
3 – Possibly Trail related visible historic remnants
● There are visible historic remnants but it’s unclear what the association with
the trail or period of significance may be
4 – Trail related visible historic remnants
● There are trail related visible remnants from the period of significance
5 – In situ, Trail related visible historic remnants
● There are trail related visible historic remnants that are from the period of
significance and they are in their original location (aka in situ; this would NOT
include remnants that are in a display case or that have been arranged into a
display)

14

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR HIGH POTENTIAL SEGMENTS
Criteria #1 Confidence of Location
There are varying levels of documentation associated with the Trail and with its
individual components (events, places, resources etc.). Because high potential resources
are allocated significant amounts of time, money, and other resources it is important to
gauge how well the location of the nominated resource will stand up to scrutiny. This
criteria is not in reference to a segment’s proximity to the Trail or the accuracy of the
mapping method, but rather in reference to the confidence that the purported event
took place at the proposed location. This criteria’s scoring is made relative to the
amount of documentation available for the Trail and includes the nominator’s
assessment of the state of consensus (or lack thereof) within the community of people
knowledgeable about the Trail. Documentation can be of any form including, but not
limited to, oral history, written sources, and archaeological data. This criteria has five
scoring options, select only ONE of the following:
Criteria #1 Question: How well documented is this segment’s historic location
and what is the Trail community’s confidence in this location?
1 – Minimal documentation and contested location
● Resources meriting this score are those with relatively little documentation
and the location is contested within the trail community.
2 – Minimal documentation and uncontested location
● Resources that would net this score may have only relatively little
documentation but the location is not contested within the trail community.
3 – Some documentation and uncontested location
● This score would be appropriate for those resources that have average to
slightly less than average documentation but the trail community does not
contest its location
4 – Some documentation and generally accepted location
● This score would be appropriate for those resources that have average
documentation and the trail community agrees that the location is supported
by the documentation
5 – Well documented and widely accepted location
● This score is reserved for those resources with greater than average
documentation and the trail community widely accepts that the location is
supported by the documentation

15

Criteria #2 High Quality Recreation Experience
The Act describes High Potential Segments as “those segments of a historic trail which
would afford a high quality recreation experience”. Diversity and frequency of change in
the landscape, natural features, and historic elements all contribute to motivating
movement through a given trail segment, making for a high quality recreation
experience. This criteria seeks to document these aspects of a high quality recreation
experience in two parts: Part A addresses landscape and natural features, Part B
addresses historic elements. As used here, historic elements may include, but are not
limited to: archaeological artifacts and features (e.g. wagon parts, swales, ox shoes),
interpretive features (e.g. wayside exhibits, trail markers), landmarks/locations of
events, etc. Both parts have five scoring options, please select only ONE score for each
part; enter the average of the two scores as the final score for this criteria.
Criteria #2 Question- Part A: What is the diversity of and frequency of change
in landscape and natural features?
1 - Low diversity and low frequency of changing landscape and natural features
2 - Moderate diversity or moderate frequency of changing landscape and natural
features
3 - Moderate diversity and moderate frequency of changing landscape and natural
features
4 - High diversity or high frequency of changing landscape and natural features
5 - High diversity and high frequency of changing landscape and natural features
Criteria #2 Question- Part B: What is the diversity of and frequency of historic
elements?
1 - Low diversity and low frequency of historic elements
2 - Moderate diversity or moderate frequency of historic elements
3 - Moderate diversity and moderate frequency of historic elements
4 - High diversity or high frequency of historic elements
5 - High diversity and high frequency of historic elements

16

Criteria #3 Opportunity for Vicarious Experiences
How many types of opportunities exist to have a vicarious experience of Trail travel
related to this place or its story? How readily are those opportunities accessed by the
public? While every site or segment could theoretically have endless opportunities for a
vicarious experience, this criteria seeks to quantify the variety and current availability of
those opportunities. Types of opportunities should be distinctly different from one
another. For example, ten books constitutes one type of opportunity but a book, an onsite interpretive panel, a website, and a walking tour would constitute four types of
opportunities.
Criteria #3 Question: How many types of opportunities for Trail related
vicarious experiences are currently available for the segment and how easily
are they accessed by the public?
1 – No opportunity for vicarious experience
● There are currently no opportunities to facilitate a vicarious experience
2 – Few types of opportunities but NOT easily/readily accessible to most
● There are a few types of opportunities but they are either difficult to arrange
(e.g. on private land) or are difficult to find (e.g. journal articles in obscure
sources, sources not available to the general public, etc.)
3 – Few types of opportunities easily/readily accessible to most
4 – Many types of opportunities but some NOT easily/readily accessible to most
5 – Many types of opportunities easily/readily accessible to most

17

Criteria #4 Visual Similarity to Historic Landscape
This criteria seeks to quantify how similar the visual setting of the segment is today to
the visual setting during the period of significance. Visual similarity to the historic
landscape can be a key component in facilitating a vicarious experience, interpreting the
history of the Trail, and contributes to a high quality recreational experience.
It is important to note that the similarity of the setting is being evaluated, not whether it
is identical in every way. The landscape is always changing, but not all changes detract
from the historical setting. For example, a farmhouse built last week has the potential to
be evocative of a farmhouse that was present during the Trail’s period of significance. It
is also important to note that the degree of similarity is also being evaluated, it is not a
presence/absence criteria. The baseline for comparison in this criteria a high level
summary of the landscape, not a comparison to very specific details as one might find in
a trail diary.
It’s helpful to think in terms of percentages or dominance for this criteria. For example,
a barb wire fence may extend from one end of the viewshed to the other, but it may not
necessarily take up a large percentage or otherwise dominate your attention. Use the
illustrations below as general guidelines for this criteria’s two analysis areas (Specific
Location and Viewshed).
In order to provide a more accurate evaluation of visual similarity, this criteria is broken
into two parts. Both parts (Part A and Part B) use the same five scoring options listed
below. For every half mile along the segment, please select one option for part A and
one for part B. Then, obtain a single Part A score by averaging all of the scoring options
selected for Part A, and obtain a single Part B by averaging all of the scoring options
selected for Part B. Lastly, average these two scores (single Part A score and the single
Part B score). This is the final, single score for this criteria.
Criteria #4 Question- Part A: How visually similar is the segment’s specific
location today to its appearance during the Trail’s period of significance?
Please note that nominating party is responsible for designating and defining what
constitutes the “specific location”.
Criteria #4 Question- Part B: How visually similar is the site’s entire viewshed
today to its appearance during the Trail’s period of significance?
Please note that the “viewshed” is defined here as everything that can be seen (360
degrees) from a given point on the trail.
18

1 – No similarities to the period of significance
● There is nothing to be seen that is similar to the period of significance. Likely
to apply only to very urban, heavily industrialized, and/or heavily developed
settings.
2 – A few visual elements are appropriate to the period of significance
● The casual observer can identify a few visual elements appropriate to the
period of significance, but the view is otherwise overwhelmed by elements
that are not appropriate.
3 – Roughly half of the visual elements are appropriate to the period of significance
● There is a good mix of elements similar to period of significance and dissimilar
to period of significance, with neither category being visually dominant.
4 – Most visual elements are appropriate to the period of significance
● There may be a few elements that are not appropriate to the period of
significance, but they are minor and not overly distracting.
5 – Visual elements are virtually indistinguishable from the period of significance
● The casual observer would not be able to tell the difference between setting
during period of significance and setting today.

Figure 3. Segment setting analysis areas
19

Criteria #5 Inappropriate Non-Visual Intrusions
What visitors hear, smell, and feel can affect the quality of their experience. This criteria
seeks to round out the quantification of how closely the setting reflects that of the
period of significance. Please note that missing non-visual elements from the period of
significance do not lower the score. Do not include temporary intrusions (e.g.
construction). This criteria has five scoring options, select only ONE of the following for
Part A and B for each half mile portion of your project; the average of all the half mile
section scores is the final score for this criteria.
Criteria #5 Question- Part A: How often are non-visual intrusions (such as
sounds and smells) inappropriate to the period of significance experienced
along the segment?
1 – Continuous non-visual intrusions
2 – Frequent non-visual intrusions
3 – Periodic non-visual intrusions
4 – Rarely occurring non-visual intrusions
5 – No non-visual intrusions
Criteria #5 Question- Part B: How intense are the non-visual intrusions
experienced along the segment?
1 - Significantly distracting
2 - Distracting
3 - Somewhat distracting
4 - Not distracting
5 - Not present

20

NOMINATION PACKAGE
Supporting documentation for each evaluation criteria is required. Incomplete or
inadequate supporting documentation may result in a lower score or return of the
nomination without review. While we urge you to be thorough in your submission, we
also urge you to present information that is primarily directly relevant to each criteria.
We encourage you to reach out to our office before official submission to ensure the
package is complete and the information is clear. Nomination packages should be
submitted digitally, when possible, and assembled as follows:
1. Cover Sheet
2. Matrix Summary
3. Maps
a. Overview of the Site/Segment’s Location- typically 1:24,000 scale
b. Site/Segment Boundary
This is the boundary that must be used when addressing sites criteria 1, 2,
4a, 5, and-6 and segments criteria 1, 2, 4a and 5.
c. Site/Segment Viewshed Boundary (approximate)
This is the boundary that must be used when addressing criteria 4b.
4. Supporting Documentation
a. Documentation for Scoring
i. Provide documentation that supports each criteria’s selected score.
ii. Each criteria should have a separate section in the nomination
package that contains its documentation. For two-part criteria,
documentation for the parts may be arranged separately or jointly.
b. Cited Sources
i. Sources should be clearly sited.
ii. If sources are not readily available, please include a digital copy of the
source material.
iii. Oral histories are acceptable sources; please provide a transcript. If a
transcript is not available, please provide the citation for the
audio/video or a copy of your personal notes.
c. Photographs
Photographic evidence is required for site criteria 4a, 4b, and 6 and for
segment criteria 4a and 4b.
5. Bibliography
6. Landmark Nominations
Please include GPS coordinates for the analysis point used in criteria 3 and 4.
21

APPENDIX A
Period of Significance for the Santa Fe National Historic Trail
Santa Fe –
● Period of Significance: 1821-1880
● Purpose/Historic Significance:
● From CMP:
● p. iii: “The Santa Fe Trail was the first of America’s great transMississippi routes. The trail, including the Mountain and Cimarron
routes, crossed over 1,200 miles of the central and southwestern
United States, from Franklin, Missouri, to Santa Fe, New Mexico.
The trail played a critical role in the westward expansion of the
United States, and for more than half a century (1821-1880) it was
an important two-way avenue for commerce and cultural
exchanges.”
● And from p. 30: “Topic: Purpose of the Trail and How it Differs from
Other Trails”, “The Santa Fe Trail was a significant link for trade and
commerce in the trail network across the North American
Continent in the 1800s.”

22

APPENDIX B
Santa Fe NHT Trailwide Interpretive Topics, Subthemes, and Key Points
Topic
Pre-1821 - Informal Establishment of the Trail

Subtheme
The Santa Fe Trail became
a bridge for international
trade and commerce
between the United States
and Spanish territory.
Despite many earlier
attempts to establish the
bridge, the Spanish
government effectively
blocked trade.

Key Points
1.

2.

3.

4.

Spanish
a. Exploration
b. Colonial trade policy
c. Trade with the Indians
d. Missionary efforts
e. American fur trade
f. Trade fairs
g. Mexican independence and removal of the trade
barrier
French
a. Exploration - attraction to Santa Fe
b. Smuggling
American
a. Identification of the potential for overland trade by'
Pike and others
b. Attempts by Americans to settle and establish trade
in New Mexico
Native American
a. Trade centers and trail routes
b. River valley rendezvous sites

Topic
Purpose of the Trail and How It Differs from Other Trails

Subtheme
The Santa Fe Trail was a
significant link for trade
and commerce in the trail
network across the North
American continent in the
1800s.

Key Points
1.
2.
3.
4.

Commerce – buying, selling, and exchanging of
manufactured, native, and other goods
The trail was but one segment of a larger system of
commerce between North America and Europe
Expansion of trade along the trail from 1821 until the
coming of the railroad in 1880
Evolution of trade

23

Topic
Effect of the Trail

Subtheme
Opening the trail had farreaching effects on the
United States, the
provinces of northern
Mexico, and American
Indians.

Key Points
1.

United States
a. Economy
b. Politics
c. Expansion
d. Agriculture
e. Manufacturing
f. Knowledge of the west and techniques of overland travel;
application of knowledge to other trails
g. Knowledge of Mexican control
2. Mexico's northern provinces
a. Economy
b. Politics
c. Expansion
d. Agriculture
e. Manufacturing
f. Chihuahua Trail
g. Effect of colonial trade policy
3. American Indians
a. Economy
b. Diseases
c. Demise of the buffalo
d. Loss of land
e. Conflicts
4. Cultural, ethnic, and gender composition of participants, including
interaction of cultures (Hispanic, American Indian, American, and
others)

Topic
Relationship to Today

Subtheme
Human needs and desires
do not change, only the
means by which they are
achieved.

Key Points
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Relativity of time and distance
Dangers
Means of transportation
Travel and trade routes (railroads and highways closely parallel the
trail)
Influence of each culture on the other
Trail mythology and popular culture
24

Topic
Natural Elements

Subtheme
Survival depends on
successful interaction with
natural forces.

Key Points
1.

2.
3.

Biogeographic zones - the transition through the Central Lowland,
Great Plains, Southern Rocky Mountain, and Basin and Range
provinces
a. Weather and climate
b. Vegetation
c. Water
d. Physiographic features - the importance of landmarks
Sustenance - food and water for both humans and livestock
Environmental Change

Topic
Military Presence

Subtheme
Conflict occurs when
different peoples do not
understand each other or
have different goals.

Key Points
1.

2.
3.

Mexican and American military escorts of the caravans, protection,
and self-sufficiency
a. Military posts
b. Military freighting
Transition zones between cultures, cultural interaction at military
posts
Wars
a. Texas Revolution
b. Mexican War
c. Civil War
d. Indian Wars

25

APPENDIX C
Santa Fe NHT Interpretive Regions, Subthemes, and Key Points
Region
Old Franklin to Council Grove, including Fort Leavenworth

Subtheme
Individual caravans formed
throughout the region and
traveled independently to
Council Grove, where they
organized into military-like
formations that helped
ensure the greatest chance
of success and survival.

Key Points
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Becknell and Old Franklin
Arrow Rock
Lexington
Fort Osage
Independence
Fort Leavenworth
Council Grove
Cooperation and self-reliance
Central lowlands - woods, plentiful water, forage, climate
Missouri River

Region
Council Grove to Cimarron Route

Subtheme
The transition from central
lowlands to the plains
required adaptation.

Key Points
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Water
Scarcity of wood
Buffalo and other wild game
Transition from long-grass to short­grass prairie
Semiarid climate, buffalo grass and cactus
Increased danger from Indians.
Arkansas River and trading ranches

Region
The Cimarron Route

Subtheme
Despite the hazards of this
route, it was favored from
the early 1820s to the mid1840s because it was 100
miles shorter to Santa Fe
or Missouri and it was
suitable for wagon traffic.

Key Points
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

International territory
Semiarid climate, sand and dry rivers
Precious springs
Severe storms (winter and summer)
American Indians
Escorts
a. Mexican
b. U.S. Army

26

7.

Various cutoffs

Region
The Mountain Route

Subtheme
The Mountain route,
opened to wagon traffic in
the mid-1840s, afforded
greater safety and water,
but it was longer and
traversed difficult
mountain terrain.

Key Points
1.
2.
3.

4.

5.
6.

Change from plains to mountains, climate
More secure, but more difficult for travelers
Bent's Old Fort
a. Fur trade
b. Interaction of cultures
Wars
a. Mexican War
b. Civil War
Advent of the railroad
American Indians

Region
Fort Union/Watrous (La Junta) to Santa Fe

Subtheme
Merchants from Missouri
entering this region got
their first glimpse of nonIndian settlement since
leaving; traders from
Mexico left the mountains
and entered the Great
Plains.

Key Points
1.

2.

First and last settlements
a. Watrous (La Junta) - Mexican caravans gather for strength;
junction of Mountain and Cimarron routes
b. Las Vegas - declaration of U.S. occupation of New Mexico
c. San Miguel del Vado - crossing of the Pecos River
d. Santa Fe - destination/starting point; major trade center;
stop from and to Chihuahua
(1) Center of international trade
(2) Center of domestic trade (after the Mexican War)
Wars
a. Texas Revolution
b. Mexican War
c. Civil War
d. Indian Wars

27