Citation
With heritage so wild

Material Information

Title:
With heritage so wild cultural landscape management in the U.S. national parks
Creator:
Chalana, Manish ( author )
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xvi, 295 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Landscape protection -- United States ( lcsh )
Cultural property -- Protection -- United States ( lcsh )
Cultural property -- Protection ( fast )
Landscape protection ( fast )
Management ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 273-295).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Manish Chalana.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
62777207 ( OCLC )
ocm62777207
Classification:
LD1193.A735 2005d C42 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
WITH HERITAGE SO WILD:
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT IN THE U.S. NATIONAL PARKS
by
Manish Chalana
B.Arch. Mangalore University, 1993
M.Arch. School of Planning and Architecture New Delhi, 1996
M.L.Arch. The Pennsylvania State University, 1999
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Design and Planning
2005


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Manish Chalana
has been approved
by
Ann Komara
30 Jo!/ 30Cb


Chalana, Manish (Ph.D., Design and Planning)
With Heritage So Wild: Cultural Landscape Management in the U.S. National Parks
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Michael Holleran
ABSTRACT
In the last two decades the National Park Service (NPS) has made significant strides
vis-a-vis cultural landscape management. These include the development of the Park
Cultural Landscapes Program, which has initiated the Cultural Landscapes Inventory
(CLI), a common methodology for documenting cultural landscapes in the national
park system. Despite advancements in diverse landscape-oriented programs, cultural
landscapes in many of the National Parksthe crown jewels of the larger national
park systemcontinue to receive far less attention than those in other units or than
landscapes viewed as more natural. This research examines how cultural
landscapes are currently being managed in the national parks, with a focus on three
components of the management process: inventory, treatment and interpretation. The
work is based on analysis of CLI data to determine attributes (types, cultures, time
periods) that predominate among properties that have received more attention thus far
in the prioritization process. Through a case study of Rocky Mountain National Park
and a survey of cultural landscape sites in numerous parks, the work also examines
how properties that have come to be recognized as cultural landscapes by the CLI
process are receiving treatment and interpretation. Results indicate that the inventory
process in particular is perpetuating the nature/culture dichotomy that it set out to
address, by focusing more on sites that conform to either the natural or cultural end of
the spectrum and de-emphasizing middle landscapes. Treatments do not fully
extend to the landscape component of many sites but rather often focus more on the
structures than the land itself. Interpretation too does not always fully convey the
essence of nature-culture interactions at the heart of these sites. By bringing these
issues to the forefront, this research aims to bridge the gap between theoretical
concepts of cultural landscape preservation and their practical application in the
United States largest administrator of cultural landscapes.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I recommend
its publication.
Signed
111


For Bauji your wisdom is my strength.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work would not have seen the light of day had it not been for the support of
numerous individuals and organizations that generously provided time and resources
during all stages. I want to begin by extending my thanks to the Design and Planning
program in the College of Architecture and Planning at the University of Colorado for
supporting me through graduate school, especially Willem Van Vliet and Kim Kelly
whose help with different matters contributed towards the timely completion of the
research.
I am fortunate by the association of so many brilliant mentors who have guided this
research, and to them I remain indebted. My utmost thanks are reserved for my guru
Michael Holleran, who has been and continues to be a source of inspirational light.
Michaels influence is evident throughout this work; his ongoing critique has given
this document its current shape. In the process it is now difficult for me to separate
his ideas from mine, since so much of this work developed out of our numerous
discussions on the subject. However, I do take responsibility for all of the
shortcomings of this work.
Ann Komaras guidance has greatly improved the quality of this work. From her I
have learned not to be afraid to set higher standards of academic excellence and
integrity, and I am hoping this work reflects at least half of that level of scholarship. I
am appreciative of the time and effort of other members of my committee; Sohyun
Lee, Brain Page and Brian Muller have all aided me in seeing this work completed. I
valued their input and have learned a great deal from their feedback.
I thank the Rocky Mountain Nature Association (RMNA), especially Curt Buchholtz
and Nancy Wilson, for seeing value in this work even before it was fully developed.
They provided financial assistance and a beautiful summer cottage in Rocky
Mountain National Park to facilitate the fieldwork. Thanks also to the Graham
Foundation for their encouragement and financial support, through the Carter Manny
citation award. I also extend my gratitude to the Rocky Mountain Cooperative
Ecosystem Study Unit, who funded a course on Rocky Mountain National Park that I
had the pleasure of teaching. This provided me with a legitimate excuse to spend
more time in the field and share my experiences with a group of students in the
graduate program in Historic Preservation.


Without the assistance of the staff at Rocky Mountain National Park, the fieldwork
would have taken me much longer to complete and perhaps been impossible. Cheri
Yost and Bill Butler were extremely generous with their time, patiently responding to
my countless email questions, and helping with clarifications, as well as providing
constructive criticism on portions of this work, especially the chapter on Rocky
Mountain National Park that they are all too familiar with. They also reviewed a
conference paper (based on the portion of this work) presented at the National
Historic Preservation Forum in 2004. Sybil Barnes was invaluable in helping to
locate sources literally from the back of her mind. Thanks also to the numerous
rangers in the national parks who helped in locating cultural landscapes, as well as
providing additional information they had access to, making the fieldwork less
strenuous. Although I was not able to pick his brain directly as much as I wished,
Ferrell Atkins provided tremendous indirect support through his previous work
documenting historical structures in Rocky Mountain National Park.
I am thankful to the CLI regional office staff, especially Brian Braa (Denver office,
now with Shapins Associates), Jill Cowley (Santa Fe), Shaun Provencher (Oakland)
and the staff in Seattle for taking the time to meet with me and answer questions
regarding the CLI process. Much thanks to Lucy Lawliss, Cari Goetcheus (now at
Clemson University) and Randy Biallis (the CLI national office) for helping out with
obtaining data for this work. Both Lucy and Cari reviewed the entire document and
provided insightful comments and clarifications on the content and for that I am
grateful.
Finally thanks to my parents who have shown great patience even without fully
understanding my course of study as well as my path in life, and to the two greatest
bundles of joy in my lifeShreya and Adiwho I secretly wish never grow old!
Thanks also to my friends Angela, Bamali, Bruce, Jake, Laura, Leslie, and Pearl,
for sharing my frustration and joys through graduate school.
Last but by no means least: thanks to Steve, without whose help the fieldwork would
have taken twice as long, and been half as much fun. Steve shares my passion for
exploring new landscapes, and provided great company and much help when he
accompanied me to many of the parks. In addition, his help with the statistical
analysis and with editing the text for clarity remains invaluable; for all this I am
indebted for life.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures.............................................. xii
List of Tables............................................... xvi
PROLOGUE.............................................................. 1
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION................................................ 3
Stages of the Cultural Landscape Preservation Process....... 6
Inventory................................................ 7
Treatment................................................ 8
Interpretation......................................... 10
Goals and Objectives....................................... 10
Significance.............................................. 11
Data and Methods.......................................... 11
The Case Study.......................................... 12
The CLI: Quantitative Analysis......................... 13
The CLI: Qualitative Analysis........................... 14
Park Reconnaissance..................................... 14
Organization of the Document
15


2. THE RISE OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION
18
Origins and Development...................................... 18
Historic Preservation.................................... 18
Cultural Landscape Studies................................ 21
Cultural Landscape Preservation........................... 27
Critiques of Cultural Landscape Preservation.............. 35
Uneasy Coexistence: the National Park Service and
Cultural Landscapes........................................... 44
The Early Years........................................... 44
Changing Attitudes Codified: the Historic Preservation
Law of 1966............................................... 62
A New Kind of NPS Property............................... 65
A New Kind of National Park.............................. 67
Cultural Landscapes in Other NPS Units................... 69
3. STAKING CLAIMS: CULTURAL LANDSCAPES
INVENTORY IN THE NATIONAL PARKS.................................. 71
The CLI Data.................................................. 73
The CLI and the National Register............................. 77
Hierarchical Classification in the CLI........................ 79
Inventory Levels.............................................. 80
The CLI Database: Contents and Structure...................... 85
viii
Funding for the CLI
89


CLI Analysis
90
4. CULTURAL LANDSCAPES IN A NATURAL PARK:
THE CASE OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN NP.............................126
Rocky Mountain National Park: Context and History........128
Native Americans Use of the Park Lands (Before 1850). 130
Early Settlers (1850-1900)............................131
The Park Idea (1900-1915)...........................139
The Early Park Years (1915-1933)......................143
Park Development (1933-1955)..........................144
Mission 66(1955-1966).................................146
The Park Today (1966-Present).........................148
Cultural Landscape Identification in Rocky Mountain NP...149
Cultural Landscapes Listed on the CLI.................149
Prioritization Patterns...............................151
Some Prioritization Issues............................160
Potential Cultural Landscapes not Listed on the CLI...167
5. TREATMENT AND INTERPRETATION OF CULTURAL
LANDSCAPES IN THE NATIONAL PARKS..........................173
Cultural Landscape Treatment.............................174
Preservation..........................................176
IX


Rehabilitation,
180
Restoration........................................183
Reconstruction.....................................190
Neglectthe Fifth Treatment......................194
Cultural Landscape Interpretation.....................200
Historic Designed Landscapes and Historic Sites....211
Vernacular and Ethnographic Landscapes.............223
6. CONCLUSIONS...........................................233
Cultural Landscapes Inventory.........................234
Treatment and Interpretation..........................243
Limitations...........................................250
Conclusion............................................252
EPILOGUE........................................................255
APPENDIX
I. IMAGE CREDITS.........................................257
II. SCORING SHEET FOR PRIORITY LIST..................... 258
III. MULTIPLE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ON CLI
LANDSCAPE ADVANCEMENT.................................261
x


IV. RESOURCES FOR PRIMARY DATA............265
V. CONDITION OF MCGRAW RANCH MEMORANDUM..271
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................273
xi


FIGURES
2.1. Quincy Market (Boston, Mass.)....................................... 21
2.2. Landscape patterns created by pivot irrigation (San Luis Valley, Colo.)... 27
2.3. The irrigated landscapes of Viejo San Acacio, Colo.................. 32
2.4. Adobe faqade covering the original Neoclassical style to match the
rest of the district; First National Bank (Santa Fe, NM)........... 37
2.5. Freewheeling Wild West show (Virginia City, Nevada)............... 38
2.6. Revisionist plaque honoring women pioneers on the
Founders Monument (Seattle, Wash.).................................. 42
2.7. The locations of the National Parks, the majority of which are in the
West................................................................. 46
2.8. Roosevelt Arch, proclaiming the mission of the parks (Yellowstone NP).. 47
2.9. The expanses of Hetch Hetchy Valley prior to damming (Yosemite NP)... 50
2.10. Miwok Indians with bear cub (Yosemite NP).......................... 51
2.11. Early visitors enjoying the geysers (Yellowstone NP)............... 52
2.12. Planned destruction of historic site (Rocky Mountain NP)............. 54
2.13. Early interest in Native American archaeology (Mesa Verde NP)....... 55
2.14. CCC crew at work (Mesa Verde NP)..................................... 57
2.15. Mission 66 signage (Grand Teton NP).................................. 58
2.16. Cyclorama (Gettysburg National Military Park)........................ 59
xii


2.17. Trapping of predators (Yellowstone NP).............................. 61
2.18. The National Heritage Areas........................................ 67
2.19. Density of cultural landscapes by park............................. 69
3.1. CLI landscapes by park and region....................................102
3.2. Nisqually Entrance Station (Level II-certified landscape,
Mount Rainier NP)...................................................115
3.3. Period of significance for Level II-certified landscapes..............118
3.4. The landscape of Lassen Volcanic Mineral Headquarters District
(Lassen Volcanic NP)................................................120
3.5. The Green Mountain Ranch landscape, displaying features from
the era of dude ranching (Rocky Mountain NP).......................122
3.6. Vail and Vickers Ranch, in operation until 1998 (Channel Islands NP).123
4.1. Map of Rocky Mountain NP.............................................129
4.2. Steads Ranch..........................................................133
4.3. William Henry Jacksons photo of Estes Park...........................135
4.4. Horseshoe Inn Resort, in Horseshoe Park...............................136
4.5. Lulu City.............................................................137
4.6. Grand Ditch...........................................................139
4.7. Visitors to the Estes Park area in a Stanley Steamer..................140
4.8. Dedication of Rocky Mountain NP, Sept. 4, 1915........................142
4.9. Resort in Moraine Park, on land that has since been naturalized.... 144
4.10 The woodland style Moraine Park Amphitheatre..........................146
xiii


4.11. Beaver Meadows Visitor Center....................................147
4.12. Fall River Road..................................................154
4.13. Remains of convict cabins........................................155
4.14. Trail Ridge Road.................................................156
4.15. William White Cabin, Moraine Park................................157
4.16. Holzwarth Ranch..................................................158
4.17. McGraw Ranch.....................................................160
4.18. Indian-built wall, Tombstone Ridge...............................164
4.19. Lulu City today..................................................168
4.20. Grand Ditch under construction...................................171
5.1. Petrified tree (Yellowstone NP)...................................178
5.2. Pioneer Register (Capitol Reef NP)................................179
5.3. Cabins at Rosemary Inn (Olympic NP)...............................181
5.4. Loomis Historic District (Lassen Volcanic NP).....................182
5.5. Stanford Farm (Cuyahoga Valley NP)................................184
5.6. Fruita Rural Historic District (Capitol Reef NP)..................185
5.7. Orchard at Fruita Rural Historic District (Capitol Reef NP).......187
5.8. Olympic Hot Springs (Olympic NP)..................................188
5.9. Crater Lake Lodge (Crater Lake NP)................................192
5.10. Landscape at Rim Village Historic District (Crater Lake NP)......193
5.11. The Wolfram Tea Room (Rocky Mountain NP).........................195
xiv


5.12. Lost Horse Mine (Joshua Tree NP)....................................197
5.13. Edward Abbey trailer site (Arches NP)...............................199
5.14. Enos Mills leading a tour in Rocky Mountain NP......................203
5.15. Ranger-led twilight talk (Yosemite NP)..............................204
5.16. Hopi dancers (Grand Canyon NP)......................................207
5.17. Wayside signage at Triple Divide Peak (Glacier NP)..................208
5.18. Ranger-led talk at amphitheatre (Badlands NP).......................209
5.19. Early attempt at interpreting social history (Great Smoky Mts. NP).210
5.20. Eco Pond (Everglades NP)............................................213
5.21. Anhinga Trail (Everglades NP).......................................214
5.22. Geological signage, Excelsior Geyser (Yellowstone NP)...............217
5.23. Drill Field (Yellowstone NP)........................................219
5.24. Ute Trail (Rocky Mountain NP).......................................225
5.25. Amasa Pierce Orchard (Capitol Reef NP)..............................226
5.26. Interpretation for Brandywine Village (Cuyahoga Valley NP)..........227
5.27. Lamar Buffalo Ranch (Yellowstone NP)...............................230
5.28. Natural history signage at Harbison Picnic Area (Rocky Mountain NP).. 231
xv


TABLES
3.1. CLI landscapes by level and region.......................................101
3.2. CLI landscapes by level and characteristics..............................105
3.3. Significant effects, advancement to Level I or above....................109
3.4. Significant effects, Advancement to Level II............................114
3.5. SHPO-certified Level II landscapes, as of FY 2003.......................116
4.1. Identified cultural landscapes of Rocky Mountain NP, by
inventory status......................................................152


PROLOGUE
In September 2004, the National Park Service prepared to replace two historic
backcountry shelters in Olympic National Park that were deemed important for visitor
safety but which had suffered extensive deterioration and could not be renovated.
The Park had already built the replacement shelters off-site, designing them as
similarly as possible to the originals through the use of drawings, photographs and
verbal descriptions. They, had, in fact, followed the Secretary of the Interiors
guidelines for reconstruction, one of the four treatments allowed for historic
properties. As they were preparing to airlift them into the backcountry, a lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court in Tacoma by Olympic Park Associates, Wilderness
Watch and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), claiming
that the decision was in violation of the Wilderness Act. The conservation groups
saw the entire enterprise as an ill conceived action that would degrade the
character of a world-class wilderness.
This case received media attention when I was in the middle of writing my
dissertation, and it made me question the entire premise of this work. The debates
that ensued in the newspaper and on the radio brought to light the fact that the gap
1


between nature and culture that academics describe as a false dichotomy is alive and
well in the real world. That nature (the wilderness area) and culture (the reconstructed
historic shelters) were deemed so incapable of coexistence represents the very
antithesis of cultural landscape studies. For cultural landscape professionals, the
location of the historic shelters in the wilderness does not take away from the
experience of wild nature, but instead humanizes it, making us less distant and more
connected to the natural world of which we are a part.
Ultimately, instead of making me question the relevance of this work, the incident in
Olympic National Park helped me realize its centrality to a number of very real and
timely issues. It also made me aware that although I ask numerous questions in this
work about the future of cultural landscapes in the National Parks, many of these
cannot yet be answered. Debates similar to those that occurred in Olympic will
continue, shaping the way that the next generation of Americans experiences the
interplay of nature and human endeavor. My hope is that through the work presented
here I can help bring to bear on this process the realization expressed in the ancient
Vedic textsthat creation (shristi) occurs only through the dance of nature (prakriti)
and humankind (purusha).
2


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Ultimately, as the field of landscape preservation continues to develop, there will undoubtedly be
further discussions about evaluating, documenting, and registering cultural landscapes.
- Cari Goetcheus, Cultural Landscapes and the National Register, CRM. 2002.
The preservation of cultural landscapes necessarily begins with defining them. This
seemingly simple task has proven difficult, although most scholars now view them as
having at their core unique and complex interplays of natural and cultural activities.
Management of any type of landscape is generally more complicated than architecture
because landscapes undergo change more rapidly, and management must somehow
incorporate this change. For cultural landscapes, these underlying nature-culture
interactions complicate management substantially. Yet the last generation has seen a
significant growth in the field of cultural landscape preservation, with numerous
successes.
Prior to this expansion, landscape preservation in the United States focused mostly on
natural landscapes, areas of scenic wonder that were thought of as relatively
pristine, or untouched by human influence. Throughout this time period, the main
3


body responsible for the management of significant landscapes was the National Park
Service (NPS). Other agencies managed more extensive land areas (e.g. the Bureau
of Land Management and the US Forest Service), but under NPS jurisdiction fell
landscapes that warranted special treatment because of their unique geology, biology,
scenery, or history. The NPS designated some areas in which the cultural component
dominated the landscape (e.g. battlefields and Native American archaeological sites),
and in these, maintenance of the historic or prehistoric heritage was of greatest
importance. On the other hand, those that were deemed to fall into the natural
category were managed with the aim of obliterating or at least obscuring any traces of
human activity in the landscape that pre-dated the parks creation. The majority of the
early national parks, the crown jewels of the national park system, fell into this
category.
Cultural geography and cultural landscape studies emerged in the mid-20th century,
and led to a reassessment of this approach. Theorists began to recognize that all
landscapes are an inextricable blend of natural (i.e. non-human) and human
influences, and the importance of preserving the human elements of landscapes even
in predominantly natural settings became clearer. At the federal level, preservation
practice has begun to reflect these theoretical advances in the last two decades. An
important development has been the NPSs National Heritage Areas program, a type
of integrated public-private working landscape that the NPS helps manage with
4


regional partners. In addition, the NPS has in the last few decades created landscape-
oriented programs and centers such as the Historic Landscape Initiative (HLI) in 1987
(specializing in educating the public and interfacing with partner institutions) and the
Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation in 1992 (specializing in providing
technical assistance for landscape projects).
In the process, the NPS has settled on a standardized definition for a cultural
landscape: a geographic area (including both cultural and natural resources and the
wild life or domestic animals therein), associated with a historic event, activity, or
person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values. The agency categories them
into four types: historic designed landscapes; historic sites; historic vernacular
landscapes; and ethnographic landscapes (Bimbaum 1994).
A major development for cultural landscapes in the parks specifically was the
founding of the Park Cultural Landscapes Program in 1988 and the initiation of the
Programs Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI) in 1994. The CLI is a
comprehensive inventory of cultural landscapes in the national park system, instituted
in response to a 1990 report identifying cultural landscape practices as a material
weakness in NPS policy (Page 2001). It is the most ambitious and coordinated
attempt at identifying and preserving American cultural landscapes ever. The CLI
was set up with a goal of planning, programming, and recording treatment and
5


management decisions (National Park Service 1998) vis-a-vis cultural landscape
sites. Through this process the CLI has now developed a common methodology for
these inventories.
The systematic implementation of this system through the CLI is ten years old. Its
theoretical development, progress, and effectiveness have yet to be independently
reviewed. In particular, there remain issues as to how cultural landscape management
might occur in the large wilderness-oriented parks where wilderness and cultural
landscape preservation are often viewed as being at odds with one another (Alanen
and Melnick 2000). For the most part, these wilderness-oriented parks correspond to
the set of fifty-eight properties that Congress has designated as either National Parks
or National Parks and Preserves, as opposed to the 330 (as of 2003) other properties
under the NPS jurisdiction, including National Historic Sites and more than a dozen
other categories. The focus of this study, then, will be a review and analysis of
cultural landscape management practices as they apply to these 58 National Parks.
Stages of the Cultural Landscape Preservation Process
This research considers three stages of the cultural landscape management process:
inventory, treatment and interpretation. Each of these stages reveals different insights
into the NPSs choices and priorities for the overall process of cultural landscape
management.
6


Inventory
Inventory is the process by which the NPS identifies the full set of cultural landscapes
in the parks, in the process making judgments about what does and does not qualify as
a cultural landscape. This is the stage that the CLI was specifically created to
coordinate. Two concepts generally dominate the evaluation process during
inventory: historic significance (importance of the property to peoples and events in
American history) and historic integrity (degree to which the landscape retains that
significance).
Many imprints of human activities on the land have already disappeared from the
parks or lost their historic integrity, often as a result of the agencys past policies.
Despite these losses, however, the extant cultural landscapes in the national parks are
too numerous for the NPS to set about applying treatments all at once. Thus, the
inventory process not only identifies the landscapes, but prioritizes them via a four
level system (Levels 0 through III), where each subsequent step is more exclusive but
more detailed. Although the CLI switched to a simpler dichotomy of complete
(Level Il-certified) versus incomplete (all else) in November 2003 the patterns that
emerge from the use of these levels over the previous years remain a subject for
analysis. Currently over 3000 cultural landscapes are identified in the National Park
system; a third of these are located in the national parks. Most of these are either on
7


the National Register of Historic Places or are potentially eligible for inclusion on it
(Goetcheus 2002).
Many of the questions addressed in this dissertation center on patterns of cultural
landscapes inventory, as identified by the CLI and my own fieldwork. What are the
distribution patterns of cultural landscapes by regions and parks? How do the types of
cultural landscapes (historic site, historic designed, vernacular, ethnographic) that
have received advanced inventories compare to those that have not been prioritized?
What attributes are shared by those cultural landscapes that have received complete
inventories? Finally, what landscape types, cultures or time periods have been
emphasized so far, and how might that project in the future in terms of the variety of
cultural landscapes that will be preserved?
Treatment
The NPS established a system for making cultural landscape treatment decisions,
which is outlined in the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (Weeks
and Grimmer 1995). This defines four treatment options. Preservation entails
minimum intervention and hence maximum retention of historic fabric. Rehabilitation
allows altering the historic fabric to meet new uses while maintaining the historic
integrity. Restoration allows for returning the cultural landscape to a selected period
8


in history by removing materials from other periods or adding character-defining
features. As the name suggests, reconstruction allows for rebuilding a landscape or
landscape component that has disappeared, based on historical documentation
(National Park Service Historic Landscape Initiative 1996). The Secretary of the
Interiors Standards provide little technical detail on how to apply the treatments.
Instead, they allow for subjectivity and local decision-making with regard to when
and how such treatments are applied. In part this is based on the recognition that
cultural landscapes are particularly difficult to define and classify, and this is best
done at the local level when specialized expertise is available.
In the national parks, landscapes that are selected for treatment receive a Cultural
Landscape Report (CLR), a process/methodology that predates the CLI. In fact, some
cultural landscape sites received attention through the CLR before they were
inventoried by the CLI process. Like the CLI, the CLR assesses the historic integrity
and significance of the landscape and its character-defining features. The CLR goes
one step further in outlining a treatment program. The two programs do not always
proceed in tandem despite their common goals. Combining review of these CLRs
with case study fieldwork and park reconnaissance, I address such questions as: How
do different treatments apply to different types of landscapes? How are the variety of
features that the landscapes contain (e.g. buildings versus organic materials) treated
differently? Given their unique identities, which treatments can best preserve
9


integrity for vernacular landscapes (and, to a lesser extent, ethnographic landscapes),
and under what circumstances?
Interpretation
Interpretation is the process by which the NPS conveys an understanding for the
cultural and historical significance of a landscape to the public. Much of the
interpretive activities related to cultural resources are carried out by the interpretive
divisions in individual parks. These include developing the contents of signage,
ranger programs, and park publications such as brochures, pamphlets and maps that
help frame the visitors experience. The majority of interpretive activities were in fact
developed before the sites were recognized as cultural landscapes through the CLI
process. This section will consider how sites that have come to be recognized as
cultural landscapes are being interpreted in the parks and what that tells us about the
agencys implicit perspectives on cultural landscapes, and how these may be
changing.
Goals and Objectives
The overarching objectives of this dissertation are:
To identity current on-the-ground practices for how cultural landscape sites
are inventoried, treated and interpreted in the national parks in the US.
10


To ascertain how such practices meet the overall theoretical goals of the
cultural landscape programs.
To examine what this implies for the future of cultural landscape preservation
in the national parks.
Significance
The research attempts to bridge the gap between the theoretical concepts of cultural
landscapes and their practical implementation within the nations largest cultural
landscape preservation enterprise. It provides a unique opportunity to identify and
highlight the practical issues facing cultural landscape preservation, and to see how
they compare to the more theoretical issues that have appeared in the cultural
landscapes literature over the past half century. Given that cultural landscape
preservation is comparatively new and the NPS is still refining its approaches, a
review such as this is important and timely, generating insights of value for revisiting
some of the current cultural landscape practices in national parks across the country.
Data and Methods
The questions posed are answered by combining multiple approaches for observation,
data collection and analysis. These include some that emphasize breadth, including
reconnaissance of cultural landscapes in different national parks and an analysis of the
11


national CLI database. At the same time, greater depth is achieved through a case
study focusing on cultural landscape management in Rocky Mountain National Park.
The Case Study
Rocky Mountain National Park (abbreviated ROMO by the NPS) typifies the
experience of many large western parks that were thought of as places of natural
wonder and marketed as such to the public, and from which many pre-park traces of
human activity were obscured. The case study involves a comprehensive survey of
cultural landscapes in ROMO, a property with both a rich cultural landscape history
and a relatively advanced cultural landscapes inventory. The National Parks
Conservation Association (NPCA), an independent organization, has published a
report assessing the conservation status of ROMO in many different categories, which
predicts a bleak future for cultural landscapes in the park unless more preservation
efforts are made (National Parks Conservation Association 2002).
The reconnaissance survey already conducted by the NPS Intermountain Regional
Office was supplemented by my own field surveys, reviews of park documents,
archival materials, and photographs, and unstructured interviews with the park staff.
The purposes of this work were to understand the practical experience of all three
stages of cultural landscape management in depth and especially to gauge the
inclusiveness of the inventory process.
12


The CLI: Quantitative Analysis
The primary research also contains a broad analysis of the patterns of inventory and
prioritization that have occurred so far service-wide. Roughly 3% of cultural
landscapes in the national parks identified through the reconnaissance process (Level
0) have completed the review process1; the list of properties at different stages of the
inventory process (as revealed in the CLI) is used. This information has been
organized into an automated database called the Cultural Landscapes Automated
Inventory Management Systems (originally abbreviated CLAIMS, although this
acronym has since been dropped). The purpose of the analysis is to answer questions
about how landscapes with different uses, scales, types and locations fare in the CLI,
and what that suggests about the importance of the NPSs different criteria for
evaluation in actual decision-making. For this type of analysis, in which the predicted
outcome is a probability and there is more than one attribute being used for
prediction, the usual method for statistical analysis is multiple logistic regression
(MLR). Such a method allows for all of these possible effects (landscape use, scale,
type, location) to be teased apart from one another and interpreted separately. The use
of statistical methods also allows for the significance of effects to be identified; that
is, whether they are large enough not to arise by chance in the observed sample, and
thus require explanation. Because the full data were not made available by the NPS,
1 Complete review refers to those landscapes that have received a Level II inventory and have been
certified by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). This process will be explained in later
chapters. Beginning in 2003, the CLI office replaced this Level II SHPO-certified terminology with
the phrase complete, accurate and reliable.
13


the analysis required significant hand-coding. Database management occurred in
Microsoft Access and statistical analysis in SPSS.
The CLI: Qualitative Analysis
The statistical analysis was supplemented with a qualitative examination of the CLI
data to determine the attributes that cultural landscapes receiving complete inventory
share, and what this may imply for the future. This was conducted for the thirty-one
properties nationwide that had received complete review as of fiscal year 2003, which
contain far more information in the dataset made available than other properties do.
These landscapes constitute about 3% of the properties listed in the CLI for national
parks as a whole. Information on these properties used in the textual analysis includes
database fields such as area of significance; period of significance, condition
assessment, cultural landscape type, National Register significance and threats to the
property. The textual analysis reviews information in each of the fields to discuss
historic significance and integrity for individual properties as determined through the
CLI process. The discussion also touches on condition and threats, which are
identified as internal, external, both or none.
Park Reconnaissance
The research questions related particularly to treatment and interpretation required a
breadth of information not found in the CLI data or the case study. The
14


reconnaissance was undertaken to understand how the listed cultural landscapes have
been treated and interpreted in different parks. For this work, a set of parks were
selected to represent a variety of dominant landscape types (mountainous, desert, etc.)
and geographical and administrative regions throughout the continental US. Within
each park a subset of landscapes on the CLI were selected for visitation, in order to
cover the full range of property types for that particular park, with a special emphasis
on vernacular landscapes that are unique since they retain at their core the interactions
between cultural and natural processes. Landscapes that had received high levels of
review were also selected for more complete fieldwork. In addition, unstructured
interviews were conducted with park staff. The questions focused on both filling in
baseline information for properties and understanding treatment and interpretation
activities.
Organization of the Document
The dissertation is organized into six chapters; including this Introduction (Chapter 1).
Chapter 2 discusses the historical development of cultural landscape preservation in
general and in the NPS specifically. Topics include situating cultural landscape
preservation in its parent fields of historic preservation and cultural geography. The
chapter also reviews management practices of the NPS with regard to cultural
landscapes in light of the nature-culture dichotomy that has long remained a part of
the NPSs (and the wests) worldview. Chapter 3 focuses on the description and
15


analysis of the Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI). The first part of the chapter
focuses mainly on the structure of the database, including a description of important
information fields it contains. The second part is a statistical analysis of identified
cultural landscapes and results, including a discussion on the emerging patterns. The
chapter concludes with a qualitative assessment of the thirty-one completed and
certified Level II landscapes and their common characteristics.
Chapter 4 looks at one park in depth to see how the three parts of cultural landscape
preservation play out in the field. Through this one can gauge the effectiveness and
inclusiveness of the CLI process, which is difficult to determine by CLI data alone.
The first part of this chapter is a narrative on the cultural landscape history of the park
using mostly secondary but some primary sources and fieldwork. The second section
is a systematic overview of cultural landscape sites in the park using park materials
and publications and extended site surveys. The last section focuses on how the CLI
process played out in this particular park, as well as an assessment of why different
cultural landscapes have received different inventories thus far. Also included is a
discussion on properties that were not identified through the CLI process and what
that tells us about how the NPS evaluates cultural landscapes.
16


Chapter 5 is divided in two distinct sections: treatment and interpretation. How the
different treatments apply to different landscape types are discussed in the first
section, with a particular emphasis on vernacular landscapes. This is followed by an
examination of neglect as a kind of treatment (either active or passive), with possible
reasons why some cultural landscape sites are neglected. The second part looks at the
evolution of interpretation activities in the parks and how different cultural landscape
properties have been interpreted. This section emphasizes on-site interpretation
activities. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes by summarizing the outcome of the research,
followed by a discussion on the limitations and future directions of the work. This
chapter ends by offering recommendations that stem from this work for cultural
landscape preservation in the national parks.
17


CHAPTER 2
THE RISE OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION
In Chapter 2,1 review the emergence of Cultural Landscape Preservation out of two
distinct traditions: Historic Preservation and Cultural Landscape Studies. I then
review some of the persistent issues and criticisms in Cultural Landscape
Preservation, particularly those with the greatest implications for this research. I
conclude with a detailed discussion of the history of the National Park Services role
in Cultural Landscape Preservation up until the present day.
Origins and Development
Historic Preservation
The mandate of historic preservation is to maintain vestiges of the worlds diverse
cultural heritage, a task whose magnitude has increased dramatically of late in the
face of rapid globalization and cultural homogenization. Initial preservation efforts
focused on preserving individual structures of monumental stature, which were
associated with specific historical events or figures. Focus on the individual structure
often meant that the context of the building in terms of landscape and setting differed
18


markedly from the original and made the interpretation of history difficult. This
approach makes sense when one thinks of how culture and history were themselves
understood. History was not the tale of all peoples lives; it was simply the sequence
of events by which great changes occurred in society. Culture meant mostly high
culture, the realm of elites only. Thus, it was believed that history and culture were
adequately preserved by restoring those properties that were of monumental
architectural significance or associated with historic figures (Wallace 1996).
The mid-twentieth century saw a series of massive social changes, including global
de-colonization and worldwide movements for ethnic and gender equality. A
concurrent shift in the academic world led to a much wider understanding of the
nature of history, with a new awareness on the general relevance of social history. At
the same time, massive urban renewal projects were underway to revitalize large
sections of the American city left poor and decaying after the burgeoning middle
class moved to the suburbs en masse. Whole neighborhoods were being lost to the
wrecking ball in the name of progress. These two phenomena galvanized the historic
preservation movement and generated a paradigm shift about the fields mandate.
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 reflected the need to treat a
wider range of property types in order to ensure that a full cross-section of history
was preserved. Initially, this wider awareness of historical value was implemented
19


primarily through the concept of the historic district. According to the NHPA, these
are areas based on a recognizable historic character, and their boundaries determined
by the location of contributing buildings (National Historic Preservation Act 1966).
Although the designation as a historic district may lead to more stringent design
reviews mandated by local authorities, the area can continue its role as an active
commercial, industrial, economic or residential center; preservation of Denvers
Lower Downtown, Bostons Quincy Market, Seattles Pike Place, and hundreds of
other historic residential and commercial neighborhoods across the country grew out
of this approach. The widening of the scope of preservation led to the inclusion of a
greater variety of properties than before, since a single property within a district did
not need to be of exceptional value on its own. As a result, more vernacular styles
and neighborhoods associated with a wider range of social groups were recognized as
having historic value worthy of preservation. The fact that currently used properties
were recognized also meant that history became less divorced from present-day daily
life. Today historic districts are found across the country in communities of all sizes
and economic bases who preserve their neighborhoods to maintain a general sense of
historical context in their communities (Hamer 1998; Figure 2.1). This increasing
interest in context also resulted in a greater interest in the preservation of landscapes
in addition to buildings. To understand this trend, we must step back and consider the
parallel emergence of cultural landscape studies.
20


FIGURE 2.1: Quincy Market (Boston, Mass.)
Cultural Landscape Studies
Historic preservation was based on the idea that the past partly resides in architecture,
and that preserving architecture helps maintain a sense of the past. A parallel
realization, that the past can also reside in other patterns of human interaction with
the landscape, also emerged over the course of the twentieth century. The process of
understanding those patterns has come to be known as Cultural Landscape Studies.
Carl Sauer first used the term cultural landscape in his seminal essay The
Morphology of Landscapes (Sauer 1925). This work and others by Sauer made the
study of culture a central focus of geographic studies in the US.
21


At the time of Sauers writings, environmental determinism was a widely accepted
view, which proposed that the characteristics of the land largely determined the type
of culture that emerged there. Sauer dismissed the claims of the environmental
determinist model to show that it was not simply nature, but culture working with and
on nature, that created the geographical context in which we all live (Mitchell 2000).
Cultural landscapes, Sauer explained, were fashioned from a natural landscape by
a cultural group; culture is the agent, the natural area is the medium, the cultural
landscapes the result.(Sauer 1963). Based on this perspective, Sauer emphasized the
importance of studying the material artifacts of different cultures as a way of
understanding the cultures themselves.
The next fifty years saw a spate of cultural landscape studies on a variety of material
artifacts by students of Sauer. Among the early proponents of this framework was
Wilbur Zelinsky, who sought to find patterns in the distribution of cultural features in
the American landscape. In his work Zelinsky pushed the anthropological idea of the
superorganic, the idea that culture is palpably greater than the sum of its parts,
something with its own independent existence that can act on the landscape and the
people without their knowledge. In Zelinskys words, a culture practices us even
more than we practice it. (Zelinsky 1973). Given this view, Zelinsky argues that
culture did not reside so much in individuals relations to their society, but in larger-
22


scale geographic patterns of elements of the physical environment or other cultural
practices.
Pioneers of a more contextual study of ordinary (or everyday landscape) include
W.G. Hoskins in the UK and J.B. Jackson, Yi-Fu Tuan, Peirce Lewis, John Stilgoe
and Grady Clay in the US. This line of study started out following and furthering
Sauers ideas but in a more interpretive manner. Jackson first began thinking about
landscapes as human artifacts while in Europe during World War I. In the first issue
of Landscape magazine (which he founded), Jackson wrote that there is really no
such thing as a dull landscape, (Jackson 1951) which was a radical idea in the 1950s
when the ethos of the time implied that it was reasonable to focus on the dominant
culture and preserve its landmark structures. He explained cultural landscape as a
man-made composition of structures and spaces designed to serve the needs of its
inhabitants, and when those needs economic, social, [and] ideological change,
then the landscape changes. (Jackson 1990).
The importance of ordinary landscapes is a recurrent theme in all of Jacksons
writings; he saw the goal of his work as showing how to understand both the past and
present culture of a place by reading the patterns on the land. Jackson argues that the
contemporary American landscape is complex and various, and contains far more
than just architecture alone. From his observations of the landscapes he was able to
23


extract a sense of time and place as well as of the changing relationships between
people and the land and between individuals and their communities (Jackson 1994).
Jackson remains a pivotal figure in the field of cultural landscape studies and has
inspired a new generation of scholars who have brought new ideas, approaches and
subjects of study to the field. Like Jackson, Peirce Lewis also asserted the importance
of everyday landscapes in understanding place and culture, noting that even though
common landscapes may have little to display regarding the skilled work of
landscape architects, they have a great deal to inform about the people and the places
they create (Lewis 1993). Lewis also had trouble with the conventional treatment of
history by preservationists who focused on isolated grand buildings while ignoring
the context of which that building was a part. Putting up a picket fence, Lewis
suggested, implies that there is history only inside the fence, and anything that lies
outside the fence is not historical and therefore has little value. Such treatment also
separates the structure or the site from the geographic context, disrupting landscape
continuity. Although Lewis acknowledges that it is important to preserve individual
landmarks that are loaded with symbolism, these collective punctuation marks are
not enough to preserve the meaning in the landscape (Lewis 1979).
While the earlier cultural landscape studies focused on finding uniformity in the
landscape (especially in the work of Zelinsky) more recent studies strive to find
meaning both in the commonalities and differences in the landscape. Recent studies
24


often focus explicitly on diversity, as seen in Haydens The Power of Place: Urban
Landscapes as Public History, in which she proposes perspectives on gender, race
and ethnic uniformity in Los Angeles urban communities. Paul Groth, Jacksons
protege, has attempted to synthesize many of the recent developments in the field,
and has compiled a set of tenets to define the framework of cultural landscape studies.
These tenets define the scope of everyday landscapes, establish their importance,
identify common themes in current scholarship, and outline the range of research
methods used in the field. In this and his subsequent writings, the study of so-called
ordinary landscapes remains clearly central to the field of cultural landscape studies
(Groth 1997).
A new generation of scholars trained largely in Britain in the tradition of social
geography (instead of cultural geography as in the US), have in the last decade begun
to focus on cultural issues more critically, arguing that the American critics of the
Sauerian model are in many ways still operating within a Sauerian paradigm. The
new geographers argue that individuals are not as oblivious to the greater cultural
forces acting on them and the landscape as previous scholars suggested. For
example, Schein argues that in the earlier framework, culture appeared external to
the individual, thus denying human agency or the individuals ability to effect cultural
(and thus landscape) change.(Schein 1997) Other new geographers go further and
offer a more explicitly post-modern view of culture not as a unitary phenomenon, but
25


as a contested and constantly negotiated one. Cultural geography, then, must focus
on issues of hegemony and resistance. By ignoring the complexity that arises from
such negotiations, they argue, Sauer and his American followers and critics alike have
placed unnecessary emphasis on the rural and antiquarian, narrowly focused on
physical artifacts (log cabins, fences, and field boundaries). (Cosgrove and Jackson
1987). In the process, they mask many problematic social, economic and political
relationships. (Duncan 1980). These scholars reject Sauers strictly morphological
methods in favor of more critical and interpretive methods including approaches that
are post-modern, post-structural and identity-based (e.g. feminist and queer theory).
These include anthropologist Clifford Geertzs thick description, in which the
phenomenon of study is described from multiple perspectives, disentangling the
layers of meaning with which the phenomenon has been imbued (Geertz 1973).
Recent scholars all agree that people play an important role in shaping the landscape
(Figure 2.2), which in turn reflects their cultural values and ideologies. Studying the
patterns in the land thus helps in understanding the history of a place, and making
sure that those patterns are not completely lost takes on great value. Nevertheless, for
the most part we continue to see that "much of the everyday environment that can
significantly contribute towards an understanding of the place is overlooked and
undervalued. (Groth 1997)
26


FIGURE 2.2: Landscape patterns created by pivot
irrigation (San Luis Valley, Colo.)
Cultural Landscape Preservation
As described in the previous two sections, historic preservation (in its modem form
since 1966) and cultural landscape studies developed over roughly the same time
period, the mid 20th century to the present. Historic preservation is concerned with
preserving a sense of cultural history in the built environment, while cultural
landscape studies have provided the argument that this sense is found as much in
patterns of landscapes as in architecture. Cultural landscape studies thus helped
preservationists realize the cultural and historical value of landscapes. The resulting
awareness that landscapes needed to be managed in ways that parallel the
27


management of architectural resources has had a profound impact upon the course of
historic preservation.
Prior to this development, the field of historic preservation mostly ignored landscape.
Such bias is particularly evident in earlier preservation projects that on the one hand
took painstaking care with the details of a buildings restoration to maintain its
authenticity, and on the other hand merely touched up the landscape to make it
generally compatible and often not even that. In other cases, the landscape was
ignored altogether, or actually redesigned using styles unrelated to the original
design, harming the integrity of the site (Buggey 1998). For instance, even today at
the Taj Mahal site, one of the worlds most celebrated architectural treasures, the
gardens continue to receive little treatment at the same time that the buildings are the
focus of intense scrutiny. The British altered the century-old Mughal gardens to make
them look more European, replacing some of the dense original plantings with more
tame lawns. Details of the historic design are known from early memoirs, yet this
information remains ignored, and the gardens continue to differ greatly from the
buildings period of significance. In addition, the twenty-four acres of the Mahtab
Bagh (Moonlight Gardens) at Taj Mahal remain buried under silt and subject to 2
2 One can certainly argue that the British design is itself historic. However, the Taj itself has been
restored to a specific period of time, and the time period represented by the gardens is radically
different. Furthermore, no attempt to interpret this difference or inform the public of it is made at the
site.
28


vandalism (Moynihan et al. 2000). This all despite the fact that the buildings have
been the recipient of one of the most sustained, coordinated efforts at preservation in
the world.
In the early years, when landscape was considered, it was usually in garden
restorations for estates designed by known designersas with architecture, the initial
attempts at landscape preservation centered on those built and owned by the wealthy.
Early landscape architects took the responsibility for these restoration projects. Arthur
A. Shurcliff, a student of Olmsted, conducted countless restorations of plantations and
estates, including Carters Grove in Virginia. Much of this work was based on
landscape archaeology, in which the nature of the historic landscape was
determined through fieldwork along with historical records.
The only other common type of landscape management was that of natural
landscapes such as the work of the National Park Service (NPS). In this case
however, the goal was usually the opposite of both historians and archaeologists: to
remove all traces of human activity and create an impression of wilderness. When
the NPS did work on cultural landscapes, it used an archaeological framework. This
resulted largely from the fact that many of the cultural landscapes that the NPS was
dealing with were Native American in origin, and the cultures that shaped them had
29


either been relocated or decimated to such a degree that the landscapes were no
longer in use.
It might seem that the development of the Historic District concept in 1966 would
automatically lead to a greater emphasis on landscape in preservation, since districts
necessarily contain a landscape component. In practice however the early focus
remained on the collection of buildings themselves. Most of the early districts were
urban, and while their reports catalogued each building in detail, issues of landscape
significance entered primarily when the district contained a designed park or plaza.
Interest in the landscape as a repository of cultural and historical meaning remained
low until the creation of the Rural Historic District designation in the 1980s (Melnick
1984). Even today, many urban historic districts pay little attention to maintaining
landscape continuity outside of parks (designed landscapes), and sometimes not even
that (as seen in the case of Occidental Park in Seattles trendy Pioneer Square
neighborhood, which faces demolition threats). Unfortunately designed landscapes
are expected to change as much as building interiors to keep up with the changing
nature of urban life.
Thus, up until the 1970s, the focus of landscape preservation was almost entirely on
natural landscapes and high-style designed landscapes, and even many examples of
these were ignored. These two foci largely determined our initial understanding of
30


the field, and the bulk of landscapes that fall outside of these categories remained
ignored. These include virtually all landscapes that had evolved without any direct
involvement of design professionals but in which the evidence of human influence is
fundamental. Some of the more well-known examples of these in the US include the
farming landscapes of the Amish people in central Pennsylvania or the mining
landscapes of both the Mountain West and Appalachia. Throughout this period, the
former were not usually thought of as needing protection (since they were in active
use) while the latter were dismissed as derelict and worth forgetting (Frankaviglia
1992).
By the 1970s however, expanding suburban growth patterns throughout the United
States were consuming rural landscape at an alarming rate. Farmland and prairie were
among the most threatened landscapes, since they did not have the same protected
status as many natural landscapes such as forests. This process more than any other
led to the awareness that cultural meaning would be lost if our vernacular landscapes
were allowed to be overrun. Although this concept was initially applied primarily to
agricultural landscapes (e.g. the Boulder Open Space Program), it quickly expanded
to include other types of vernacular landscapes such as mining or railroading sites
(Figure 2.3). These developments also led to an increased awareness of a broader
variety of designed landscape worthy of preservation beyond just gardens. Parks,
parkways, cemeteries, memorials, and planned communities had all seen years of
31


FIGURE 2.3: The irrigated landscapes of
Viejo San Acacio, Colo.
neglect, even those designed by the most celebrated landscape architect in American
history, Frederick Law Olmsted. In 1980, when New York City and the Central Park
Conservancy began the restoration work on Central Park, much of the original design
had changed due to years of neglect and incongruous additions and alterations. The
meadows that Olmsted created in his picturesque vision were by this point either
overgrown or re-surfaced for active recreation such as basketball, tennis and baseball
(Alanen and Melnick 2000).
Recognizing the value in preserving cultural landscapes was one thing; implementing
this awareness in practice was quite another. In 1978, a small group of professionals
met for a symposium in New Harmony, Indiana and created the Alliance for Historic
32


Landscape Preservation.3 Around the same time the American Society of Landscape
Architects (ASLA) formed a historic preservation committee that classified
landscapes in three broad categories: designed landscapes, cultural landscapes and
natural landscapes (Murtagh 1988).4 The NPS recognized cultural landscapes as a
resource type in the early 1980s; their subsequent role in cultural landscape
preservation will be discussed in greater depth in the next section.
Early international preservation charters also focused on buildings while mostly
ignoring the landscape component. This archicentric view can be gleaned from the
language of the Venice Charter, formulated by the International Council of
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) in 1964 as a set of international guidelines for the
conservation and restoration of monuments and sites. The charter dwells considerably
on issues of authenticity in conservative restoration (Jokilehto 1998), which was
understandable given the spate of historically insensitive restoration activities in
Europe following WWII. Nevertheless, there was little inclusion of the larger context
of cultures that created the heritage being preserved until 1994, when the Nara
Document on Authenticity expanded upon the Venice Charter and attended to
3 The alliance is an interdisciplinary professional organization and an advocacy group whose purpose is
to help preserve historic landscapes of all types.
4 The group has become a professional interest group of ASLA that serves as a forum for landscape
architects interested in historic preservation.
33


questions of both cultural diversity and cultural specificity (LeMaire and Stovel
1994).
UNESCO, the leading agency conducting international cultural landscape
preservation, describes cultural landscapes as follows:
Cultural landscapes represent the "combined works of nature and of man."
They are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over
time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities
presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic
and cultural forces, both external and internal. (UNESCO 1996)
UNESCO (1996) divides cultural landscapes into three types:
Landscape designed and created intentionally by man: The category
includes garden and parkland and landscapes associated with buildings and
part of an ensemble.
Organically evolved landscape: Landscape in this category reflect the
social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has
developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural
environment."
Associative cultural landscape: such landscapes are associated with
powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element
rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even
absent.
The Burra Charter, originally formulated by the Australian ICOMOS in 1979 and
subsequently revised three times (most recently in 1999), has done much to develop
approaches to the treatment of associative cultural landscapes. Unlike other charters,
34


the Burra Charter includes a focus on the non-tangible aspects of cultural
significance, particularly meanings that people ascribe to places important to them.
The Charter also recognizes the need for people with traditional ties to places to be
actively involved in the decision-making process. It is not surprising that these
developments occurred in Australia, whose aboriginal populations are known for
placing deep spiritual significance on landscape.
Critiques of Cultural Landscape Preservation
Deciding what to preserve and how to preserve it remain unending debates in historic
preservation; the underlying theoretical issues are especially complex for the
preservation of cultural landscapes. Recent approaches to historic preservation may
be genuinely more pluralistic than their predecessors, but they are still not without
their problems. Here I discuss some of the ongoing difficulties with preservation in
general and cultural landscape preservation specifically, with a focus on those that
will relate most directly to the research I present in the following chapters. Perhaps
the most extensive critique of preservation practice revolves around its potential
contribution to the process of gentrification and the negative impacts on displaced
low-income residents. A landscape equivalent of this issue would be the gentleman
farmer, who in some convoluted way is responsible for the disruption of traditional
(and economically necessary) land practices. This occurs when parcels of agricultural
landscapes that maintain their idyllic character beyond the edge of the sprawl become
35


attractive places for the wealthy to develop country estates and recreational ranches,
which displace family farmers.
A relevant line of criticism revolves around questions of whether much of
preservation practice propagates a contrived sense of history by presenting the past in
a form that never previously existed. By way of controls, districts or sites become
more historic as time passes and as the non-conforming structures are erased,
replaced by those that blend better with the prevailing style and period of the setting.
As a result, such properties become more homogeneous with time, creating the
impression that the past was itself more uniform that it really was (Hamer 1998,
Figure 2.4). Jackson explains this phenomenon in the context of historic districts as
the dramatic discontinuity invoked by historic preservation. Most built
environments that become historic districts start out in a golden age of prosperity,
followed by a period when the golden age is forgotten and the area experiences
economic decline. Preservation comes when the area is rediscovered, and generally
means returning to the golden age, not any of the other equally significant historic
periods in the life of the area (Jackson 1980). Another related critique of contrived
sense of history is that the physical landscape may be retained accurately, but through
curatorship rather than as an expression of living culture, raising numerous questions
of authenticity and changed meaning. For instance, many of our nations historic
battle sites were grazing fields or other agricultural lands at the time their role in
36


FIGURE 2.4: Adobe fa9ade covering the original
Neoclassical style to match the rest of the district; First
National Bank (Santa Fe, NM)
history became assured, including much of Gettysburg. Nowadays they are mowed
as part of groundskeeping operations, rather than through grazing; this may keep the
grass short, but in a way that some would question as compromising the sites
historical authenticity.
In the same vein, historic preservation as practiced often undermines the realities of
life in the period of history it seeks to preserve. For example, Central City, Colorado,
Virginia City, Nevada and countless other mining communities sanitize the culture of
mining, leaving out the drudgery and danger and celebrating the freewheeling attitude
of the Wild West, not because the latter is a better reflection of life in a 19th century
37


FIGURE 2.5: Freewheeling Wild West show
(Virginia City, Nevada)
mining town but simply because it sells better (Figure 2.5). People enjoy visiting
places where there is a sense of history, but they dont necessarily understand when
the sense that is conveyed is truly appropriate to the setting and not a romanticized
version (Wallace 1996). As a result, some scholars have likened historic districts
(especially the Main Street approach) to themed environments that resemble Disneys
Main Street USA. Francaviglia calls this phenomenon imagineered heritage
landscapes.(Frankaviglia 2000). The type of places historic preservation creates may
not be historically accurate but they enjoy a wide popularity since they appeal to a
radically new concept of history and of the meaning of history. (Jackson 1980).
38


Since the majority of historic preservation deals with historic buildings, another
criticism is that preservation focuses mostly on the exteriors of buildings.
Fa9adism, as this phenomenon is sometimes called, is discredited for not
concerning itself with the entire historic fabric. Merely saving the shells of old
buildings, skeptics note, does not lead to preserving the spirit of the time and place.
The underlying issue of context is much broader than simply the question of building
exterior versus building interior. As seen in the examples above, the concern can
apply equally to preserving buildings without the appropriate landscape context; or
saving individual buildings and landscapes without considering the larger urban (or
rural) form. This becomes a question of scale, with preservation work ranging from a
specific site to entire regions. As the scale increases so does the complexity of
management of the resources in the landscapes. For example, Colorados San Luis
Valley contains an enormous system of vernacular irrigation ditches intertwined by
laterals, along with associated structures, farmlands and rows of cottonwood trees, all
covering an area larger than Rhode Island; the preservation issues for such a
landscape are far more complex than for a single farmstead.
Part of the reason that questions of context and scale plague cultural landscape
preservation so strongly is that the concept of a cultural landscape is itself fluid and
often very general. The NPS definition of a cultural landscape (a geographic area
including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals
39


therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other
cultural or aesthetic values) could arguably include almost any landscape on Earth;
the UNESCO definition is similarly general. This issue of generality is inherent in
the very idea of ordinary landscapes. In practice, landscape management decisions
usually come down to a question of degree; those that receive designation and
treatment are generally the ones that either most clearly represent common historical
trends, or possess more unique cultural or aesthetic value than others (and are
therefore extraordinary in their ordinariness, paradoxically). Short of placing all
landscapes into the domain of collective management (which could be seen as one
objective of a strong regional planning approach), some prioritization decisions must
be made; the generalness of the very definition of ordinary landscapes leaves much
room for subjectivity and political wrangling to enter the process, and even to come
to the fore.
A landscape can be seen at different scales in which a particular period of
significance overlays and is overlaid by cultural landscapes of other periods, and
with modem land use. (Cook 1996). As a result, its component features may require
different treatments as one approach will not suffice for the entire property. Perhaps
this is the reason why the National Register lists cultural landscapes as a set of
districts and sites, rather than as a separate category. However, by forcing cultural
landscapes into a sites-and-districts framework, the National Register runs the risk of
40


devaluing the landscape itself in favor of some of the architectural ensembles found
within. In practice, built features on the sites are easier to comprehend than subtle
landscape connections and other intangibles; however, by reducing a landscape to its
component pieces, there is a risk that our understanding of the relationships between
the pieces themselves might be lost (Alanen and Melnick 2000).
Preservation can also be complicated by the fact that the meaning of a site being
preserved may be different for different people, or may be something some would
rather forget. Kenneth Foote discusses many examples of the latter in his book
Shadowed Ground (Foote 1997), reviewing sites associated with some past stigma or
tragedy. Given the complicated nature of preserving and interpreting such sites,
Foote notes that they are far more likely to be ignored than are sites that recall a
triumphant and joyful past. Hiding uncomfortable details at historic sites when they
pertain to contested social issues such as sexual identity is a common interpretative
practice (Loewen 1999). In cases where changing perspectives on history have led to
revised interpretation, a number of sites have opted not to replace the original
interpretation, but rather to leave it up and add an additional layer that effectively
interprets the original interpretation as its own piece of history. A good example is
in Santa Fe Plaza, where the central marker refers to Native Americans as savages.
A separate marker has been added to explain the changing perspectives of Native
Americans by Whites over time. A similar phenomenon can be seen on the
41


In the year 2001, the Seattle Sesquicentenrnal celebrates
the courage of these women who crossed land and sea
to accompany their families to this unknown shore.
RKfetm to Oregdii
Mary Ann Baren Denny
Lydia Culbom Low
Mary Kays Boren
Sarah Ann Peter Bell
Louisa Boren
The.S&hbon'cr EXACT
Portland, Oregon to Aild
£ Day*
jffifttttei swei&, HSmiW,1 >' .Mg!, win mfrui <*>* % ?H90( TKfurmm
FIGURE 2.6: Revisionist plaque honoring women pioneers
on the Founders Monument (Seattle, Wash.)
monument commemorating the founding of the city of Seattle. The original
monument, erected in 1951 to celebrate 100 years of white settlement, lists the male
members of the settler party by name, but the females by the phrase and wife.
Two additional plaques have since been attached to sides of the monument; one
listing the female pioneers by name and celebrating their unique spirit (Figure 2.6),
and one to the Duwamish people who inhabited the area at the time of European
settlement.
A final issue complicating cultural landscape preservation is that it invariably deals
with living parts (i.e. plant, animal and human species) that interact with one another
in complex ways. However, since most landscape preservation deals with places as
a holistic concept, the goal is not so much for the individual parts to retain historical
42


continuity (i.e. replacing each lost tree in a landscape with another of its original
species) but rather for the landscape as a whole to retain meaning. Maintaining a
general sense of place can be a lot more abstract, and a lot more difficult, than
simply conserving bricks and mortar. In the rush to focus attention on the dynamic
nature of landscapes, some professionals (both theorists and practitioners) have gone
to the extreme of arguing that landscape preservation is essentially impossible and
futile. But by doing so they ignore the fact that different components of the landscape
may change on vastly different time scales (for instance, in most landscapes geology
or hydrology will change at a much slower timescale than vegetation), or that some
kinds of change may be more a part of the landscape system historically than others.
Accepting that the biotic components in the landscape will change does not imply that
concepts of preservation or management need to be discarded. Today it is widely
accepted that landscape preservation is less about preventing and more about
directing change, so that historic meaning remains legible in the environment.5 This
leads to the most fundamental question landscape preservationists must answer
what change is appropriate and what is not? The answer to this question is landscape
specific, culture specific and hence highly subjective, especially in vernacular
landscapes. Cultural landscape studies interact with historic preservation at this point,
by providing the theoretical framework in which such decisions can be made.
5 This point about managing change has been discussed by several authors in the field of historic
preservation, including Lynch (1976).
43


Uneasy Coexistence: the National Park Service
and Cultural Landscapes
The Early Years
The NPS has been a major actor in the contemporary practice of landscape
architecture and landscape preservation in the US. Here I will discuss the changing
concept of landscape in historical context in order to understand the ideological
framework in which the NPS was created and in which their ensuing management
practices have evolved. I will look at the design of landscapes and the inventory as
well as treatment and interpretation of cultural landscapes in the national parks, since
they form the center of the research that follows.
The federal government as a whole plays a significant role in the management of
cultural landscapes in the US, especially in the west, where the majority of land is
under its jurisdiction. The National Park Service is the largest manager of identified
cultural landscapes, although other agencies such as the US Forest Service, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department
of Defense also hold and maintain cultural landscapes within their expansive
holdings. The BLM, for instance, has 381 historic properties listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, many of which contain a significant landscape component
(National Register Information System 2004)
44


The NPS administers units ranging in size from vast stretches of the Alaskan Arctic to
single buildings in urban settings. As of 2004, there were 388 properties in their
jurisdiction; 58 were designated as National Parks, often considered the crown
jewels of the system, although this number is slowly growing.6 All but eleven of
these are located west of the Mississippi River (Figure 2.7). The NPS is housed
within the federal Department of the Interior, and is financed through a combination
of federal support and park user fees. Although the first national park (Yellowstone)
was established in 1872, the NPS did not come into existence for another four
decades. Responsibility for administrating the parks at first fell to the Army; with the
passage of the Antiquities Act in 1906, historical and archaeological sites (including
the parks) then came under the purview of the Department of the Interior. The
National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 created the National Park Service within
the department, making it responsible for the management of cultural resources.
Stephen T. Mather, a Sierra Club member and businessman, was named as the first
director (Runte 1997).
The Organic Act clarified the details of the new agencys role, mandating it to
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and
6 The two most recent additions are Congaree National Park in South Carolina and Great Sand Dunes
National Park in Colorado, both of which were upgraded from National Monuments by Congress in
2004.
45


Olympic
"te
m Mount Rani a
fr>~-
Glaaa
i >
/" Thwdare \
Roosevelt
Redvqod
/
Voyageurs
l3le Royale
\
i
WmdCye
~L.
Rocky Mountain
Arches
x Cariyanlands .
KmgsCanyan v \ *
Senutie * ' BtyceC3,iyoCa{itd / BladsCatiycin oftheGuwseai
Death'. -Zion* *GrJSandDunes
Valley \ p'CkttdCttycri" ----------------
J Verde 11HT------1-----
\ Ftetxified Forest
I
...(
Charnd
Islsids
Joshua ,
Tr**
Saguaro
C^bfcad Caverns
Oiadaliye Moui^a
l.
'V*
Big Bend

Cuyahoga Valley
Shehendoah
£ MammothCare ^-
* *_______-----------
jr' Great Smoky Mountans
_____
Ho* Springe

vCop^ae
I .-X
Gates of the Arte
: Valley
Denali
Lake Clark Wrangell- Sr Ellas
. easier Bap
American Saves
National Park of
American Samoa
# Bisceyne
* Everglades
Dry Tartugas
Puerto Rico and Virgin Island*
Virgin Islands
Haweii Volcanoes
FIGURE 2.7: The locations of the National Parks, the
majority of which are in the West
to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1,
1916; Figure 2.8). Today we recognize that this mandate contains an inherent
tension; attempting to leave ecology and culture unimpaired is not completely
possible when providing resources through which visitors can experience it,
particularly for the volume of visitors that the parks have had to accommodate in
46


FIGURE 2.8: Roosevelt Arch, proclaiming the
parks mission (Yellowstone NP)
recent decades.7 Moreover, for landscapes that are naturally dynamic, identifying
whether observed changes represent natural phenomena (and thus appropriate) or
human-induced impairment (and thus bad) can in many cases be stubbornly
difficult. We now recognize that many of the areas we previously thought of as
wilderness had in fact been shaped by human intervention for years, including the
cultural landscapes that form the focus of this work. For these, removing all
intervention and leaving lands unimpaired would in fact lead to new changes. The
7 That the NPS have been striving to maintain balance between preservation and use in order to fulfill
its dual mandate has been a subject of extensive discussions by environmental historians, especially
Chase (1987) and Sellars (1997).
47


NPS has been struggling to fulfill these contradictions in its mandate since the
beginning, and has by necessity made changing decisions over the years regarding
appropriate approaches to landscape management.
Congress did not purposefully enact a law that was paradoxical, for in the concepts of
landscape that prevailed at the time the bill made sense. Prior to the late-19th century,
the west had been viewed almost exclusively in terms of its potential for resource
exploitation. At that time public lands could be freely accessed by homesteaders for a
variety of activities, including ranching, grazing, fishing and mining. The end of the
19th century (the decades before the NPS was officially established) saw the rise of a
new ethos towards wilderness. The Transcendentalists and the Romantics, such as
Thoreau, John Muir and the members of the nascent Sierra Club, viewed wilderness
as a sentimental and spiritual territory to be held in reverence. Popularizing the
themes of sublime and transcendental in nature, the early conservationists urged
the federal government to apply restrictions to the use of public lands to protect them.
The formation of the US Forest Service (USFS) in 1905 took control of the forests
and limited use by charging fees and issuing permits for use of public lands, but their
model was based on sustainable use and less on stewardship of wilderness. Those that
worked the lands for a living loathed the government interference, criticizing the
conservation movement (perhaps accurately) as representing values of the urban elite.
48


Some even argued that such restrictions were unconstitutional. Despite the
controversy, the USFS prevailed. Gifford Pinchota Yale- and European-trained
forester became the first director of the new agency, and under his leadership the
USFS began to draw upon a newly emerging set of methods known as practical
forestry that were enjoying considerable success in Europe. The approach viewed
the landscape primarily through a scientific rather than a romantic lens, and attempted
to preserve the basic ecology of an area while still allowing commercial use of the
land (Pinchot 1899).
As USFS policy developed, a growing number of purists took issue with such so-
called wise use practices, which they saw as desecrating the transcendental qualities
found in non-human nature. They re-asserted their demands that the federal
government preserve nature unused so that humanity could reap its spiritual
benefits. Aldo Leopard and other scientists claimed that the preservation of
undisturbed nature was imperative for the preservation of humanity, giving scientific
validity to the notion of wilderness preservation. With Fredrick Jackson Turners
claim of the vanishing frontier, a growing number of unsatisfied urbanites pushed
even more for preserving nature so that there would be some place to escape from the
industrial cities. These disparate views played out most strongly in the national
controversy over the damming of the Tuolumne River in Californias Hetch Hetchy
Valley in the first decade of the twentieth century (Figure 2.9), now seen as a
49


I
FIGURE 2.9: The expanses of Hetch Hetchy Valley
prior to damming (Yosemite NP)
fundamental galvanizing moment in the nascent American environmental movement
(Nash 1982). The National Park Service was bom in the midst of these conflicts over
humanitys proper relationship to wilderness, and it was in this climate that the
visions of the park creators were translated into policies and implemented as
management practices in parks across the nation. The fact lost in all of these debates
was that there was not really any pure wilderness untouched by humanity to
preserve in the first place. Native Americans had used most of the landscapes that
were being preserved for millennia, shaping their form through wildfires, hunting
and agriculture. The myth of the wilderness as virgin uninhabited lands, notes
Cronon, has been especially cruel when seen from the perspective of Indians who
had once called that land home. (Cronon 1995b). Most western parks were created
by dispossessing Indians from their ancestral lands (Figure 2.10), forcing them to
discontinue centuries-old traditional uses within the park boundaries (Spense 1999).
50


In the east, where the Native Americans had long since been displaced, the NPS used
the power of eminent domain to remove unwanted European- and African-American
residents from the land. In the future Shenandoah National Park, for instance,
residents were evacuated; their farmhouses were tom down, and the working
landscapes were reclaimed for wilderness. The landscapes then became used
primarily as safe recreational getaways for the elite urban tourists, since few others
Q
could afford the time or money to visit them (Figure 2.11). 8
8 Even today, the parks have few visitations from minority and poor communities, something the NPS
is exploring ways to rectify (Floyd 2001).
51


A
FIGURE 2.11: Early visitors enjoying the geysers
(Yellowstone NP)
In some cases, out of political necessity the NPS allowed a subset of residents to
retain possession or the lease on the land. These inholdings were often seen by the
parks as obstacles in carrying out their management agendas. In time the agency
would acquire the majority of the private properties in the national parks, so this
complication has been steadily declining. On the other hand, a conflict of a somewhat
similar nature is on the rise, as Native peoples are re-asserting their right to gain
access to the parks to carry out traditional practices, some of which are at odds with
NPS management goals. For instance, the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe has been
objecting to the interpretation of Death Valley NP, using language and images that
represent their ancestral homeland as full of death and bleakness. (Hardesty 2000).
52


Such conflicts are likely to rise as more and more tribes assert their claim to lands
from where their ancestors were unceremoniously banished, and as it becomes less
politically acceptable to ignore such claims.
The pristine wilderness myth fostered by all of these removals causes harm not only
towards the populations that are removed from the wilderness. As first argued by
Cronon, it can also create a threat to responsible environmentalism as it leads to the
neglect of nature that is not real. That is, it teaches us that the tree in the backyard is
less significant than the tree in Yosemite, when both may perhaps require the same
management and care. With this view so ingrained in our psyche, we do not regard
urban nature with respect, and continue our wasteful approaches to land and resources
in settled areas, including sprawl growth. This view can also make environmentalists
less concerned about human problems in non-wild environments even when these
problems are environmental in nature. If we continue to view ourselves apart from
nature in this way, there is very little we can learn about co-existence, harmony and
about the sustainable, honorable human place in nature. (Cronon 1995b)
Although we are now getting used to thinking of culture and nature as intertwined, at
the time of the NPSs creation the two were still seen as opposites. As a result, the
NPS initially held little concern in preserving cultural landscapes in their natural
properties, and in many cases they worked deliberately to obliterate traces of
53


FIGURE 2.12: Planned destruction of historic site
(Rocky Mountain NP)
humanized landscapes in favor of wilderness or the appearance of wilderness (Figure
2.12). Examples of such obliterations can be seen (or rather, not seen) in most parks,
and continue even to this day. In Rocky Mountain National Park, for instance, the
NPS razed most dude ranches within the park boundaries (Ditmer 1996). The mining
camps have been lost through a benign neglect policy that allowed them to decay
into ruins. Had it not been for the intervention of the National Trust for Historic
Preservation and the local community, the NPS would have demolished the now-
cherished McGraw Ranch in 1993 as well, considering demolition to be the most
cost-effective measure.
54


FIGURE 2.13: Early interest in Native American
archaeology (Mesa Verde NP)
One major exception to cultural landscape destruction in the national parks, even in
the early years of the NPS, was the grand Native American archaeological sites,
primarily in the southwest in parks like Mesa Verde and Grand Canyon (Figure 2.13).
Most native cultural landscapes are referred to as ethnographic landscapes by the
NPS and managed as Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) or archaeological sites.
Critics argue that by placing emphasis on these landscapes and having them managed
solely as archaeological sites, the NPS helps create the impression that all Native
culture was dead and buried at the time of colonial expansion into the area, rather
than active and continually altering the landscape. This only makes the Native world
seem more distant from the general American experience that the parks aim to
55


interpret. Bouse argues that the 19th century view of the human world and the natural
world as distinct generally placed Native Americans as part of nature rather than
humanity, and the NPS has only contributed to the perpetuation of that viewpoint,
whether consciously or not (Bouse 1996). At times, the NPS took a similar approach
to cultural landscapes associated with European Americans as well; in Great Smoky
National Park, for instance, they attempted to preserve an Appalachian mining town
as a ffozen-in-time museum after the local population was removed, creating the
impression of a town that had already been abandoned when the park was created
(Pierce 2000).
At the same time that vernacular landscapes were being erased from park properties,
the NPS needed to construct new landscapes to service the visitor. Landscape
architects played a significant role in the development of the national parks from the
beginning, especially during the parks early years, when the scenic rather than
ecological values of the landscape were of primary concern (McClelland 1998).
Among these landscape architects was Frederick Law Olmsted, whose vision of
design that drew from the surroundings and blended into them as much as possible
took early prominence (Carr 1998). Olmsted wanted the parks to provide physical,
mental and spiritual rejuvenation, and pushed for harmonizing designs as a result.
This vision continued through the depression years, when the Civilian Conservation
Corps (CCC) of the New Deal undertook a considerable amount of park
56


I
i
FIGURE 2.14: CCC crew at work (Mesa Verde NP)
improvements and conservation (Figure 2.14; Paige 1985). In all of their work they
continued the Olmsted- and Downing-inspired framework of rusticated design that
has come to be known as parkitecture. This general approach is not without its
modem critics, who argue that hiding the human-made elements of the landscape
perpetuates the artificial division of nature and culture in the mind of the visitor
(Spim 1995).
During the post WWII period, the economic boom and rise of the middle class
resulted in an enormous surge of visitors to the parks. Moreover, most of these were
now arriving in personal vehicles, whereas park visitation had thus far been largely by
package tour in partnership with the railroad companies serving gateway towns
57


FIGURE 2.15: Mission 66 signage (Grand Teton NP)
(Chase 1987). Although Olmsted had to some degree anticipated the effects of rising
visitation on park integrity, the NPS was not fully prepared for the massive scale of
change. In 1956, the agency introduced the Mission 66 program, a federally funded
program to update many of the park facilities, including improvement of roads,
provisions for parking, and the construction of new visitor centers. Moreover,
Mission 66 was a conscious attempt to connect to the ethos of the new automobile era
(Figure 2.15). The debates of half a century before over the parks spiritual essence
were gone; now, technology was seen as the savior of humanity, and the new style
reflected this viewpoint very clearly. Architecture focused on angular glass and metal,
while landscape architecture made less effort to blend in or to minimize automobiles
visual impact. Many of the developments from this period, such as the Gettysburg
58


FIGURE 2.16: Cyclorama (Gettysburg National
Military Park)
Cyclorama (Figure 2.16) and the Paradise Visitor Center in Mount Rainier National
Park, are currently facing demolition as the park returns to its more naturalistic
architectural roots, although there are those who wish to see them saved as an integral
part of the NPSs historical development (Bernstein 2001).
In the meantime, visitation continued to rise, causing some parks to experience ever
more elaborate conflicts between the goals of providing visitor services and
maintaining the integrity of the landscapes that everyone comes to see in the first
place. Perhaps nowhere is this crisis more acute (and more famous) than in Yosemite
Valley, where summer weekends can see urban levels of air quality and traffic.
59


Recently the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially
designated several national parks, including Rocky Mountain National Park, the focus
of Chapter 4, as polluted containing unhealthy ozone levels. The NPS has also
overhauled many environmental practices since the 1960s. Our scientific
understanding of ecosystems was not great in the earlier part of the 20th century, and
the NPS committed a number of practices that we now recognize as ecologically
unsound. These include habitat fragmentation, overgrazing and loss of ground cover
(resulting from the removal of predators) and the suppression of natural fires, among
others (Figure 2.17).9 Recent years have seen a revision of these practices and a
dramatic increase in the number of scientists conducting research in and contributing
knowledge to the management of the park landscapes in ways that maintain
biodiversity. As they have become increasingly concerned with environmental
degradation, the NPS has turned away slightly from its emphasis on tourism
development to more concern with tourism management. Long gone are the days
when they used captured park animals for circus shows to amuse the visitors.10
9 Hess (1993) discusses many such ecological issues specific to Rocky Mountain National Park.
10 Since tourists felt rewarded by animal viewings, the NPS for many years arranged for animal
shows, such as the famous bear shows in Yosemite, in which bear were tempted to feed from trashcans
in view of the public. These shows were extremely popular and continued well into the 1960s. Plans
to keep caged animals by the roadside in Rocky Mountain National Park for tourists to view from their
automobile were seriously considered, but thankfully never implemented (Buchholtz 1983).
60


V*
A
FIGURE 2.17: Trapping of predators (Yellowstone NP)
An outcome of the greater understanding of parks as part of a larger ecosystem has
the NPS taking interest in regions where the national parks are located. Some
national parks such as Rocky Mountain are too small to be viable independent
ecosystems, so it becomes necessary to plan regionally to be able to maintain wildlife
migratory corridors yet allow for new developments. The gateway towns that have
sprung up around many parks to provide added tourist infrastructure are sometimes
seen as potential threats to conservation if not properly managed. Thus the NPSs
landscape concerns now extend into the realm of community planning. Unfortunately,
neighboring residents are not always happy to engage in partnerships with the NPS,
who in some cases are seen as threats to the neighbors continued livelihood. As the
NPS has begun to reintroduce endangered predatory species such as the gray wolf and
61


allowed some wildfires to persist, ranchers and other neighbors have felt increasingly
threatened.11
Changing Attitudes Codified: the Historic
Preservation Law of 1966
Paralleling the growth of awareness in ecological management was the rise in concern
for historic preservation as reviewed in the beginning of this chapter. The Historic
Preservation Act and the Environmental Protection Act, passed in 1966 and 1969,
respectively, required the NPS to balance the intrinsic duality between preservation
and active use found in the original NPS Act. Since then the preservation of historic
structures has begun to receive more attention, although cultural landscapes still much
less so. Not until the 1980s did cultural landscape preservation begin to come into
focus. In 1981, the NPS released the first edition of their directive titled Cultural
Resources Management Guideline (NPS Directive 28), officially recognizing cultural
landscapes as a separate resource type. Robert Melnick helped to define the methods
of the new approach with his 1984 study (Melnick 1984). In 1989, the NPS
published a National Register Bulletin (with Melnick again as an author) titled
Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Districts that discusses
11 Reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone NP in the 1990s from where they had been driven to
extinction earlier still remains a subject of controversy and discussion in popular as well as academic
media (Lloyd 1997).
62


the characteristics of rural historic landscapes and suggests methods of survey and
research. The concept of the rural historic landscape is-
a geographical area that historically has been used by people, or shaped or
modified by human activities, occupancy or intervention and that possesses
a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of areas of land use,
vegetation, buildings and structures, roads and waterways, and natural
features. (McClellan et al. 1989).
In 1996 the NPS formally set their definition of a cultural landscape as:
a geographic area (including both cultural and natural resources and the
wildlife or domestic animals therein), associated with a historic event,
activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values (United
States. Dept, of the Interior et al. 1996).
For the purpose of management they chose to categorize them into four distinct but
non-mutually exclusive categories. Historic sites are significant for their associations
with important events, activities, and persons. Battlefields and presidential homes will
fall in this category. Historic designed landscapes include landscapes that reflect
some recognized style of construction, or which are associated with important
persons, trends, or events in the history of landscape architecture. This is a subset of
UNESCOs category of landscapes designed and created intentionally by man.
Historic vernacular landscapes include landscapes not designed by a trained
professional reflecting how people have collectively shaped and reshaped the land.
Agricultural areas, mining and fishing villages would be included in this category.
This category is similar to UNESCOs organically evolved landscape. Ethnographic
63


landscapes are associated with traditional practices on sites meaningful to
contemporary groups such as Native Americans. This category is similar to
UNESCOs associative cultural landscape. In practice, the distinction between
vernacular and ethnographic landscapes often seems to reduce to whether they are
associated with the (often inactive) dominant culture (and thus called vernacular) or
other (sometimes active) cultures (and thus called ethnographic).
The NPS recommends four treatments for cultural landscapespreservation,
rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Preservation is the minimum
intervention and requires retention of the maximum amount of historic fabric.
Rehabilitation allows altering the cultural landscape to meet new uses without
compromising its historic integrity. Restoration allows returning the landscape to a
selected period in history by removing materials from other periods and selective
introduction of new materials. Reconstruction, the most extreme of treatments,
allows a landscape to be re-created from scratch with new materials based on
historical documents. These four treatment options were derived from The Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Weeks and
Grimmer 1995), which apply to all of the different types of property listed on the
National Register of Historic Places: buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts.
The language for these treatments in the original Standards did not deal specifically
with landscapes. Charles Bimbaum, the current coordinator of the National Park
64


Service Historic Landscape Initiative and a leading voice in this direction, helped
frame the language of an additional set of landscape-specific guidelines. The
resulting Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (Bimbaum and Peters
1996) take a comprehensive approach to treating all types of landscapes except
ethnographic; the steps include research, inventory, documentation, analysis,
treatment plan and ongoing maintenance routine.
Alanen and Melnick note these standards simplify instead of clarify the values
necessary for cultural landscape preservation. Codification is perhaps a practical
requirement, but it is a presumption of equality or equal value that can be
quantified, which is particularly difficult to achieve for cultural landscapes, where
the need to maintain balance between the blind application of regulations and
purely emotional response to historic and cultural landscapes is important (Alanen
and Melnick 2000). The traditional preservation approaches do not address the fact
that landscapes are both artifact and system, both a product and a process. They are
usually also parts of much larger systems, such as historic irrigation systems in a
watershed.
A New Kind of NPS Property
The NPS initially focused their cultural resource management work on landscapes
outside their own properties, given that vernacular cultural landscapes generally
65


require some form of continued traditional use to retain meaning. Their approach of
ownership of all managed lands with removal of the inhabitants would no longer
work. In 1978, the NPS created Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve, a 25-
square mile area on Whidbey Island in Washington State on land held by both private
and public (federal, state, county) entities. The designation ensured that new
developments would remain respectful of the predominant historic agricultural use of
the land. Five years later, in 1983, the NPS implemented the National Heritage Areas
(NHA) program, designating nationally distinct cultural landscapes in which human
activities and patterns are prominent in shaping the landscapes. As in the National
Historical Reserve (of which Ebeys Landing remains the only case), the agency does
not have jurisdiction over the land nor are they solely responsible for the management
of the areas; instead, they provide expertise and funding and help manage the area in
partnership with local organizations. The Blackstone River Valley National Heritage
Corridor in Rhode Island and Massachusetts is a prime example. The area contains
many scattered remnants of early 19th century mill life, from canals to workers
housing villages to old turnpike routes to mill complexes themselves. The area still
continues to work as a living landscape. The goal here is to keep land in use for the
same general functions, not to set it aside as a public preserve; in many ways, this is
the same basic philosophy as that used in urban historic districts where the historic
context remains intact and continuing use is permitted. As of 2003 there were twenty-
four National Heritage Areas, of which only two are west of the Mississippi River;
66


t
Cache LaPoudre
Silo* and
Smokestacks
Hudson River Valley.
Efie Ctnalwiiy^ \E*m
Path of Progret*v
Rivers o/Steei
MotorCiUes
id E
*


'/Lackawartfu* Heritage Valley
Schuylkill River Valley
Ohio and Erie**
Illinois and Michigan _ y _
National Aviation y J*
Wheeling iVWYty
I Shenandoah Valley
Tenneese# CNU War Rxjge (NC)
Blacfcstonc
(MA/Rl)
Ouinbaug-
Shectucket (CT/MA|
Delaware and Lehigh
National Coal''
v
Yuma Crossing (A2)
Cane River
Augusts Canal
(GA)
South Carolina
n
Mississippi Gulf
FIGURE 2.18: The National Heritage areas
this pattern reverses that of the national parks themselves, which are mostly in the
west (Figure 2.18).
A New Kind of National Park
Following on the success of the National Heritage Areas program, the NPS in 2000
promoted one of their cultural-landscape-oriented properties to the coveted title of a
National Park. Cuyahoga Valley was designated a National Park in 2000, after 25
years as a National Recreation Area (NRA). The park is unlike any other national
67


park on many accounts, including its location in the metropolitan corridor of the
industrial cities of Cleveland and Akron and the multitude of private parcels
remaining within the park boundaries. In addition, active use of land is encouraged as
the NPS has devised innovative local partnerships to keep farms functioning. The
landscape today is also reminiscent of when this area was a NRA, with a greater
emphasis on active recreation like golfing, skiing and biking not seen to nearly the
same degree in other parks. Lastly the density of cultural resources in Cuyahoga NP
far exceeds other parks (26.5 entries on the CLI for every 10,000 acres, compared to
1.2 entries for ROMO and 0.2 for the national parks as a whole; Figure 2.19.)
That the Cuyahoga Valley received the coveted NP designation and not a National
Historical Park (NHP) or NHA designation may have been a political or strategic
issue, since judging from past NPS designations, the property fits the latter two better
than the former. However, its designation also reflects the NPSs new approach to
managing national parks where cultural landscapes are a significant component and
the agency does not own all the land within the park boundary. Currently the NPS
does not appear to have any interest in acquiring properties and eliminating use and
private residences from the park. The designation alone reflects advancement in the
understanding of cultural landscapes in the national parks that are still valued mostly
for their natural landscapes.
68


Cuyahoga Valey NP' HoISprings NP Virgin Islands NP nHaleakala NP Wind Cava IP ; Theodore toosevet IP Mesa Verde NP Acadia IP Isle Royaie IP Voyageurs NP Guadalupe Mountains IP Carte bad Caverns NP Bryce Canyon IP Haw ai Volcanoes IP Arches IP Mount Rainier IP Rocky Mountain IP Saguaro IP National Park of A merican Samoa Redwood NP Shenandoah NP Great Basin NP Petrified Forest IP Yosemte IP Lassen Volcanc IP Badlands NP Crater Lake IP. Black Canyon of the Gunrason Great Smoky Mountains IP Sequoia IP Zion IP Capitol Reef IP North Cascades IP Channel Islands IP Olympic IP Canyohtands IP Glacier IP Dry Tortugas NP Grand Teton NP Joshua Tree NP Big Bend NP Mammoth Cave IP Yelow stone NP Grand Canyon NP Biscayne NP Death Valey IP Kpbuk Valey NP Glacier Bay NP&ffeES Katmai IP Lake Clark IP Wrangel-St Bas NP & FEES Denali IP & FTjS Gates of the Arcb^&WES Kings Canyon NP Kertai Fjords IP Congaree IP
0.0 5 0 10.0 15.0 2C .0 25 0 30.0
Figure 2.19: Density of cultural landscapes by park
(Number of entries on the CLI per 10,000 acres)
Cultural Landscapes in Other NPS Units
Many of the NPSs properties that are not national parks have a specific landscape
component, and in many of these the cultural landscape is a dominant feature of the
unit. Examples include historic battlefields, cemeteries and trails. Much of the spatial
experience on these properties is derived from landscape features and elements, and
both management and interpretation focus on how the landscape was shaped by (and
shaped) the history of the unit. Historic battlefields are particularly interesting places,
where interpretation often focuses on how the nature of the terrain shaped the tactics
69


and the outcome of the battle. Treatment often involves reconstructing faded traces of
ditches, trenches and fencing to assist with interpretation of these sites. Historic trails
provide a similar experience of a landscape that was once used for transportation
purposes and now has more of a recreational or educational value. These properties
offer opportunities to compare cultural landscape management practices in sites
where cultural landscapes are considered dominant to those in the larger, more
naturalistic national parks, where their value is less widely recognized.
70


CHAPTER 3
STAKING CLAIMS: CULTURAL LANDSCAPES
INVENTORY IN THE NATIONAL PARKS
Chapter 2 described numerous major steps forward that the NPS has made over the
years in the recognition of cultural landscapes. However, none of them changed the
fact that the cultural landscapes in the predominantly natural parks remained under-
recognized and threatened. Since the 1990s, however, the NPS has focused attention
on cultural landscapes in all of their properties. In 1990 the Secretary of the Interiors
Annual Control Report identified a material weakness in the preservation of cultural
landscapes and historic structures on the NPS properties. The weakness was described
as that [historic and prehistoric structures and cultural landscapes are damaged by
neglect or deferred work due to insufficient funds or staffing. (Page 2001). To
address these deficiencies, the NPS devised five corrective measures in fiscal years
1992 and 1994, of which the Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI) was selected for
funding. The CLI was designed as a comprehensive inventory of cultural landscapes
in the national park system that would assist land managers in planning,
programming, and recording treatment and management decisions. (Page 2001). To
comply with federal regulations (Section 110 (a) (1) of the National Historic
Preservation Act and NPS Management Policies and Cultural Resource Management
71


Guideline) the CLI was set up to conduct a management inventory of all cultural
landscapes that have historical significance, in which the NPS has or plans to acquire
any legal interest. The three main functions of the CLI were stated as (1) identifying
and locating cultural landscapes, (2) collecting information about the cultural
landscapes and (3) assisting park managers with treatment and management decisions.
Drawing largely from the scattered cultural landscape inventory that had been
conducted on various properties thus far, a three-year initiative commenced in 1994 to
design and field-test an inventory methodology for cultural landscapes in the NPS.
Here I describe in more detail the process by which the inventory was conducted, the
rules and guidelines provided to those responsible for the inventory, and a description
of the data fields generated. I then discuss both quantitative and qualitative analyses
of the dataset obtained from the Park Cultural Landscapes Program.
Portions of the full CLI data were provided in two abridged versions.12 The first was a
printed copy, obtained at the NPS Denver Service Center, of a GPRA (Government
Performance and Results Act) report of 2003 (containing data up through mid-2003)
that the regions completed for the national office in Washington. This contained the
full set of cultural landscapes, but a small set of information on each one, and needed
12 Initial correspondence with NPS staff prior to commencing this research project suggested that the
full CLI data would be available to qualified researchers (Braa 2003). Since this turned out not to be
the case, the types of analyses that could be conducted for this project were greatly reduced.
72


to be re-entered into electronic form by hand. The second version was obtained
through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request; it included most fields of
information, but only contained the 31 landscapes that had received a SHPO-approved
Level II review, or about 3% of the total identified landscapes in the fifty-eight
National Parks. I use both of these sets of data in the analysis below, and begin by
describing the development of the complete dataset.
The CLI Data
The official protocol for the CLI process was published by the Park Historic
Structures and Cultural Landscapes Program in a manual called the CLI Professional
Procedures Guide (PPG), which explains in detail the prescribed components for
completing a management inventory (Page 2001). The guide has three sections;
Section I explains the purpose and use of the CLI and interprets its relationship to
park cultural resource management. Section II focuses on the data fields required for
landscapes and component landscape and Section III does the same for landscape
features and component landscape features. (These categories are defined below). The
latter two sections also provide instructions regarding each data field, along with
supplemental professional guidance. The Guide draws information from various
existing reference materials, primarily the National Register Bulletin series.13 The
13 Chief among these are McClelland et al. 1999, Andrus and Shrimpton 2002, National Register of
Historic Places 1997, Keller and Keller 1987, Seifert et al. 1997, Parker and King 1998, Andrus 1999,
Potter and Bolund 1992, and Nobel and Spude 1997.
73


description of the process below reflects that contained in this manual. As with all
processes at this scale, however, the actual practice on the ground can differ in any
number of minor or major details from the official protocol. Part of the fieldwork in
this dissertation was to develop a sense, at least for one park, of where these
differences lay and what they mean for the final product.
The CLI methodology involves staff at three levels in the NPS structure: the National
Center, Clusters/Regions and the Parks. The National Center in Washington DC is
home to the highest levels of the NPS bureaucratic structure. There are seven
regional offices (Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Intermountain, Pacific West,
National Capital14 and Alaska), some of which are further divided into two or three
clusters. The CLI methodology was developed by the National Center with input
from staff at the regional and cluster levels. It was then field-tested by regional and
cluster offices and revised based on their input. The initial launch of the program
occurred in 1996; the largest revision of the process thus far (including a restructuring
of the CLI database and a new release of the PPG service manual) occurred in 2000.
After initial development of the process, the main responsibilities for the CLI moved
away from the National Center. However, the center retains the role of developing
14 None of the 58 National Parks are in the National Capital Region, so all discussions of regions in
this research will refer to the remaining six only.
74


and maintaining standards to ensure consistency and compliance with Section 110(a)
(1) of the National Historic Preservation Act and other federal requirements.15 They
provide training and technical resources and work on staffing and funding for the
program. Most of the direct responsibility for carrying out the CLI lies with the staff
of the regions and clusters. They gather information on cultural landscapes in the
parks under their jurisdiction and provide training and technical information to the
field staff. They are also the focal point for data entry (including editing) of the
information collected. At times they hire private contractors or interns to assist with
the inventory, in which case they remain the supervisors and points of contact for
them. Each region is responsible for preparing a five-year plan that identifies
strategies and priorities for conducting the CLI, which is then updated every fiscal
year. At the end of each fiscal year (September 30), they send a copy of the newly
generated CLI data to the National Center, where it is uploaded into the national
database. All this work is managed by one dedicated CLI coordinator at each office.
Although they are not primarily responsible for the CLI, the staff of individual parks
assist the regions with the inventory process. They establish priorities for funding,
staffing, maintenance and planning for their cultural landscapes generally. They
develop any interpretive programs that may center on the cultural landscapes. If there
15 Section 110(a) requires federal agencies to take responsibility for the preservation of historic
properties. The agencies are required to identify, inventory, and nominate historic properties to the
National Register that are under their jurisdiction.
75


are any lands outside their boundaries that are associated with the cultural landscape,
they may coordinate with neighboring communities to manage them. The parks also
need to satisfy Section 106 compliance requirements.16 17 Both the National Office and
the Parks are responsible for documenting conditions of the cultural landscapes for the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) purposes. In addition, three
CLI benchmarks require concurrence from the park superintendent (a condition
imposed by the CLI program itself); these include the completion of Level II
(explained below), revisions to the inventory (and subsequent updates) and Condition
Assessment (and subsequent updates) discussed later.
To standardize the CLI process among different stakeholders and to facilitate sharing
of data, the CLI was automated using a custom-designed software system. The
automation allowed for data entry and editing activities complying with the federal
guidelines. It also allows for both preprogrammed and ad hoc queries of the data,
along with management and other reports associated with the inventory. The database,
known as CLAIMS (Cultural Landscapes Automated Inventory Management
16 Section 106 of the NHPA integrated historic preservation with all federal agencies planning,
decision-making and project execution. It requires federal agency to ensure that the NHPA is
administered and that the agency take into account any effects of their projects on historical and
archaeological resources.
17 The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) mandates Federal agencies to
account for program results through the integration of strategic planning, budgeting, and performance
measurement.
76


System)18 was set up to interface with other NPS systems such as the List of
Classified Structures (LCS), National Register Information System (NRIS), Cultural
Resources Management Bibliography (CRBIB), and Facilities Management Software
System (FMSS).
The CLI and the National Register
One of the CLIs goals in identifying and evaluating cultural landscapes is to collect
information that could be used in determining eligibility for the National Register of
Historic Places. The National Register of Historic Places is an official federal list of
cultural resources worthy of preservation. The register was established under the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and is administered by the NPS. Currently
there are approximately 78,000 listings on the National Register, of which roughly
700 are in the 58 national parks. While the listing has no legal authority to protect the
property from changes, including demolition (most of these controls are implemented
at a local level), the listing is recognition that a property is historically significant and
may be eligible for federal tax credit assistance if it is private and income producing.
The Park Cultural Landscapes Program and specifically the CLI were created to
provide baseline information on cultural landscapes that are already on the National
Register or eligible for it. Other NPS programs that have helped advance cultural
18 The use of the name CLAIMS for the database has recently been abandoned by the CLI. Although
this term was in use throughout much of the period that I am examining, I will refer to it as the CLI
database throughout this work.
77


landscape documentation, nomination and preservation are the Historic Landscape
Initiative and the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation as well as the National
Register itself through their various bulletins.
Much of the detail of the CLI, including such things as terminology and criteria for
significance and integrity, borrows directly from the National Register. The National
Register is primarily geared towards individual buildings or historic districts;
properties must be placed into one of five categories: buildings, districts, sites,
structures or objects. The properties that are nominated to the National Register
usually document buildings in great detail using standardized forms that focus on the
history, architecture and condition of the structures. Often these do not address the
relationship of the building to the site or the landscape context with much detail, even
when these are the most historically significant components. In recent decades the
NPS has addressed this shortcoming by producing several bulletins that address
cultural landscapes; their use has improved the quality of nominations for cultural
landscapes, but many cultural landscapes still remain ignored. When cultural
landscapes are nominated to the National Register, they must be nominated as one of
the five National Register property types, or as multiple properties, since there is no
separate category for cultural landscapes. This point will reappear later when
considering the outcomes of the CLI thus far. Most of the 3,000 cultural landscapes
78


identified in the national park system thus far have been considered potentially
eligible for the National Register or are already on it (Goetcheus 2002).
Hierarchical Classification in the CLI
Although it is necessarily a priority for the CLI, standardization also attempts to
address the various potential complexities of cultural landscapes. One way it does so
is by adopting a four-tier hierarchy for subdividing the landscape into identifiable
components and/or features. The hierarchy breaks the identified properties down into
landscapes and features and then into component landscapes and component features.
Landscape represents the entire area of interest, the parent to all components and
features. Component Landscapes are elements within a landscape that contribute to
the significance of a property and which could be individually listed on the National
Register. Component Landscapes are documented individually for the CLI.
Landscape Features are the smallest identifiable physical units that contribute to the
significance of the landscape and that can be managed as individual sites. Component
Landscape Features are like landscape features, but for component landscapes.
Moraine Park,19 in Rocky Mountain National Park, for instance, could be seen as a
parent landscape significant for its association with the early recreational industry. In
this case the Moraine Park Museum site (previously a lodge) as well as the William
White summer cabins area could be listed as component landscapes. The meadow in
19 In Colorado terminology flat meadows are usually called parks.
79


Moraine Park would then become a landscape feature while the amphitheatre
associated with the Moraine Park Museum site may be seen as a component
landscape feature. However, if the Moraine Park Museum site were listed as a
separate parent landscape (as is actually the case) then this hierarchy would change.
As is evident from this example, the application of the hierarchy depends on the
character and complexity of the landscape. Complex landscapes may use all four
classifications to fully explain the scope and connections between the parts and the
whole. Others might need only a few of the classifications to fully describe the
complexity. The application of the hierarchy is left flexible to leave room for
professional judgment in deciding the subdivision of the landscape for the purpose of
documentation, and the appropriate level of inventory needed at the time.
Inventory Levels
The CLI structure includes a four-tier inventory method for documenting the cultural
landscapes: Levels 0 {park reconnaissance survey), I {landscape reconnaissance
survey), II {landscape analysis and evaluation) and III {feature inventory and
assessment). The Level 0 Inventory is meant to be inclusivethe NPS considers it
better to include something that is potentially ineligible rather than exclude something
that is potentially eligible (Braa 2002). The CLI uses a scoring system to prioritize
landscapes for advanced inventory based on a list of criteria (see Appendix II); those
with highest scores receive priority. Beyond Level 0 each subsequent step then
80


becomes more detailed and more exclusive. Landscapes at each stage are deemed
either eligible or ineligible for the next stage; those that are eligible are further
divided into those that are prioritized and those that are not prioritized for further
work.
Level 0 (Park Reconnaissance Survey). Level 0 identifies the scope of the landscape
or component landscapes, collects existing information on the resource, and
documents threats. It also establishes priorities for Level I, based on the types of
missing information that may avoid adverse effects on the resource or which are
required for park planning or other construction projects. The product of Level 0
include an indicative list of significant landscapes, strategies for completion of
Level I and II and a list of research needs.
Level I (Landscape Reconnaissance Survey). Historical research forms an important
part of this inventory; sources pertaining to the cultural landscapes are scanned to
gather information on the property. A site visit is conducted for an initial evaluation
of the significance and integrity of the landscape or component landscape. In
addition, priorities are established for Level II based on immediate threat, including
construction projects in the park that may undermine the National Register status of
the resource. The products of Level I should include Level I forms, indicative list of
potentially significant landscapes, strategies for completion of Level II, list of
81


research needs, detailed site plans, and Resource Management Plans (RMP),
including summary charts and project statements.
Level II (Landscape Analysis and Evaluation). This is a more detailed inventory that
identifies the landscape characteristics and the associated features of the landscape or
component landscape. For landscapes/component landscapes whose National Register
status is undetermined prior to the CLI process, completion of Level II requires a
consensus determination by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as to the
propertys eligibility for the National Register. Level II includes a condition
assessment of the landscape/component landscapes and documents treatment if it has
already been completed. A list of physical features of landscape characteristics are
defined as either contributing or non-contributing to the significance of the resource.
Priorities are established for Level III inventory based on requirement of more
detailed information for park planning needs or resource management purposes.
Products of Level II include revised detailed site maps, Level II forms (Coordinator
Review Report), National Register nomination, strategy for completion of Level III,
technical assistant reports and a park CLI information packet including photographs,
slides, and report.
Level II may use information from a National Register form or a Cultural Landscape
Report (CLR) if they exist for the property. The CLR predates the current CLI
82


system; as a result, this document repeats some of the evaluation of history,
significance and integrity of a cultural landscape. The CLR proposes treatment
options for properties while the CLI only documents past treatment decisions. These
reports may be prepared by park staff if expertise is available, but are often prepared
by consultants. Although the CLI and CLR should ideally be parallel efforts, often
they are not in practice because they are products of different park programs. The
Park Cultural Landscapes Program is currently trying to structure the CLI as a part of
CLR in order to better integrate landscape identification and management (Lawliss
2004a).
Level III (Feature Inventory and Assessment). This level was conceived as a separate
effort to identify selected landscape features in more detail. It focuses on physical
features identified in Level II as contributing to the significance of a landscape or
component landscape. It includes condition assessment and cost associated with
treatment. The history and character of the features are recorded, and site maps
showing the location of the feature are prepared. Because it focuses on individual
landscape features rather than the landscape as a whole, Level III does not revise the
information in Level II.
The complete inventory includes an inventory of the parent landscape as well as its
component landscapes and associated features, which can take a substantial amount
83


of time. As the inventory proceeds from Level 0 to Level III additional information is
gathered on the property, previous information is refined and each subsequent
inventory is more exhaustive. The CLI is not considered complete until Level II is
conducted, including a determination for National Register eligibility from the SHPO.
The application of these levels in practice seems to differ in some cases from what the
manual prescribes. For example, the Midwest Region has proceeded directly to a
Level I for some landscapes without completing a Level 0 review first. Perhaps for
this reason, the NPS has discontinued all public references to the CLI levels as of
November 2003, after the research for this dissertation was completed. The formats
of review for each level are still followed internally, but external reporting of
landscape progress is now divided only into complete (Level II completed and
certified by SHPO) and not complete (all else). Because of the lack of progress
Level III has been discontinued. Nevertheless, these levels were in place for the
period that this research covers, and continue to structure the internal documentation
work, and hence remain relevant tools for analysis.
84


Full Text

PAGE 1

WITH HERITAGE SO WILD: CULTURAL LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT IN THE U.S. NATIONAL PARKS by Manish Chalana B.Arch. Mangalore University, 1993 M.Arch. School of Planning and Architecture New Delhi 1996 M.L.Arch. The Pennsylvania State University, 1999 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Design and Planning 2005

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Manish Chalana has been approved by Ann Komara Sohyun Park Lee :lo :fu lr Date

PAGE 3

Chalana, Manish (Ph.D., Design and Planning) With Heritage So Wild: Cultural Landscape Management in the U.S. National Parks Thesis directed by Associate Professor Michael Holleran ABSTRACT In the last two decades the National Park Service (NPS) has made strides vis-a-vis cultural landscape management. These include the development of the Park Cultural Landscapes Program, which has initiated the Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI), a common methodology for documenting cultural landscapes in the national park system. Despite advancements in diverse landscape-oriented programs, cultural landscapes in many ofthe National Parks-the "crown jewels" of the larger national park system----continue to receive far less attention than those in other units or than landscapes viewed as more "natural." This research examines how cultural landscapes are currently being managed in the national parks, with a focus on three components of the management process: inventory, treatment and interpretation. The work is based on analysis of CLI data to determine attributes (types, cultures, time periods) that predominate among properties that have received more attention thus far in the prioritization process. Through a case study of Rocky Mountain National Park and a survey of cultural landscape sites in numerous parks, the work also examines how properties that have come to be recognized as cultural landscapes by the CLI process are receiving treatment and interpretation. Results indicate that the inventory process in particular is perpetuating the nature/culture dichotomy that it set out to address, by focusing more on sites that conform to either the natural or cultural end of the spectrum and de-emphasizing "middle landscapes." Treatments do not fully extend to the landscape component of many sites but rather often focus more on the structures than the land itself. Interpretation too does not always fully convey the essence of nature-culture interactions at the heart of these sites. By bringing these issues to the forefront, this research aims to bridge the gap between theoretical concepts of cultural landscape preservation and their practical application in the United States' largest administrator of cultural landscapes. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication. Signed Ill

PAGE 4

For Bauji-your wisdom is my strength.

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work would not have seen the light of day had it not been for the support of numerous individuals and organizations that generously provided time and resources during all stages. I want to begin by extending my thanks to the Design and Planning program in the College of Architecture and Planning at the U niversity of Colorado for supporting me through graduate school especially Willem Van Vliet and Kim Kelly whose help with different matters contributed towards the timely completion of the research. I am fortunate by the association of so many brilliant mentors who have guided this research and to them I remain indebted. My utmost thanks are reserved for my guru Michael Holleran, who has been and continues to be a source of inspirational light. Michael's influence is evident throughout this work ; his ongoing critique has given this document its current shape In the process it is now difficult for me to s eparate his ideas from mine since so much of this work developed out of our numerous discussions on the subject. However I do take responsibility for all of the shortcomings of this work. Ann Komara's guidance has greatly improved the quality of this work. From her I have learned not to be afraid to set higher standards of academic excellence and integrity, and I am hoping this work reflects at least half of that level of scholarship. I am appreciative of the time and effort of other members of my committee ; Sohyun Lee Brain Page and Brian Muller have all aided me in seeing this work completed I valued their input and have learned a great deal from their feedback. I thank the Rocky Mountain Nature Association (RMNA), especially Curt Buchholtz and Nancy Wilson for seeing value in this work even before it was fully developed. They provided financial assistance and a beautiful summer cottage in Rocky Mountain National Park to facilitate the fieldwork. Thanks also to the Graham Foundation for their encouragement and financial support through the Carter Manny citation award. I also extend my gratitude to the Rocky Mountain Cooperative Ecosystem Study Unit, who funded a course on Rocky Mountain National Park that I had the pleasure of teaching This pro v ided me with a legitim a te excuse t o spend more time in the field and share my experiences with a group of s tudent s in the graduate program in Historic Preservation.

PAGE 6

Without the assistance ofthe staff at Rocky Mountain National Park, the fieldwork would have taken me much longer to complete and perhaps been impossible. Cheri Yost and Bill Butler were extremely generous with their time patiently responding to my countless email questions, and helping with clarifications as well as providing constructive criticism on portions of this work, especially the chapter on Rocky Mountain National Park that they are all too familiar with They also reviewed a conference paper (based on the portion of this work) presented at the National Historic Preservation Forum in 2004. Sybil Barnes was invaluable in helping to locate sources literally from the back of her mind Thanks also to the numerous rangers in the national parks who helped in locating cultural landscapes as well as providing additional information they had access to making the fieldwork less strenuous. Although I was not able to pick his brain directly as much as I wished, Ferrell Atkins provided tremendous indirect support through his previous work documenting historical structures in Rocky Mountain National Park. I am thankful to the CLI regional office staff especially Brian Braa (Denver office now with Shapins Associates), Jill Cowley (Santa Fe), Shaun Provencher (Oakland) and the staff in Seattle for taking the time to meet with me and answer questions regarding the CLI process. Much thanks to Lucy Lawliss, Cari Goetcheus (now at Clemson University) and Randy Biallis (the CLI national office) for helping out with obtaining data for this work. Both Lucy and Cari reviewed the entire document and provided insightful comments and clarifications on the content and for that I am grateful. Finally thanks to my parents who have shown great patience even without fully understanding my course of study as well as my path in life and to the two greatest bundles of joy in my life--Shreya and Adi--who I secretly wish never grow old! Thanks also to my friends Angela Barnali Bruce, Jake Laura Leslie and Pearl for sharing my frustration and joys through graduate school. Last but by no means least: thanks to Steve, without whose help the fieldwork would have taken twice as long and been half as much fun Steve shares my passion for exploring new landscapes and provided great company and much help when he accompanied me to many of the parks. In addition his help with the statistical analysis and with editing the text for clarity remains invaluable; for all this I am indebted for life.

PAGE 7

TABL E OF CONTENTS Lis t of Figures. .... .... ....... ....... ...... ... ... ............. .............. . .... ................ xn List ofTables .... .... ...... . ........... .... ........ ................ .... ......... ........... xvi PROLOGUE ....... ........................... .... ...... .... . ........... ...... .... ........ ..... ..... CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION. . .... ... ... ..... ...... ..... .......................... ..... .... ... 3 Stages of the Cultural Landscape Preservation Process .... ........... .... 6 Inventory .............. ..... .... ... ........ ..... ........... .... ............ ....... ... 7 Treatment. ...... ....... ..... . . .......... .... .... .... .... ............ ....... .... 8 Interpretation.. .......... .... . ...... .. ........... ........... ................ ........... 10 Goals and Objectives ........................... .... ...................... ............. .... 10 Significance....................... ... ...... .................. ....... ..... ....................... 11 Data and Methods ....................... ...... ... . .................................. ....... 11 The Case Study............. ..... ....... .......... ............. .............. ..... ...... 12 The CLI: Quantitative Analysis .................... ..... .................. .... 13 The CLI: Qualitati v e Analysis .... ......... .... .......... .... ....... ...... 14 Park Reconnaissance .......... ...................... ....... ..... .... .......... ..... 14 Organization of the Document.. . ........ .... ..... ..... ............... .......... 15 Vll

PAGE 8

2 THE RISE OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION ........ 18 Origins and Development.......... ............................... ..... .. .................. 18 Historic Preservation......................... ........................................... 18 Cultural Landscape Studies ........... ..... ............ .................. ...... .. ... 21 Cultural Landscape Preservation...................... .............. ........... 27 Critiques of Cultural Landscape Preservation...................... .. ..... 35 U neasy Coexistence: the National Park Service and Cultural Landscapes ..... ..... .... ....... ...... ..................... ......... .. .......... .... 44 The Earl y Years... .................................... ............ ..................... .. 44 Changing Attitudes Codified : the Historic Preserv a tion Lawof1966 .............. .................................... ...... ............ ...... ....... 62 A New Kind ofNPS Property ...................................................... 65 A New Kind ofNational Park ...................................................... 67 Cultural Landscapes in Other NPS Units.......................... ........... 69 3. STAKING CLAIMS : CULTURAL LANDSCAPES INVENTORY IN THE NATIONAL PARKS ..................................... 71 The CLI Data.......................... .... ..................................... .................. 73 The CLI and the National Register.... ...... ...................................... .. .. 77 Hierarchical Classification in the CLI .......... ...... .......... .... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. 79 In v entor y Le vels............................................. ....... ............ ................ 80 The CLI Database: Contents and Structure ....................................... 85 Funding for the CLI. .... .. .... .. .......... .. .... .. ........ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .... 89 Vlll

PAGE 9

CLI Analysis. ...... ................................. ....................... .............. ........ 90 4. CULTURAL LANDSCAPES IN A "NATURAL PARK: THE CASE OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN NP .. ..................... ........ .... .. 126 Rocky Mountain National Park : Context and History ....................... 128 Native Americans' Use ofthe Park Lands (Before 1850) .... ..... 130 Early Settlers (1850-1900) ............. .... ................ .... ......... ............ 131 The "Park Idea" (1900-1915) .................... ........ .......................... 139 The Early Park Years (1915-1933) ................ ............. .. ............. 143 Park Development (1933-1955) ............. .......... ..... ..................... 144 Mission 66 (1955-1966) ............ .... .................. ........ ........ ............ 146 The Park Today (1966-Present) .................. .... ............................ 148 Cultural Landscape Identification in Rocky Mountain NP ................ 149 Cultural Landscapes Listed on the CLI.. ........ ............................. 149 Prioritization Patterns ............................ .... ................................... 151 Some Prioritization Issues ................... ........................................ 160 Potential Cultural Landscapes not Listed on the CLI.. ................ 167 5. TREATMENT AND INTERPRETATION OF C ULTU RAL LANDSCAPES IN THE NATIONAL PARKS .................................. 173 Cultural Landscape Treatment .................... .... .......... .. .. ........... ..... .... 174 Preservation ....... .................................... .................. ............... .... 176 lX

PAGE 10

Rehabilitation .... ..................... ...................... ................ .... ...... ..... 180 Restoration .................................. ....... ........ .... .................... ......... 183 Reconstru c tion ... .......... ................. .......... .... .... .... .. .................. .. 190 Neglect-the "F ifth Treatment" .................. ... .............. ......... .. 194 Cultural Landscape Interpretation ............. ......... ... ........ .......... .... ..... 2 00 Historic Designed Landscapes and Historic Sites ..... .......... ...... 211 Vernacular and Ethnographic Land sca pes .......... ........ ................ 223 6 CONCLUSIONS ............. .............. ............................... ... ..... .............. 233 Cultural Landscapes Inventory .................. ............. ......... ................. 234 Treatment and Interpretation .......... .... ........... ................ ................ .. 243 Limitations .. ............... ............ ..................... .... ...... ............ ............... 250 Conclusion .............. .. ..... ................ ..... ..... ..... ................................. .. 2 5 2 EPILOGUE .................. ......... ...... .................. ....................................... .... ......... 255 APPENDIX I. IMAGE CREDITS .......................... ...... .... .... ..... ..................... ... .... .... 257 II. SCORING SHEET FOR PRIORITY LIST........ ............. ................. 258 III. MULTIPLE L OGISTIC R E GRESSION ON CLI LANDSCAPE ADVA NCEMENT ................................... ....... .......... 261 X

PAGE 11

IV RESOURCES FOR PRIMARY DATA ...................... .... ...... .. .......... 265 V. CONDITION OF MCGRAW RANCH MEMORANDUM .............. 271 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....... .......... ........ .... ........ ............ ............... ..... ........... . ........ 273 XI

PAGE 12

FIGURES 2.1. Quincy Market (Boston, Mass ) .... .. ..... .. .................................. .................. 21 2.2. Landscape patterns created by pivot irrigation (San Luis Valley, Colo .)... 27 2.3. The irrigated landscapes of Viejo San Acacio, Colo .... .................... ... ....... 32 2.4. Adobe fa9ade covering the original Neoclassical style to match the rest of the district ; First National Bank (Santa Fe NM) ......................... 37 2.5. "Freewheeling" Wild West show (Virginia City Nevada)............ ..... ........ 38 2.6. Revisionist plaque honoring women pioneers on the Founders' Monument (Seattle, Wash.) ........ ............ ..... ............ ......... .... 42 2.7. The locations of the National Parks the majority of which are in the West. ............. ......... ........... ........ .... ................ ..... ................................... 46 2 .8. Roosevelt Arch, proclaiming the mission of the parks (Yellowstone NP) 47 2.9. The expanses ofHetch Hetchy Valley prior to damming (Yosemite NP) ... 50 2.1 0. Miwok Indians with bear cub (Yosemite NP)............. ... ............. ........... 51 2.11. Early visitors enjoying the geysers (Yellowstone NP).. ..... ..................... 52 2.12 Planned destruction ofhistoric site (Rocky Mountain NP) ..... .................. 54 2.13. Early interest in Native American archaeology (Mesa Verde NP) ... ..... .. 55 2.14. CCC crew at work (Mesa Verde NP) ....... .. ............ .................................... 57 2.15. Mission 66 signage (Grand Teton NP)............... .............. ............... ....... 58 2.16. Cyclorama (Gettysburg National Military Park)... ..... ............. .................. 59 Xll

PAGE 13

2.17 Trapping of predators (Yellowstone NP).. .......................... ............ .. ......... 61 2 .18. The National Heritage Areas.................................................. .......... ...... .... 67 2.19 Density of cultural landscapes by park.............................. .... ........ ............. 69 3 .1. CLI landscapes by park and region ...... ...................... .................................. 1 02 3 2 Nisqually Entrance Station (Level 11-certified landscape Mount Rainier NP) .............. .... ....................... .................. ........... ...... ..... 115 3.3. Period of significance for Level 11-certified landscapes .............................. 118 3.4 The landscape of Lassen Volcanic Mineral Headquarters District (Lassen Volcanic NP) .................................. .... ............ ......................... 120 3.5 The Green Mountain Ranch landscape displaying features from the era of dude ranching (Rocky Mountain NP) ...................... .. .............. 122 3.6. Vail and Vickers Ranch, in operation until 1998 (Channel Islands NP) ..... 123 4 1 Map of Rocky Mountain NP .... ............ ....... ......... .. .. ........................... ........ 129 4 .2. Steads Ranch ................ .... .................................... .. ................ .. .................... 133 4 3 William Henry Jackson s photo ofEstes Park .... ... .... .................................. 135 4.4. Horseshoe Inn Resort in Horseshoe Park ..................................... .. ............ 136 4 .5. LuluCity ... .... .... .................... ............. ......... ..... .. .. ...................................... 137 4 6 Grand Ditch .................. .. .............. ............ ...................... ...... .. ............. ....... 139 4 7 Visitors to the Estes Park area in a Stanley Steamer ............. .... .................. 140 4 8 Dedication ofRocky Mountain NP Sept. 4 1915 ...................................... 142 4 9 Resort in Moraine Park on land that has since been "naturalized".. .... .... 144 4.10 The woodland st y le Moraine Park Amphitheatre ............................ .... ........ 146 Xlll

PAGE 14

4 .11. Bea ver Meadows Visitor Center.. ....................... ................. ........ .......... 147 4.12 Fall River Road ............ .... ................................ ......... ............................. 154 4 13. Rem ains of convict cabins .............. ........... : .... ........... ............................... 155 4.14. Trail Ridge Road ........................................................................ ............. 156 4 .15. William White Cabin Moraine Park .... ............. ............................ ......... 157 4.16. Holzwarth Ranch ....................................... ...................... .................. ........ 158 4 .17. McGraw Ranch ..... ..... ........ . ................... ........ .................... ......... ... ....... 160 4.18. Indian-built wall Tombstone Ridge ...... ...... .............. ................. ............. 164 4.19. Lulu City today ..... ..... ............. ..... ..... ....... .............................................. 168 4 20. Grand Ditch under construction ...... .... ............... . ...... .... ................... ..... 171 5 .1. Petrified tree (Yellowstone NP) ...... ......... ................... .......... .... .................. 178 5 .2. Pioneer Register (Capitol ReefNP) ........... ......... ................................. ....... 179 5 3 Cabins at Rosemary Inn (Olympic NP) .... ............... .................................. 181 5.4. Loomis Historic District (Lassen Volcanic NP) ................................ ....... 182 5.5. Stanford Farm (Cuyahoga Valley NP) .................................... ..................... 184 5 .6. Fruita Rural Historic District (Capitol ReefNP) ....................................... 185 5.7. Orchard at Fruita Rural Historic District (Capitol ReefNP) ....................... 187 5.8. Olympic Hot Springs (Olympic NP) ............................. ... ............... ............ 188 5 .9. Crater Lake Lodge (Crater Lake NP) ........... ....... ........ .............. ................ 192 5 1 0. Landscape at Rim Village Historic District (Crater Lake NP) .................. 193 5.11. The Wolfram Tea Room (Rocky Mountain NP) ... .................................... 195 XIV

PAGE 15

5.12. Lost Horse Mine (Joshua Tree NP) ................................................ .... ....... 197 5 .13. Edward Abbey trailer site (Arches NP) ...................... ........ ...... ................. 199 5 .14. Enos Mills leading a tour in Rocky Mountain NP ...... .... .................... .. ..... 203 5 .15. Ranger-led twilight talk (Yosemite NP) .............................. .............. . ... 204 5.16 Hopi dancers (Grand Canyon NP) ............... ...... .... ....... .... .............. ..... 207 5 .17. Wayside signage at Triple Divide Peak (Glacier NP) ............................... 208 5 18. Ranger-led talk at amphitheatre (Badlands NP) .... .............. ...... ...... .......... 209 5 19. Earl y attempt at interpreting social history (Great Smoky Mts. NP) ......... 21 0 5.20. Eco Pond (Everglades NP) ...... ................................................ .... ............... 213 5 .21. Anhinga Trail (Everglades NP) .............. ...... ...................... ............... .... 214 5 22 Geological signage Excelsior Geyser (Yellowstone NP) ......................... 217 5 23. Drill Field (Yellowstone NP) ........................ .. .. .. ........ ............................... 219 5 24 Ute Trail (Rock y Mountain NP) ....................... .... ....... ........ .............. .... 225 5 25. Amasa Pierce Orchard (Capitol ReefNP) .................... .... ............ ............. 226 5 26. Interpretation for Brandywine Village (Cuyahoga Valley NP) .................. 227 5.27 Lamar Buffalo Ranch (Yellowstone NP) .. .................. .... ........................... 230 5.28. Natural history signage at Harbison Picnic Area (Rock y Mountain NP) .. 231 XV

PAGE 16

TABLES 3 1 CLI landscapes by 1 evel and region .......... ........ ......... ...... ... ........ ....... ...... ... 1 01 3 .2. CLI landscapes by level and characteristics ... .............. ....... ........... .......... 105 3 .3. Significant effects advancement to Level I or above ... ............. ....... .......... 109 3.4 Significant effects Advancement to Level 11 ....... ....... ..... ........... ....... ........ 114 3 5 SHPO-certified Level II landscapes as ofFY 2003 ........... ...... ... . ......... 116 4.1. Identified cultural landscapes ofRocky Mountain NP, by in v entory status .... ...... ........ ............. ...... .... ......... ... ........... .... ....... ..... ... 152 XVI

PAGE 17

PROLOGUE In September 2004 the National Park Service prepared to replace two his toric backcountry shelters in Olympic National Park that were deemed important for visitor safety but which had suffered extensive deterioration and could not be renovated. The Park had already built the replacement shelters off-site, designing them as similarly as possible to the originals through the use of drawings photographs and v erbal descriptions They had in fact followed the Secretary of the Interior s guidelines for reconstruction one of the four treatments allowed for historic properties. A s they were preparing to airlift them into the backcountry a l a wsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Tacoma by Olympic Park Associates Wilderness Watch and Public Emplo y ees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) claiming that the decision was in v iolation of the Wilderness Act. The conservation groups saw the entire enterprise as an "ill conceived action" that would degrade the character of a world-cla s s wilderness ." This case received media attention when I was in the middle of writing m y dissertation and it made me question the entire premise of this work. Th e debates that ensued in the new s paper and on the radio brought to light the fact that the gap

PAGE 18

between nature and culture that academics describe as a false dichotomy is alive and well in the real world. That nature (the wilderness area) and culture (the reconstructed historic shelters) were deemed so incapable of coexistence represents the v ery antithesis of cultural landscape studies. For cultural landscape professionals the location of the historic shelters in the wilderness does not take away from the experience of wild nature but instead humanizes it making us less distant and more connected to the natural world of which we are a part. Ultimately instead of making me question the rele v ance of this work the incident in Olympic National Park helped me realize its centrality to a number of very real and timely issues It also made me aware that although I ask numerous questions in this work about the future of cultural landscapes in the National Parks, many of these cannot yet be answered Debates similar to those that occurred in Olympic will continue shaping the way that the next generation of Americans experiences the interplay of nature and human endeavor. My hope is that through the work presented here I can help bring to bear on this process the realization expressed in the ancient Vedic texts that creation (shristi) occurs only through the dance of nature (prakriti) and humankind (purusha). 2

PAGE 19

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Ultimat e ly, as the fie ld of lands c ape prese rvation continu e s to d eve lop t h e r e w ill undo u bt e dl y b e fUrth e r di sc u ssi ons about ev aluating, do c um e nting, and r e gi s t e ring c ult u ral land sc apes. C ari Goetc h e us, Cultural L andsca p es and the N ational R egis t e r," CRM. 2 002. The preservation of cultural landscapes necessarily begins with defining them. This seemingly simple task has proven difficult although most scholars now view them as having at their core unique and complex interplays of natural and cultural activities. Management of any type oflandscape is generally more complicated than architecture because landscapes undergo change more rapidly, and management must somehow incorporate this change. For cultural landscapes these underlying nature-culture interactions complicate management substantially. Yet the last generation has seen a significant growth in the field of cultural landscape preservation with numerous successes. Prior to this expansion, landscape preservation in the United States focused mostly on natural landscapes areas of scenic wonder that were thought of as relatively "pristine or untouched by human influence. Throughout this time period the main 3

PAGE 20

body responsible for the management of significant landscapes was the National Park Service (NPS) Other agencies managed more extensive land areas (e.g. the Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service) but under NPS jurisdiction fell landscapes that warranted special treatment because of their unique geology biology scenery or history The NPS designated some areas in which the cultural component dominated the landscape (e g battlefields and Native American archaeological sites) and in these maintenance of the historic or prehistoric heritage was of greatest importance. On the other hand those that were deemed to fall into the natural" category were managed with the aim of obliterating or at least obscuring a ny traces of human acti v ity in the landscape that pre-dated the park's creation. The majority of the early national parks, the crown jew els" of the national park system fell into this category Cultural geography and cultural landscape studies emerged in the mid-201h century and led to a reassessment of this approach. Theorists began to recognize that all landscapes are an inextricable blend of natural (i.e. non-human) and human influences and the importance of preserving the human elements of landscapes even in predominantly natural settings became clearer. At the federal level preservation practice has begun to reflect these theoretical adv ances in the last two decades An important de v elopment has been the NPS s National Heritage Areas program a type of integrated public-private working landscape that the NPS helps manage with 4

PAGE 21

regional partners. In addition, the NPS has in the last few decades created landscape oriented programs and centers such as the Historic Landscape Initiative (HLI) in 1987 (specializing in educating the public and interfacing with partner institutions) and the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation in 1992 (specializing in providing technical assistance for landscape projects). In the process, the NPS has settled on a standardized definition for a cultural landscape : "a geographic area (including both cultural and natural resources and the wild life or domestic animals therein), associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic va lues. The agency categories them into four types: historic designed landscapes; historic sites; historic vernacular landscapes; and ethnographic landscapes (Birnbaum 1994). A major development for cultural landscapes in the parks specifically was the founding of the Park Cultural Landscapes Program in 1988 and the initiation of the Program's Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI) in 1994. The CLI is a comprehensive inventory of cultural landscapes in the national park system, instituted in response to a 1990 report identifying cultural landscape practices as a "materia l weakness" in NPS policy (Page 2001 ). It is the most ambitious and coordinated attempt at identifying and preserving American cultural landscapes ever. The CLI was set up with a goal of "planning, programming, and recording treatment and 5

PAGE 22

management decisions" (National Park Service 1998) vis-avis cultural landscape sites. Through this process the CLI has now developed a common methodology for these inventories. The systematic implementation of this system through the CLI is ten years old. Its theoretical development progress and effectiveness have yet to be independently reviewed In particular, there remain issues as to how cultural landscape management might occur in the large wilderness-oriented parks where wilderness and cultural landscape preservation are often viewed as being at odds with one another (Alanen and Melnick 2000). For the most part these wilderness-oriented parks correspond to the set of fifty-eight properties that Congress has designated as either National Parks or National Parks and Preserves, as opposed to the 330 (as of 2003) other properties under the NPS' jurisdiction including National Historic Sit e s and more than a dozen other categories. The focus of this study, then will be a review and analysis of cultural landscape management practices as they apply to these 58 National Parks. Stages of the Cultural Landscape Preservation Process This research considers three stages of the cultural landscape management process: in v entory treatment and interpretation. Each ofthese stages reveals different insights into the NPS's choices and priorities for the overall process of cultural landscape management. 6

PAGE 23

Inventory Inventory is the process by which the NPS identifies the full set of cultural landscapes in the parks in the process making judgments about what does and does not qualify as a cultural landscape This is the stage that the CLI was specifically created to coordinate Two concepts generally dominate the evaluation process during inventory: historic significance (importance of the property to peoples and events in American history) and historic integrity (degree to which the landscape retains that significance) Many imprints of human activities on the land have already disappeared from the parks or lost their historic integrity, often as a result of the agency's past policies Despite these losses however, the extant cultural landscapes in the national parks are too numerous for the NPS to set about applying treatments all at once Thus the inventory process not only identifies the landscapes but prioritizes them v ia a four level system (Levels 0 through Ill) where each subsequent step is more exclusive but more detailed Although the CLI switched to a simpler dichotomy of "complete" (Level 11-certified) versus "incomplete" (all else) in November 2003 the patterns that emerge from the use of these levels o v er the pre v ious years remain a subject for analysis. Currently over 3000 cultural landscapes are identified in the National Park system; a third of these are located in the national parks. Most of these are either on 7

PAGE 24

the National Register of Historic Places or are potentially eligible for inclusion on it (Goetcheus 2002). Many of the questions addressed in this dissertation center on patterns of cultural landscapes in v entory as identified by the CLI and my own fieldwork. What are the distribution patterns of cultural landscapes by regions and parks ? How do the types of cultural landscapes (hi s toric site historic designed vernacular ethnographic) that have recei v ed advanced inventories compare to those that ha v e not been prioritized? What attributes are shared by those cultural landscapes that have received complete inventories ? Finally what landscape types cultures or time periods have been emphasized so far, and how might that project in the future in terms of the v ariety of cultural landscapes that will be preserved? Treatment The NPS established a system for making cultural landscape treatment decisions which is outlined in the S e cr e tary of the Interior s Standard s for the Tre atm e nt of Historic Prop e rti e s with Guidelin e s for the Tre atm e nt of Cultural Lands c ap e s (Weeks and Grimmer 1995) This defines four treatment options P re s e rvation entails minimum intervention and hence maximum retention of historic fabric R e habilitation allows altering the historic fabric to meet new uses while maintaining the historic integrity. R e storation allows for returning the cultural landscape to a selected period 8

PAGE 25

in history by removing materials from other periods or adding character-defining features As the name suggests r e construction allows for rebuilding a landscape or landscape component that has disappeared based on historical documentation (National Park Service Historic Landscape Initiati v e 1996) The Secretary of the Interior's Standards provide little technical detail on how to apply the treatments Instead they allow for subjectivity and local decision-making with regard to when and how such treatments are applied In part this is based on the recognition that cultural landscapes are particularly difficult to define and classify, and this is best done at the local level when specialized expertise is available. In the national parks landscapes that are selected for treatment receive a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) a process / methodology that predates the CLI. In fact some cultural landscape sites received attention through the CLR before they were inventoried by the CLI process Like the CLI the CLR assesses the historic integrity and significance of the landscape and its character-defining features. The CLR goes one step further in outlining a treatment program. The two programs do not always proceed in tandem despite their common goals Combining review of these CLRs with case study fieldwork and park reconnaissance I address such questions as: How do different treatments apply to different types of landscapes ? How are the v ariety of features that the landscapes contain (e.g. buildings versus organic materials) treated differently ? Given their unique identities which treatments can best preserve 9

PAGE 26

integrity for vernacular landscapes (and, to a lesser extent, ethnographic landscapes), and under what circumstances? Interpretation Interpretation is the process by which the NPS conveys an understanding for the cultural and historical significance of a landscape to the public. Much of the interpretive activities related to cultural resources are carried out by the interpretive divisions in individual parks. These include developing the contents of signage, ranger programs, and park publications such as brochures, pamphlets and maps that help frame the visitor's experience. The majority of interpretive activities were in fact developed before the sites were recognized as "cultural landscapes" through the CLI process. This section will consider how sites that have come to be recognized as cultural landscapes are being interpreted in the parks and what that tells us about the agency's implicit perspectives on cultural landscapes, and how these may be changing. Goals and Objectives The overarching objectives of this dissertation are: To identify current on-the-ground practices for how cultural landscape sites are inventoried treated and interpreted in the national parks in the US. 10

PAGE 27

To ascertain how such practices meet the overall theoretical goals of the cultural landscape programs To examine what this implies for the future of cultural landscape preservation in the national parks. Significance The research attempts to bridge the gap between the theoretical concepts of cultural landscapes and their practical implementation within the nation's largest cultural landscape preservation enterprise. It provides a unique opportunity to identify and highlight the practical issues facing cultural landscape preservation, and to see how they compare to the more theoretical issues that have appeared in the cultural landscapes literature over the past half century. Given that cultural landscape preservation is comparatively new and the NPS is still refining its approaches, a review such as this is important and timely generating insights of value for revisiting some of the current cultural landscape practices in national parks across the country Data and Methods The questions posed are answered by combining multiple approaches for observation data collection and analysis. These include some that emphasize breadth including reconnaissance of cultural landscapes in different national parks and an analysis of the 11

PAGE 28

national CLI database. At the same time, greater depth is achieved through a case study focusing on cultural landscape management in Rocky Mountain National Park. The Case Study Rocky Mountain National Park (abbreviated ROMO by the NPS) typifies the experience of many large western parks that were thought of as places of natural wonder and marketed as such to the public, and from which many pre-park traces of human activity were obscured. The case study involves a comprehensive survey of cultural landscapes in ROMO, a property with both a rich cultural landscape history and a relatively advanced cultural landscapes inventory. The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) an independent organization has published a report assessing the conservation status of ROMO in many different categories which predicts a bleak future for cultural landscapes in the park unless more preservation efforts are made (National Parks Conservation Association 2002) The reconnaissance survey already conducted by the NPS Intermountain Regional Office was supplemented by my own field surveys reviews of park documents, archival materials and photographs and unstructured interviews with the park staff. The purposes of this work were to understand the practical experience of all three stages of cultural landscape management in depth and especially to gauge the inclusiveness of the inventory process 12

PAGE 29

The CLI: Quantitative Analysis The primary research also contains a broad analysis of the patterns of inventory and prioritization that have occurred so far service-wide. Roughly 3% of cultural landscapes in the national parks identified through the reconnaissance process (Level 0) have completed the review process 1 ; the list of properties at different stages of the inventory process (as revealed in the CLI) is used. This information has been organized into an automated database called the Cultural Landscapes Automated Inventory Management Systems (originally abbreviated CLAIMS, although this acronym has since been dropped) The purpose of the analysis is to answer questions about how landscapes with different uses scales types and locations fare in the CLI and what that suggests about the importance of the NPS 's different criteria for evaluation in actual decision-making. For this type of analysis in which the predicted outcome is a probability and there is more than one attribute being used for prediction the usual method for statistical analysis is multiple logistic regression (MLR). Such a method allows for all of these possible effects (landscape use, scale type, loc ation) to be teased apart from one another and interpreted separately The use of statistical methods also allows for the significance of effects to be identified; that is, whether they are large enough not to arise by chance in the observed sample, and thus require explanation Because the full data were not made available by the NPS 1 Complete re view refers to those landscapes that have recei ve d a "Level II" inventory and have been certified by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) This process will be explained in later c hapters Beginning in 2003, the CLI office replaced thi s "Leve l II SHPO-certified" terminology with the phrase "com plete accurate and reliable ." 13

PAGE 30

the analysis required significant hand-coding. Database management occurred in Microsoft Access and statistical analysis in SPSS The CLI: Qualitative Analysis The statistical analysis was supplemented with a qualitative examination of the CLI data to determine the attributes that cultural landscapes receiving complete inventory share, and what this may imply for the future. This was conducted for the thirty-one properties nationwide that had received complete review as of fiscal year 2003, which contain far more information in the dataset made available than other properties do. These landscapes constitute about 3% of the properties listed in the CLI for national parks as a whole. Information on these properties used in the textual analysis includes database fields such as area of significance; period of significance, condition assessment cultural landscape type National Register significance and threats to the property. The textual analysis reviews information in each of the fields to discuss historic significance and integrity for individual properties as determined through the CLI process. The discussion also touches on condition and threats, which are identified as internal, external, both or none. Park Reconnaissance The research questions related particularly to treatment and interpretation required a breadth of information not found in the CLI data or the case study. The 14

PAGE 31

reconnaissance was undertaken to understand how the listed cultural landscapes have been treated and interpreted in different parks. For this work a set of parks were selected to represent a variety of dominant landscape types (mountainous desert etc.) and geographical and administrative regions throughout the continental US Within each park a subset of landscapes on the CLI were selected for visitation, in order to cover the full range of property types for that particular park with a special emphasis on vernacular landscapes that are unique since they retain at their core the interactions between cultural and natural processes. Landscapes that had received high levels of review were also selected for more complete fieldwork. In addition unstructured interviews were conducted with park staff. The questions focused on both filling in baseline information for properties and understanding treatment and interpretation activities Organization of the Document The dissertation is organized into six chapters; including this Introduction (Chapter 1 ). Chapter 2 discusses the historical development of cultural landscape preservation in general and in the NPS specifically. Topics include situating cultural landscape preservation in its parent fields of historic preservation and cultural geography The chapter also reviews management practices of the NPS with regard to cultural landscapes in light of the nature-culture dichotomy that has long remained a part of the NPS 's (and the west's) worldview Chapter 3 focuses on the description and 15

PAGE 32

analysis of the Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI). The first part of the chapter focuses mainly on the structure of the database, including a description of important information fields it contains. The second part is a statistical analysis of identified cultural landscapes and results, including a discussion on the emerging patterns. The chapter concludes with a qualitative assessment of the thirty-one completed and certified Level II landscapes and their common characteristics. Chapter 4 looks at one park in depth to see how the three parts of cultural landscape preservation play out in the field. Through this one can gauge the effectiveness and inclusiveness of the CLI process, which is difficult to determine by CLI data alone. The first part of this chapter is a narrative on the cultural landscape history of the park using mostly secondary but some primary sources and fieldwork The second section is a systematic overview of cultural landscape sites in the park using park materials and publications and extended site surveys. The last section focuses on how the CLI process played out in this particular park, as well as an assessment of why different cultural landscapes have received different inventories thus far. Also included is a discussion on properties that were not identified through the CLI process and what that tells us about how the NPS evaluates cultural landscapes 16

PAGE 33

Chapter 5 is divided in two distinct sections: treatment and interpretation How the different treatments apply to different landscape types are discussed in the first section, with a particular emphasis on vernacular landscapes This is followed by an examination of neglect as a kind of treatment (either active or passive) with possible reasons why some cultural landscape sites are neglected. The second part looks at the evolution of interpretation activities in the parks and how different cultural landscape properties have been interpreted This section emphasizes on-site interpretation activities Finally Chapter 6 concludes by summarizing the outcome of the research followed by a discussion on the limitations and future directions of the work This chapter ends by offering recommendations that stem from this work for cultural landscape preservation in the national parks. 17

PAGE 34

CHAPTER2 THE RISE OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION In Chapter 2, I review the emergence of Cultural Landscape Preservation out of two distinct traditions : Historic Preservation and Cultural Landscape Studies. I then review some of the persistent issues and criticisms in Cultural Landscape Preservation particularly those with the greatest implications for this research. I conclude with a detailed discussion of the history of the National Park Service's role in Cultural Landscape Preservation up until the present day. Origins and Development Historic Preservation The mandate ofhistoric preservation is to maintain vestiges of the world s diverse cultural heritage a task whose magnitude has increased dramatically of late in the face of rapid globalization and cultural homogenization. Initial preservation efforts focused on preserving individual structures of monumental stature which were associated with specific historical events or figures Focus on the individual structure often meant that the context of the building in terms of landscape and setting differed 18

PAGE 35

markedly from the original and made the interpretation of history difficult. This approach makes sense when one thinks of how culture and history were themselves understood History was not the tale of all people s lives; it was simply the sequence of events by which great changes occurred in society. Culture meant mostly "high culture," the realm of elites only Thus, it was believed that history and culture were adequately preserved by restoring those properties that were of monumental architectural significance or associated with historic figures (Wallace 1996) The mid-twentieth century saw a series of massive social changes including global de-colonization and worldwide movements for ethnic and gender equality. A concurrent shift in the academic world led to a much wider understanding of the nature of history with a new awareness on the general relevance of social history At the same time massive urban renewal projects were underway to "revitalize" large sections of the American city left poor and decaying after the burgeoning middle class moved to the suburbs en mass e Whole neighborhoods were being lost to the wrecking ball in the name of progress These two phenomena galvanized the historic preservation movement and generated a paradigm shift about the field's mandate. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 reflected the need to treat a wider range of property types in order to ensure that a full cross-section of history was preserved Initially this wider awareness of historical value was implemented 19

PAGE 36

primarily through the concept of the historic district. According to the NHP A these are areas based on a recognizable historic character and their boundaries determined by the location of contributing buildings ("National Historic Preservation Act 1966). Although the designation as a historic district may lead to more stringent design reviews mandated by local authorities the area can continue its role as an active commercial industrial economic or residential center; preservation of Den v er's Lower Downtown, Boston's Quincy Market, Seattle's Pike Place and hundreds of other historic residential and commercial neighborhoods across the country grew out of this approach. The widening of the scope of preservation led to the inclusion of a greater variety of properties than before since a single property within a district did not need to be of exceptional value on its own As a result more vernacular styles and neighborhoods associated with a wider range of social groups were recognized as hav ing historic value worthy of preservation. The fact that currently used properties were recognized also meant that history became less divorced from present-day daily life. Today historic districts are found across the country in communities of all sizes and economic bases who preserve their neighborhoods to maintain a general sense of historical context in their communities (Hamer 1998 ; Figure 2.1 ) This increasing interest in context also resulted in a greater interest in the preservation of landscapes in addition to buildings To understand this trend we must step back and consider the parallel emergence of cultural landscape studies 20

PAGE 37

FIGURE 2.1: Quincy Market (Boston Mass.) Cultural Landscape Studies Historic preservation was based on the idea that the past partly resides in architecture and that preserving architecture helps maintain a sense of the past. A parallel realization, that the past can also reside in other patterns of human interaction with the landscape also emerged over the course of the twentieth century. The process of understanding those patterns has come to be known as Cultural Landscape Studies Carl Sauer first used the term "cultural landscape in his seminal essay The Morpholo gy of Landscapes (Sauer 1925). This work and others by Sauer made the study of culture a central focus of geographic studies in the US 21

PAGE 38

At the time of Sauer's writings, environmental determinism was a widely accepted view, which proposed that the characteristics of the land largely determined the type of culture that emerged there. Sauer dismissed the claims of the environmental determinist model to show that it was not simply nature, but culture working with and on nature, that created the geographical context in which we all live (Mitchell 2000) Cultural landscapes Sauer explained, were "fashioned from a natural landscape by a cultural group ; culture is the agent, the natural area is the medium, the cultural landscapes the result."(Sauer 1963) Based on this perspective Sauer emphasized the importance of studying the material artifacts of different cultures as a way of understanding the cultures themselves. The next fifty years saw a spate of cultural landscape studies on a variety of material artifacts by students of Sauer. Among the early proponents of this framework was Wilbur Zelinsky who sought to find patterns in the distribution of cultural features in the American landscape. In his work Zelinsky pushed the anthropological idea of the sup e rorganic the idea that culture is palpably greater than the sum of its parts something with its own independent existence that can act on the landscape and the people without their knowledge. In Zelinsky s words "a culture practices us even more than we practice it. (Zelinsky 1973). Given this view, Zelinsky argues that culture did not reside so much in individuals' relations to their society, but in larger22

PAGE 39

scale geographic patterns of elements of the physical environment or other cultural practices. Pioneers of a more contextual study of "ordinary" (or "everyday" landscape) include W.G. Hoskins in the UK and J.B. Jackson, Yi-Fu Tuan, Peirce Lewis, John Stilgoe and Grady Clay in the US. This line of study started out following and furthering Sauer's ideas but in a more interpretive manner. Jackson first began thinking about landscapes as human artifacts while in Europe during World War I. In the first issue of Landscap e magazine (which he founded), Jackson wrote that "there is really no such thing as a dull landscape," (Jackson 1951) which was a radical idea in the 1950s when the ethos of the time implied that it was reasonable to focus on the dominant culture and preserve its landmark structures He explained cultural landscape as a man-made composition of structures and spaces designed to serve the needs of its inhabitants and when those needs economic, social, [and] ideological-change then the landscape changes." (Jackson 1990) The importance of ordinary landscapes is a recurrent theme in all of Jackson's writings; he saw the goal of his work as showing how to understand both the past and present culture of a place by reading the patterns on the land Jackson argues that the contemporary American landscape is complex and various and contains far more than just architecture alone From his observations of the landscapes he was able to 23

PAGE 40

extract a sense of time and place as well as of the changing relationships between people and the land and between individuals and their communities (Jackson 1994) Jackson remains a pivotal figure in the field of cultural landscape studies and has inspired a new generation of scholars who have brought new ideas, approaches and subjects of study to the field. Like Jackson, Peirce Lewis also asserted the importance of everyday landscapes in understanding place and culture, noting that even though "common landscapes may have little to display regarding the skilled work of landscape architects," they have a great deal to inform about the people and the places they create (Lewis 1993). Lewis also had trouble with the conventional treatment of history by preservationists who focused on isolated grand buildings while ignoring the context of which that building was a part. Putting up a "picket fence," Lewis suggested implies that there is history only inside the fence and anything that lies outside the fence is not historical and therefore has little value. Such treatment also separates the structure or the site from the geographic context disrupting landscape continuity Although Lewis acknowledges that it is important to preserve individual landmarks that are loaded with symbolism, these "collective punctuation marks" are not enough to preserve the meaning in the landscape (Lewis 1979). While the earlier cultural landscape studies focused on finding uniformity in the landscape (especially in the work of Zelinsky) more recent studies strive to find meaning both in the commonalities and differences in the landscape. Recent studies 24

PAGE 41

often focus explicitly on diversity as seen in Hayden's The Po we r of Place: Urban Landscap e s as Public History in which she proposes perspecti v es on gender race and ethnic uniformity in Los Angeles urban communities. Paul Groth Jackson's protege, has attempted to synthesize many of the recent developments in the field and has compiled a set of tenets to define the framework of cultural landscape studies These tenets define the scope of everyday landscapes, establish their importance, identify common themes in current scholarship, and outline the range of research methods used in the field In this and his subsequent writings, the study of so-called ordinary landscapes remains clearly central to the field of cultural landscape studies (Groth 1997) A new gen e ration of scholars trained largely in Britain in the tradition of social geography (instead of cultural geography as in the US) ha v e in the last decade begun to focus on cultural issues more critically, arguing that the American critics of the Sauerian model are in many ways still operating within a Sauerian paradigm The new geographers argue that individuals are not as oblivious to the greater cultural forces acting on them and the landscape as previous scholars suggested. For example Schein argues that in the earlier framework "culture appeared external to the indi v idual thus denying human agency or the indi v idual's ability to effect cultural (and thus landscape) change. "(Schein 1997) Other new geographers go further and offer a more explicitly post-modem v iew of culture not as a unitary phenomenon but 25

PAGE 42

as a contested and constantly negotiated one. Cultural geography then must focus on issues of hegemony and resistance. By ignoring the complexity that arises from such negotiations, they argue Sauer and his American followers and critics alike have placed unnecessary emphasis on the rural and antiquarian, narrowly focused on physical artifacts (log cabins fences and field boundaries) (Cosgrove and Jackson 1987) In the process they mask "many problematic social, economic and political relationships." (Duncan 1980). These scholars reject Sauer's strictly morphological methods in favor of more critical and interpretive methods including approaches that are post-modern, post-structural and identity-based (e .g. feminist and queer theory). These include anthropologist Clifford Geertz's "thick description in which the phenomenon of study is described from multiple perspectives, disentangling the layers of meaning with which the phenomenon has been imbued (Geertz 1973). Recent scholars all agree that people play an important role in shaping the landscape (Figure 2.2), which in turn reflects their cultural values and ideologies. Studying the patterns in the land thus helps in understanding the history of a place and making sure that those patterns are not completely lost takes on great value. Nevertheless, for the most part we continue to see that "much of the everyday environment that can significantly contribute towards an understanding of the place is overlooked and undervalued." (Groth 1997) 26

PAGE 43

FIGURE 2.2: Landscape patterns created by pivot irrigation (San Luis Valley Colo ) Cultural Landscape Preservation As described in the previous two sections historic preservation (in its modem form s ince 1966) and cultural landscape studies developed over roughly the same time period, the mid 20th century to the present. Historic preservation is concerned with preserving a sense of cultural history in the built environment while cultural landscape studies have provided the argument th a t this sense is found as much in patterns of landscapes as in architecture. Cultural landscape studies thus h e lped preservationists reali z e the cultural and historical value of landscapes The resulting awareness that landscapes needed to be managed in ways that parallel the 27

PAGE 44

management of architectural resources has had a profound impact upon the course of historic preservation Prior to this development, the field of historic preservation mostly ignored landscape. Such bias is particularly evident in earlier preservation projects that on the one hand took painstaking care with the details of a building's restoration to maintain its authenticity, and on the other hand merely "touched up" the landscape to make it generally compatible and often not even that. In other cases the landscape was ignored altogether, or actually redesigned using styles unrelated to the original design, harming the integrity of the site (Buggey 1998). For instance, even today at the Taj Mahal site, one of the world's most celebrated architectural treasures the gardens continue to receive little treatment at the same time that the buildings are the focus of intense scrutiny. The British altered the century-old Mughal gardens to make them look more European replacing some of the dense original plantings with more tame" lawns. Details of the historic design are known from early memoirs yet this information remains ignored, and the gardens continue to differ greatly from the building's period of significance.2 In addition, the twenty-four acres of the Mahtab Bagh (Moonlight Gardens) at Taj Mahal remain buried under silt and subject to 2 One can certainly argue that the British d es i g n is itself lllstoric. However the Taj itself has b ee n restored to a specific period of time, and the time period represented b y the gar dens i s r adically different. Furthermore, no attem pt to int erpret tills diff e r ence or inform the public of it is made at the site. 28

PAGE 45

vandalism (Moynihan et al. 2000). This all despite the fact that the buildings have been the recipient of one of the most sustained, coordinated efforts at preservation in the world. In the early years, when landscape was considered it was usually in garden restorations for estates designed by known designers as with architecture the initial attempts at landscape preservation centered on those built and owned by the wealthy. Early landscape architects took the responsibility for these restoration projects Arthur A. Shurcliff a student of Olmsted conducted countless restorations of plantations and estates including Carter s Grove in Virginia. Much of this work was based on "landscape archaeology ," in which the nature of the historic landscape was determined through fieldwork along with historical records The only other common type of landscape management was that of "natural landscapes" such as the work of the National Park Service (NPS) In this case however, the goal was usually the opposite of both historians and archaeologists: to remove all traces ofhuman activity and create an impression of wilderness When the NPS did work on cultural landscapes it used an archaeological framework. This resulted largely from the fact that many of the cultural landscapes that the NPS was dealing with were Native American in origin and the cultures that shaped them had 29

PAGE 46

either been relocated or decimated to such a degree that the landscapes were no longer in use. It might seem that the development of the Historic District concept in 1966 would automatically lead to a greater emphasis on landscape in preservation, since districts necessarily contain a landscape component. In practice however the early focus remained on the collection ofbuildings themselves Most of the early districts were urban and while their reports catalogued each building in detail issues oflandscape significance entered primarily when the district contained a designed park or plaza. Interest in the landscape as a repository of cultural and historical meaning remained low until the creation of the Rural Historic District designation in the 1980s (Melnick 1984). Even today, many urban historic districts pay little attention to maintaining landscape continuity outside of parks (designed landscapes) and sometimes not even that (as seen in the case of Occidental Park in Seattle s trendy Pioneer Square neighborhood which faces demolition threats). Unfortunately designed landscapes are expected to change as much as building interiors to keep up with the changing nature ofurban life Thus up until the 1970 s the focus of landscape preservation was almost entirely on natural landscapes and high-style designed landscapes and even many examples of these were ignored These two foci largely determined our initial understanding of 30

PAGE 47

the field, and the bulk of landscapes that fall outside of these categories remained ignored. These include virtua lly all landscapes that had evolved without any direct involvement of design professionals but in which the evidence of human influence is fundamental. Some of the more well-known examples of these in the US include the farming landscapes of the Amish people in central Pennsylvania or the mining landscapes of both the Mountain West and Appalachia. Throughout this period, the former were not usually thought of as needing protection (since they were in active use) while the latter were dismissed as derelict and worth forgetting (Frankaviglia 1992). By the 1970's however, ex panding suburban growth patterns throughout the Un ited States were consuming rural landscape at an alarming rate. Farmland and prairie were among the most threatened landscapes, since they did not ha ve the same protected status as many "natural" landscapes such as forests. This process more than any other led to the awareness that cultural meaning would be lost if our vernacular landscapes were allowed to be overrun. Although this concept was initiall y applied primarily to agricultural landscapes (e.g. the Boulder Open Space Program) it quickl y expanded to include other types of vernac ular landscapes such as mining or railroading sites (Figure 2.3). These de ve lopments also led to an increased awareness of a broader variety of designed landscape worthy of preservation beyond just gardens P a rks parkways cemeteries memorials and planned communities had all seen years of 31

PAGE 48

FIGURE 2.3: The irrigated landscapes of Viejo San Acacio, Colo. neglect, even those designed by the most celebrated landscape architect in American history, Frederick Law Olmsted. In 1980, when New York City and the Central Park Conservancy began the restoration work on Central Park much of the original design had changed due to years of neglect and incongruous additions and alterations The meadows that Olmsted created in his picturesque vision were by this point either overgrown or re-surfaced for active recreation such as basketball, tennis and baseball (Alanen and Melnick 2000) Recognizing the value in preserving cultural landscapes was one thing; implementing this awareness in practice was quite another. In 1978 a small group of professionals met for a symposium in New Harmony Indiana and created the Alliance for Historic 32

PAGE 49

Landscape Preservation.3 Around the same time the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) formed a historic preservation committee that classified landscapes in three broad categories: designed landscapes cultural landscapes and natural landscapes (Murtagh 1988) .4 The NPS recognized cultural landscapes as a resource type in the early 1980s; their subsequent role in cultural landscape preservation will be discussed in greater depth in the next section. Early international preservation charters also focused on buildings while mostly ignoring the landscape component. This archicentric view can be gleaned from the language of the Venice Charter formulated by the International Council of Monuments and Sites (I COM OS) in 1964 as a set of international guidelines for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites The charter dwells considerably on issues of authenticity in conservative restoration (Jokilehto 1998), which was understandable given the spate of historically insensitive restoration activities in Europe following WWII. Nevertheless, there was little inclusion of the larger context of cultures that created the heritage being preserved until 1994, when the Nara Document on Authenticity expanded upon the Venice Charter and attended to 3 The alliance is an interdisciplinary professional organization an d an advocacy group whose purpose is to help preserve historic land capes of all types 4 The gro up has become a professional interest group of ASLA that serves as a forum for landscape architects interested in historic preservation 33

PAGE 50

questions of both cultural diversity and cultural specificity (LeMaire and Stove! 1994). UNESCO the leading agency conducting international cultural landscape preservation describes cultural landscapes as follows : Cultural landscapes represent the "combined works of nature and of man They are illustrative of the evolution ofhuman society and settlement o v er time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social economic and cultural forces both external and internal. (UNESCO 1996) UNESCO (1996) divides cultural landscapes into three types: Landscap e d e sign e d and creat e d int e ntionall y b y man : The category includes garden and parkland and landscapes associated with buildings and part of an ensemble. Organicall y e volv e d landscape : Landscape in this category reflect the social economic administrati v e and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment." Associati ve cultural landscape : such landscapes are associated with "powerful religious artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence which may be insignificant or e v en absent." The Burra Charter, originally formulated by the Australian ICOMOS in 1979 and subsequently revised three times (most recently in 1999), has done much to develop approaches to the treatment of associati v e cultural landscapes Unlike other charters 34

PAGE 51

the Burra Charter includes a focus on the non-tangible aspects of cultural significance particularly meanings that people ascribe to places important to them. The Charter also recognizes the need for people with traditional ties to places to be actively involved in the decision-making process It is not surprising that these developments occurred in Australia whose aboriginal populations are known for placing deep spiritual significance on landscape. Critiques of Cultural Landscape Preservation Deciding what to preserve and how to preserve it remain unending debates in historic preservation ; the underlying theoretical issues are especially complex for the preservation of cultural landscapes Recent approaches to historic preservation may be genuinely more pluralistic than their predecessors but they are still not without their problems. Here I discuss some of the ongoing difficulties with preservation in general and cultural landscape preservation specifically with a focus on those that will relate most directly to the research I present in the following chapters. Perhaps the most extensive critique of preservation practice revolves around its potential contribution to the process of gentrification and the negative impacts on displaced low-income residents. A landscape equivalent of this issue would be the gentleman farmer who in some convoluted way is responsible for the disruption of traditional (and economically necessary) land practices. This occurs when parcels of agricultural landscapes that maintain their idyllic character beyond the edge of the sprawl become 35

PAGE 52

attractive places for the wealthy to develop country estates and recreational ranches which displace family farmers. A relevant line of criticism revolves around questions of whether much of preservation practice propagates a contrived sense of history by presenting the past in a form that never previously existed. By way of controls, districts or sites become more "historic" as time passes and as the non-conforming structures are erased replaced by those that blend better with the prevailing style and period of the setting As a result, such properties become more homogeneous with time, creating the impression that the past was itself more uniform that it really was (Hamer 1998 Figure 2.4). Jackson explains this phenomenon in the context ofhistoric districts as the dramatic discontinuity" invoked by historic preservation Most built environments that become historic districts start out in a golden age of prosperity, followed by a period when the golden age is forgotten and the area experiences economic decline. Preservation comes when the area is rediscovered, and generally means returning to the golden age not any of the other equally significant historic periods in the life of the area (Jackson 1980). Another related critique of contrived sense of history is that the physical landscape may be retained accurately but through curatorship rather than as an expression of living culture, raising numerous questions of authenticity and changed meaning. For instance, many of our nation's historic battle sites were grazing fields or other agricultural lands at the time their role in 36

PAGE 53

FIGURE 2.4 : Adobe fac;ade covering the original Neocla s sical style to match the rest of the district ; First National Bank (Santa Fe NM) history became assured including much of Gettysburg. Nowadays they are mowed as part of groundskeeping operations rather than through grazing ; this may keep the grass short but in a way that some would question as compromising the s ite s historical authenticity. In the same vein historic preservation as practiced often undermines the realities of life in the period of history it seeks to preserve For example Central City Colorado Virginia City Nevada and countless other mining communities sanitize the culture of mining leaving out the drudgery and danger and celebrating the freewheeling attitude of the Wild West not because the latter is a better reflection oflife in a 19th century 37

PAGE 54

FIGURE 2 .5: "Freewheeling" Wild West show (Virginia City Nevada) mining town but simply because it sells better (Figure 2.5) People enjoy visiting places where there is a sense of history but they don't necessarily understand when the sense that is conveyed is truly appropriate to the setting and not a romanticized version (Wallace 1996). As a result some scholars have likened historic districts (especially the Main Street approach) to themed environments that resemble Disney's Main Stre e t USA. Francaviglia calls this phenomenon "imagineered heritage landscapes (Frankaviglia 2000). The type of places historic preservation creates may not be historically accurate but they enjoy a wide popularity since they appeal to a radically new concept of history and of the meaning of history (Jackson 1980) 38

PAGE 55

Since the majority of historic preservation deals with historic buildings, another criticism is that preservation focuses mostly on the exteriors of buildings. "Fa<;:adism," as this phenomenon is sometimes called, is discredited for not concerning itself with the entire historic fabric Merely saving the shells of old buildings, skeptics note does not lead to preserving the spirit of the time and place The underlying issue of context is much broader than simply the question of building exterior versus building interior. As seen in the examples above the concern can apply equally to preserving buildings without the appropriate landscape context; or saving individual buildings and landscapes without considering the larger urban (or rural) form. This becomes a question of scale, with preservation work ranging from a specific site to entire regions. As the scale increases so does the complexity of management of the resources in the landscapes. For example Colorado's San Luis Valley contains an enormous system of vernacular irrigation ditches intertwined by laterals, along with associated structures farmlands and rows of cottonwood trees, all covering an area larger than Rhode Island; the preservation issues for such a landscape are far more complex than for a single farmstead Part of the reason that questions of context and scale plague cultural landscape preservation so strongly is that the concept of a cultural landscape is itself fluid and often very general. The NPS definition of a cultural landscape ("a geographic area including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals 39

PAGE 56

therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values") could arguably include almost any landscape on Earth; the UNESCO definition is similarly general. This issue of generality is inherent in the very idea of ordinary landscapes. In practice, landscape management decisions usually come down to a question of degree; those that receive designation and treatment are generally the ones that either most clearly represent common historical trends, or possess more unique cultural or aesthetic value than others (and are therefore "ex traordinary" in their ordinariness paradoxically). Short of placing all landscapes into the domain of collective management (which could be seen as one objective of a strong regional planning approach), some prioritization decisions must be made ; the general ness of the very definition of ordinary landscapes lea ves much room for subjectivity and political wrangling to enter the process and even to come to the fore. A "landscape can be seen at different scales in which a particular period of significance' overlays and is overlaid by cultural landscapes of other periods and with modem land use. (Cook 1996) As a result its component features may require different treatments as one approach will not suffice for the entire property. Perhaps this is the reason why the National Register lists cultural landscapes as a set of districts and sites, rather than as a separate category However by forcing cultural landscapes into a sites-and-districts framework the National Register runs the risk of 40

PAGE 57

devaluing the landscape itself in favor of some of the architectural ensembles found within. In practice, built features on the sites are easier to comprehend than subtle landscape connections and other intangibles; however, by reducing a landscape to its component pieces, there is a risk that our understanding of the relationships between the pieces themselves might be lost (Alanen and Melnick 2000). Preservation can also be complicated by the fact that the meaning of a site being preserved may be different for different people or may be something some would rather forget. Kenneth Foote discusses many examples of the latter in his book Shadowed Ground (Foote 1997), reviewing sites associated with some past stigma or tragedy. Given the complicated nature of preserving and interpreting such sites, Foote notes that they are far more likely to be ignored than are sites that recall a triumphant and joyful past. Hiding uncomfortable details at historic sites when they pertain to contested social issues such as sexual identity is a common interpretative practice (Loewen 1999). In cases where changing perspectives on history have led to revised interpretation, a number of sites have opted not to replace the original interpretation but rather to leave it up and add an additional layer that effectively "interprets" the original interpretation as its own piece ofhistory. A good example is in Santa Fe Plaza, where the central marker refers to Native Americans as savages." A separate marker has been added to explain the changing perspectives of Native Americans by Whites over time. A similar phenomenon can be seen on the 41

PAGE 58

FIGURE 2 .6: Revisionist plaque honoring women pioneers on the Founders' Monument (Seattle Wash ) monument commemorating the founding of the city of Seattle. The original monument erected in 1951 to celebrate 100 years of white settlement, lists the male members of the settler party by name but the females by the phrase "and wife Two additional plaques have since been attached to sides of the monument ; one listing the female pioneers by name and celebrating their unique spirit (Figure 2.6) and one to the Duwamish people who inhabited the area at the time of European settlement. A final issue complicating cultural landscape preservation is that it invariably deals with living parts (i.e. plant animal and human species) that interact with one another in complex ways However since most landscape preservation deals with places" as a holistic concept the goal is not so much for the indi v idual parts to retain historical 42

PAGE 59

continuity (i.e. replacing each lost tree in a landscape with another of its original species) but rather for the landscape as a whole to retain meaning Maintaining a general "sense of place" can be a lot more abstract and a lot more difficult than simply conserving bricks and mortar. In the rush to focus attention on the dynamic nature of landscapes, some professionals (both theorists and practitioners) have gone to the extreme of arguing that landscape preservation is essentially impossible and futile. But by doing so they ignore the fact that different components of the landscape may change on vastly different time scales (for instance in most landscapes geology or hydrology will change at a much slower timescale than vegetation) or that some kinds of change may be more a part of the landscape system historically than others. Accepting that the biotic components in the landscape will change does not imply that concepts of preservation or management need to be discarded Today it is widely accepted that landscape preservation is less about preventing and more about directing change so that historic meaning remains legible in the environment.5 This leads to the most fundamental question landscape preservationists must answer what change is appropriate and what is not? The answer to this question is landscape specific culture specific and hence highly subjective especially in vernacular landscapes Cultural landscape studies interact with historic preservation at this point by providing the theoretical framework in which such decisions can be made. 5 Thi s point about managing change" has b e en discussed b y s e v eral auth o r s in the field of his t o ric pr es ervation includin g Lyn c h ( 1976). 43

PAGE 60

The Early Years Uneasy Coexistence: the National Park Service and Cultural Landscapes The NPS has been a major actor in the contemporary practice of landscape architecture and landscape preservation in the US. Here I will discuss the changing concept of landscape in historical context in order to understand the ideological framework in which the NPS was created and in which their ensuing management practices have evolved I will look at the design of landscapes and the inventory as well as treatment and interpretation of cultural landscapes in the national parks since they form the center of the research that follows. The federal government as a whole plays a significant role in the management of cultural landscapes in the US especially in the west where the majority of land is under its jurisdiction. The National Park Service is the largest manager of identified cultural landscapes although other agencies such as the US Forest Service the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department ofDefense also hold and maintain cultural landscapes within their expansive holdings. The BLM for instance, has 381 historic properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places many of which contain a significant landscape component (National Register Information System 2004) 44

PAGE 61

The NPS administers units ranging in size from vast stretches of the Alaskan Arctic to single buildings in urban settings. As of2004, there were 388 properties in their jurisdiction; 58 were designated as National Parks, often considered the "crown jewels" of the system, although this number is slowly growing.6 All but eleven of these are located west of the Mississippi River (Figure 2. 7). The NPS is housed within the federal Department of the Interior, and is financed through a combination of federal support and park user fees. Although the first national park (Yellowstone) was established in 1872 the NPS did not come into existence for another four decades Responsibility for administrating the parks at first fell to the Army; with the passage of the Antiquities Act in 1906, historical and archaeological sites (including the parks) then came under the purview of the Department of the Interior. The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 created the National Park Service within the department, making it responsible for the management of cultural resources. Stephen T. Mather, a Sierra Club member and businessman was named as the first director (Runte 1997). The Organic Act clarified the details of the new agency's role, mandating it to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and 6 The two most recent additions are Congaree National Park in South Carolina and Great Sand Dunes National Park in Colorado both of which were upgraded from National Monuments by Congress in 2004. 45

PAGE 62

O lympic 1 Theodcn Roaietelt Rei!wood ,_ Vcicll\ic Cnlld TetCII. oJatBasi n Y"ostrW.t e Xinp Canycm. CW!Yanlilll ChW'tel Islands Seq1.1cia I I Deat!i Reef V all e y\.. r"' Cnnd I Y '"" Petrified Faest c::. Al>.olll\&S j. / Natiarel Par k a American Salnoa Cuyohl a Wley r Mammoth Can Haeakala FIGURE 2.7: The locations of the National Parks the majority of which are in the West Vuginllanls to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations ." (16 U.S .C. Sec. 1 1916 ; Figure 2.8). Today we recognize that this mandate contains an inherent tension ; attempting to leave ecology and culture unimpaired is not completely possible when providing resources through which visitors can experience it particularly for the volume of visitors that the parks have had to accommodate in 46

PAGE 63

FIGURE 2.8: Roosevelt Arch proclaiming the parks' mission (Yellowstone NP) recent decades.7 Moreover for landscapes that are naturally dynamic identifying whether observed changes represent natural" phenomena (and thus appropriate) or human-induced "impairment" (and thus bad) can in many cases be stubbornly difficult. We now recognize that many of the areas we previously thought of as wilderness had in fact been shaped by human intervention for years, including the cultural landscapes that form the focus of this work. For these removing all intervention and leaving lands "unimpaired" would in fact lead to new changes. The 7 That the NPS ha ve been strivi ng to maintain balance betw ee n preservati o n and use in orde r to fulfill its dual mandate has been a subject of extensive discussions by environmental historians especially Chase ( 1987) and Sellars ( 1997) 47

PAGE 64

NPS has been struggling to fulfill these contradictions in its mandate since the beginning and has by necessity made changing decisions over the years regarding appropriate approaches to landscape management. Congress did not purposefully enact a law that w as paradoxical for in th e concepts of landscape that prevailed at the time the bill made sense Prior to the late-191h century the west had been viewed almost exclusively in terms of its potential for re s ource exploitation. At that time public lands could be freely accessed by home s teaders for a v ariety of acti v ities, including ranching gra z ing fishing and mining. The end of the 191h century (the decades before the NPS was officially established) saw the rise of a new ethos towards wilderness. The Transcendentalists and the Romantics such as Thoreau John Muir and the members of the nascent Sierra Club viewed w ilderness a s a sentimental and spiritual territory to be held in re v erence Populari z ing the themes of sublime and transcendental in nature the early conservationi sts urged the federal government to apply restrictions to the use of public lands to protect them. The formation of the US Forest Service (USFS) in 1905 took control of the forests and limited use by charging fees and issuing permits for use of public lands, but their model was based on s ustainable use and less on stewardship of wilderness. Those that worked the lands for a living loathed the government interference critici z ing the conservation mo v ement (perhaps accurately) as representing values of th e urban elite. 48

PAGE 65

Some even argued that such restrictions were unconstitutional. Despite the controversy the USFS prevailed Gifford Pinchot-a Yaleand European-trained forester-became the first director of the new agency, and under his leadership the USFS began to draw upon a newly emerging set of methods known as "practical forestry" that were enjoying considerable success in Europe. The approach viewed the landscape primarily through a scientific rather than a romantic lens and attempted to preserve the basic ecology of an area while still allowing commercial use of the land (Pinchot 1899) As USFS policy developed a growing number of purists took issue with such so called "wise use" practices, which they saw as desecrating the transcendental qualities found in non-human nature. They re-asserted their demands that the federal government preserve nature "unused" so that humanity could reap its spiritual benefits. Aldo Leopard and other scientists claimed that the preservation of undisturbed nature was imperative for the preservation of humanity giving scientific validity to the notion of wilderness preservation With Fredrick Jackson Turner's claim of the vanishing frontier," a growing number ofunsatisfied urbanites pushed even more for preserving nature so that there would be some place to escape from the industrial cities. These disparate views played out most strongly in the national controversy over the damming of the Tuolumne River in California's Hetch Hetchy Valley in the first decade of the twentieth century (Figure 2 9) now seen as a 49

PAGE 66

FIGURE 2.9: The expanses ofHetch Hetchy Valley prior to damming (Yosemite NP) fundamental galvanizing moment in the nascent American environmental movement (Nash 1982). The National Park Service was born in the midst of these conflicts over humanity's proper relationship to wilderness, and it was in this climate that the visions of the park creators were translated into policies and implemented as management practices in parks across the nation. The fact lost in all of these debates was that there was not really any pure wilderness" untouched by humanity to preserve in the first place Native Americans had used most of the landscapes that were being preserved for millennia shaping their form through wildfires hunting and agriculture "The myth of the wilderness as 'virgin' uninhabited lands notes Cronon has been "especially cruel when seen from the perspective of Indians who had once called that land home." (Cronon 1995b) Most western parks were created by dispossessing Indians from their ancestral lands (Figure 2.1 0) forcing them to discontinue centuries-old traditional uses within the park boundaries (Spense 1999) 50

PAGE 67

FIGURE 2.10: Miwok Indians with bear cub (Yosemite NP) In the east where the Native Americans had long since been displaced the NPS used the power of eminent domain to remove unwanted Europeanand African-American residents from the land. In the future Shenandoah National Park for instance, residents were evacuated; their farmhouses were tom down and the working l andscapes were reclaimed for "wilderness." The landscapes then became used primarily as safe recreational getaways for the elite urban tourists, since few others could afford the time or money to visit them (Figure 2.11 ). 8 8 Even today, the parks have few visitation s from minority and poor communities something the NPS is exploring ways to rectify (Floyd 2001) 51

PAGE 68

FIGURE 2 11: Early visitors enjoying the ge y sers (Yellowstone NP) In some cases out of political necessity the NPS allowed a subset of residents to retain possession or the lease on the land These inholdings w ere often seen by the parks as obstacles in carrying out their management agendas In time the agency would acquire the majority of the private properties in the national parks so this complication has been steadily declining On the other hand a conflict of a somewhat similar nature is on the rise as Native peoples are re-asserting their right to gain access to the parks to carry out traditional practices, some of which are at odds with NPS management goals. For instance the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe has been objecting to the interpretation of Death Valley NP using language and images that represent their ancestral homeland as full of" death and bleakness. (Hardesty 2000). 52

PAGE 69

Such conflicts are likely to rise as more and more tribes assert their claim to lands from where their ancestors were unceremoniously banished and as it becomes less politically acceptable to ignore such claims. The pristine wilderness myth fostered by all of these removals causes harm not only towards the populations that are removed from the "wilderness." As first argued by Cronon, it can also create a threat to "responsible environmentalism" as it leads to the neglect of nature that is not real." That is, it teaches us that the tree in the backyard is less significant than the tree in Yosemite when both may perhaps require the same management and care With this view so ingrained in our psyche we do not regard urban nature with respect and continue our wasteful approaches to land and resources in settled areas including sprawl growth This view can also make environmentalists less concerned about human problems in non-wild environments even when these problems are environmental in nature. If we continue to view ourselves apart from nature in this way, there is very little we can learn about co-existence, harmony and about the "s ustainable honorable human place in nature. (Cronon 1995b ) Although we are now getting used to thinking of culture and nature as intertwined at the time of the NPS's creation the two were still seen as opposites As a result, the NPS initially held little concern in preserving cultural landscapes in their natural" properties, and in many cases they worked deliberately to obliterate trace s of 53

PAGE 70

FIGURE 2.12: Planned destruction ofhistoric site (Rocky Mountain NP) humanized landscapes in favor of wilderness or the appearance of wilderness (Figure 2.12). Examples of such obliterations can be seen (or rather, not seen) in most parks and continue even to this day. In Rocky Mountain National Park, for instance the NPS razed most dude ranches within the park boundaries (Ditmer 1996) The mining camps have been lost through a "benign neglect" policy that allowed them to decay into ruins Had it not been for the intervention of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the local community the NPS would have demolished the nowcherished McGraw Ranch in 1993 as well, considering demolition to be the most cost-effective measure 54

PAGE 71

FIGURE 2.13: Early interest in Native American archaeology (Mesa Verde NP) One major exception to cultural landscape destruction in the national park s, even in the early yea rs of the NPS, was the grand Native American archaeological sites, primaril y in the southwest in parks like Mesa Verde and Grand Canyon (Figu re 2.13). Most nati ve cultural landscapes are referred to as "ethnographic landsc a p es" by the N PS and managed as Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) or archaeological sites. Critics argue that b y placing emphasis on these landscapes and having them managed so lel y as archaeological sites, the NPS helps create the impression that all Native culture was dead and buried at the time of colonial expansion into the area rather than active and continually altering the landscape. This only makes the Native world seem more dis tant ?-om the general American ex perience that the park s aim to 55

PAGE 72

interpret. Bouse argues that the 191h century view of the human world and the natural world as distinct generally placed Native Americans as part of nature rather than humanity and the NPS has only contributed to the perpetuation of that viewpoint, whet her consciously or not (Bouse 1996) At times, the NPS took a similar approach to cultural landscapes associated with European Americans as well; in Great Smoky National Park, for instance, they attempted to preserve an Appalachian mining town as a frozen-in-time museum after the local population was removed, creating the impression of a town that had already been abandoned when the park was created (Pierce 2000). At the same time that vernacular landscapes were being erased from park properties the NPS needed to construct new landscapes to service the visitor. Land sca pe architects played a significant role in the development of the national parks from the beginning especially during the parks early years, when the scenic rather than ecological values of the landscape were of prim ary concern (McCle lland 1998). Among these landscape architects was Frederick Law Olmsted whose vision of design that drew from the surroundings and blended into them as much as possible took early prominence (Carr 1998) Olmsted wanted the parks to provide physical mental and spiritual" rejuvenation and pushed for harmonizing designs as a result. This vision continued through the depression years, when the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) of the New Deal undertook a considerable amount of park 56

PAGE 73

FIGURE 2 .14: CCC crew at work (Mesa Verde NP) improvements and conservation (Figure 2.14; Paige 1985) In all of their work they continued the Olmstedand Downing-inspired framework of rusticated design that has come to be known as parkitecture" This general approach is not without its modern critics who argue that hiding the human-made elements of the landscape perpetuates the artificial division of nature and culture in the mind of the visitor (Spirn 1995) During the post WWII period, the economic boom and rise of the middle class resulted in an enormous surge of visitors to the parks. Moreover most of these were now arri v ing in personal vehicles whereas park visitation had thus far been largely by package tour in partnership with the railroad companies serving gateway towns 57

PAGE 74

FIGURE 2.15: Mission 66 signage (Grand Teton NP) (Chase 1987). Although Olmsted had to some degree anticipated the effects of rising visitation on park integrity the NPS was not fully prepared for the massive scale of change. In 1956, the agency introduced the Mission 66 program, a federally funded program to update many of the park facilities including improvement of roads provisions for parking and the construction of new visitor centers. Moreover, Mission 66 was a conscious attempt to connect to the ethos of the new automobile era (Figure 2.15). The debates of half a century before over the parks spiritual essence were gone ; now technology was seen as the savior of humanity and the new style reflected this viewpoint very clearly Architecture focused on angular glass and metal, while landscape architecture made less effort to blend in or to minimize automobiles v isual impact. Many of the developments from this period such as the Gettysburg 58

PAGE 75

FIGURE 2.16: Cyclorama (Gettysburg National Military Park) C y clorama (Figure 2 16) and the Paradise Visitor Center in Mount Rainier National P a rk are currently facing demolition as the park returns to its more naturalistic architectural roots although there are those who wish to see them saved as an integral part ofthe NPS s historical development (Bernstein 2001). In the meantime visitation continued to rise causing some parks to experience e v er more elaborate conflicts between the goals of providing visitor services and maintaining the integrity of the landscapes that everyone comes to see in the first place. Perhaps nowhere is this crisis more acute (and more famous) than in Yosemite Valley where summer weekends can see urban le v els of air quality and traffic. 59

PAGE 76

Recently the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially designated several national parks, including Rocky Mountain National Park the focus of Chapter 4, as "polluted" containing unhealthy ozone levels. The NPS has also overhauled many environmental practices since the 1960's Our scientific understanding of ecosystems was not great in the earlier part of the 201h century, and the NPS committed a number of practices that we now recognize as ecologically unsound. These include habitat fragmentation, overgrazing and loss of ground cover (resulting from the removal of predators) and the suppression ofnatural fires, among others (Figure 2.17).9 Recent years have seen a revision of these practices and a dramatic increase in the number of scientists conducting research in and contributing knowledge to the management of the park landscapes in ways that maintain biodiversity As they have become increasingly concerned with environmental degradation the NPS has turned away slightly from its emphasis on tourism development to more concern with tourism management. Long gone are the days when they used captured park animals for circus shows to amuse the visitors.10 9 Hess (1993) discusses many such ecological issues specific to Rocky Mountain National Park. 10 Since tourists felt "rewarded" by animal viewings, the NPS for many years arranged for animal s hows such as the famous bear shows in Yosemite in which bear were tempted to feed from trashcans in v iew of the public These shows were extremely popular and continued well into the 1960s. Plans to keep caged animals by the roadside in Rocky Mountain National Park for tourists to view from their automobile were seriously considered but thankfully never implemented (Buchholtz 1983) 60

PAGE 77

FIGURE 2.17: Trapping of predators (Yellowstone NP) An outcome of the greater understanding of parks as part of a larger ecosystem has the NPS taking interest in regions where the national parks are located Some national parks such as Rocky Mountain are too small to be viable independent ecosystems so it becomes necessary to plan regionally to be able to maintain wildlife migratory corridors yet allow for new developments. The gateway towns that have s prung up around many parks to pro v ide added tourist infrastructure are sometimes seen as potential threats to conservation if not properly managed. Thus the NPS 's landscape concerns now extend into the realm of community planning Unfortunately neighboring residents are not always happy to engage in partnerships with the NPS who in some cases are seen as threats to the neighbors' continued livelihood. As the NPS has begun to reintroduce endangered predatory species such as the gr ay wolf and 61

PAGE 78

allowed some wildfires to persist, ranchers and other neighbors have felt increasingly threatened .11 Changing Attitudes Codified: the Historic Preservation Law of 1966 Paralleling the growth of awareness in ecological management was the rise in concern for historic preservation as reviewed in the beginning of this chapter. The Historic Preservation Act and the Environmental Protection Act, passed in 1966 and 1969, respectively, required the NPS to balance the intrinsic duality between preservation and active use found in the original NPS Act. Since then the preservation of historic structures has begun to receive more attention, although cultural landscapes still much less so. Not until the 1980's did cultural landscape preservation begin to come into focus. In 1981, the NPS released the first edition of their directive titled Cultural Resources Management Guideline (NPS Directive 28), officially recognizing cultural landscapes as a separate resource type. Robert Melnick helped to define the methods ofthe new approach with his 1984 study (Melnick 1984). In 1989, the NPS published a National Register Bulletin (with Melnick again as an author) titled Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Districts that discusses 11 Reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone NP in the 1990s from where they had been dri ve n to extinction earlier still remains a subject of controversy and discussion in popular as well as academic media (Lloyd 1997) 62

PAGE 79

the characteristics of rural historic landscapes and suggests methods of survey and research. The concept of the rural historic landscape is-a geographical area that historically has been used by people or shaped or modified by human activities, occupancy or intervention and that possesses a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of areas of land use vegetation, buildings and structures, roads and waterways, and natural features. (McClellan et al. 1989). In 1996 the NPS formally set their definition of a cultural landscape as: a geographic area (including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein), associated with a historic event, activity or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic va lues (United States. Dept. of the Interior et al. 1996). For the purpo se of management they chose to categorize them into four distinct but non-mutually exclusive categories. Historic sites are significant for their associations with important events, activities, and persons. Battlefields and presidential homes will fall in this category. Historic designed landscapes include landscapes that reflect some recognized style of construction or which are associated with important persons, trends or events in the histor y of landscape architecture. This is a subset of UNESCO's category of landscap es designed and created intentionally by man. Historic vernacular landscapes include landscapes not designed by a trained professional reflecting how people have collectively shaped and reshaped the land Agricultural areas, mining and fishing vi llages would be included in this category. This category is similar to UNESCO's organically evolved landscape Ethnographic 63

PAGE 80

landscapes are associated with traditional practices on sites meaningful to contemporary groups such as Native Americans. This category is similar to UNESCO's associative cultural landscape. In practice the distinction between vernacular and ethnographic landscapes often seems to reduce to whether they are associated with the (often inactive) dominant culture (and thus called vernacular) or other (sometimes active) cultures (and thus called ethnographic) The NPS recommends four treatments for cultural landscapes preservation rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Preservation is the minimum intervention and requires retention of the maximum amount ofhistoric fabric. R e habilitation allows altering the cultural landscape to meet new uses without compromising its historic integrity Restoration allows returning the landscape to a selected period in history by removing materials from other periods and selective introduction of new materials Reconstruction, the most extreme of treatments, allows a landscape to be re-created from scratch with new materials based on historical documents These four treatment options were derived from The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Weeks and Grimmer 1995), which apply to all of the different types of property listed on the National Register of Historic Places: buildings, sites structures, objects and districts. The language for these treatments in the original Standards did not deal specifically with landscapes. Charles Birnbaum the current coordinator of the National Park 64

PAGE 81

Service Historic Landscape Initiative and a leading voice in this direction helped frame the language of an additional set of landscape-specific guidelines The resulting Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (Birnbaum and Peters 1996) take a comprehensive approach to treating all types of landscapes except ethnographic ; the steps include research inventory documentation analysis treatment plan and ongoing maintenance routine Alanen and Melnick note these standards simplify instead of clarify the values necessary for cultural landscape preservation "Codification is perhaps a practical requirement but it is a "presumption of equality or equal value that can be quantified which is particularly difficult to achieve for cultural landscapes where the need to maintain balance between the "'blind' application of regulations and purely emotional response to historic and cultural landscapes is important (Alanen and Melnick 2000). The traditional preservation approaches do not address the fact that l andscapes are both artifact and system both a product and a process. They are usually also parts of much larger systems, such as historic irrigation systems in a watershed. A New Kind ofNPS Property The NPS initially focused their cultural resource management work on landscapes outside their own properties given that vernacular cultural landscapes generally 65

PAGE 82

require some form of continued traditional use to retain meaning Their approach of ownership of all managed lands with removal of the inhabitants would no longer work. In 1978 the NPS created Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve a 25square mile area on Whidbey Island in Washington State on land held b y both private and public (federal, state county) entities. The designation ensured that new developments would remain respectful of the predominant historic agricultural use of the land Five years later, in 1983 the NPS implemented the National Heritage Areas (NHA) program designating nationally distinct cultural landscapes in which human activities and patterns are prominent in shaping the landscapes. As in the National Historical Reserve (of which Ebey s Landing remains the only case) the agency does not have jurisdiction o v er the land nor are they solely responsible for the management of the areas ; instead they provide expertise and funding and help manage the area in partnership with local organizations. The Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in Rhode Island and Massachusetts is a prime example The are a contains many scattered remnants of early 19 t h century mill life from canals to workers housing villages to old turnpike route s to mill complexes themselves The area still continues to work as a living landscape The goal here is to keep land in use for the same general functions not to set it aside as a public preserve ; in many ways this is the same basic philosophy as that used in urban historic districts where the historic context remains intact and continuing use is permitted. As of2003 there w ere twenty four National Heritage Areas of which only two are west of the Mississippi River ; 66

PAGE 83

Yuma Cronlf19 {AZ) Tennauoo C :J Wor Cana River .. FIGURE 2.18: The National Heritage areas (MAIRI) Cerollna this pattern reverses that of the national parks themselves which are mostly in the west (Figure 2 18) A New Kind ofNational Park Following on the success of the National Heritage Areas program the NPS in 2000 promoted one of their cultural-landscape-oriented properties to the coveted title of a National Park Cuyahoga Valley was designated a National Park in 2000 after 25 years a s a National Recreation Area (NRA). The park is unlike any other national 67

PAGE 84

park" on many accounts including its location in the metropolitan corridor of the industrial cities of Cle v eland and Akron and the multitude of private parcels remaining within the park boundaries. In addition active use of land is encouraged as the NPS has devised innovative local partnerships to keep farms functioning. The landscape today is also reminiscent of when this area was a NRA, with a greater emphasis on active recreation like golfing, skiing and biking not seen to nearly the same degree in other parks Lastly the density of cultural resources in Cuyahoga NP far exceeds other parks (26.5 entries on the CLI for every 10 000 acres, compared to 1 2 entries for ROMO and 0.2 for the national parks as a whole; Figure 2 19 ) That the Cuyahoga Valley received the coveted NP designation and not a National Historical Park (NHP) or NHA designation may have been a political or strategic issue since judging from past NPS designations the property fits the latter two better than the former. However its designation also reflects the NPS s new approach to managing national parks where cultural landscapes are a significant component and the agency does not own all the land within the park boundary. Currently the NPS does not appear to have any interest in acquiring properties and eliminating use and private residences from the park. The designation alone reflects advancement in the understanding of cultural landscapes in the national parks that are still valued mostly for their natural landscapes. 68

PAGE 85

0 0 5 0 1 0 0 15. 0 20. 0 25. 0 30 0 Figure 2 .19: Density of cultural landscapes by park (Number of entries on the CLI per 10, 000 acres) Cultural Landscapes in Other NPS Units Many of the NPS s properties that are not national parks have a specific landscape component and in many ofthese the cultural landscape is a dominant feature of the unit. Examples include historic battlefie l ds, cemeteries and trails. Much of the spatial experience on these properties is derived from landscape features and elements and both management and interpretation focus on how the landscape was shaped by (and shaped) the history of the unit. Historic battlefields are particularly interesting places, where interpretation often focuses on how the nature of the terrain shaped the tactics 69

PAGE 86

and the outcome of the battle. Treatment often involves reconstructing faded traces of ditches trenches and fencing to assist with interpretation of these sites. Historic trails provide a similar experience of a landscape that was once used for transportation purposes and now has more of a recreational or educational v alue. These properties offer opportunities to compare cultural landscape management practices in sites where cultural landscapes are considered dominant to those in the larger more naturalistic national parks where their value is less widely recognized. 70

PAGE 87

CHAPTER 3 STAKING CLAIMS : CULTURAL LANDSCAPES INVENTORY IN THE NATIONAL PARKS Chapter 2 described numerous major steps forward that the NPS has made over the years in the recognition of cultural landscapes. However none of them changed the fact that the cultural landscapes in the predominantly natural" parks remained underrecognized and threatened Since the 1990's however the NPS has focused attention on cultural landscapes in all of their properties. In 1990 the Secretary of the Interior's Annual Control Report identified a material weakness" in the preservation of cultural landscapes and historic structures on the NPS properties The weakness was described as that "[h]istoric and prehistoric structures and cultural landscapes are damaged by neglect or deferred work due to insufficient funds or staffing ." (Page 2001 ) To address these deficiencies the NPS devised five corrective measures in fiscal years 1992 and 1994 of which the Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI) was selected for funding. The CLI was designed as a comprehensive inventory of cultural landscapes in the national park system that would assist land managers in planning programming and recording treatment and management decisions." (Page 2001). To comply with federal regulations (Section 110 (a) (1) of the National Historic Preservation Act and NPS Management Policies and Cultural Resource Management 71

PAGE 88

Guideline) the CLI was set up to conduct a management inventory of all cultural landscapes that have historical significance, in which the NPS has or plans to acquire any legal interest. The three main functions of the CLI were stated as (1) identifying and locating cultural landscapes (2) collecting information about the cultural landscapes and (3) assisting park managers with treatment and management decisions Drawing largely from the scattered cultural landscape inventory that had been conducted on various properties thus far, a three-year initiative commenced in 1994 to design and field-test an inventory methodology for cultural landscapes in the NPS. Here I describe in more detail the process by which the inventory was conducted, the rules and guidelines provided to those responsible for the inventory and a description of the data fields generated. I then discuss both quantitative and qualitati ve analyses of the dataset obtained from the Park Cultural Landscapes Program. Portions of the full CLI data were provided in two abridged versions.12 The first was a printed copy, obtained at the NPS Denver Service Center, of a GPRA (Government Performance and Results Act) report of2003 (containing data up through mid-2003) that the regions completed for the national office in Washington This contained the full set of cultural landscapes but a small set of information on each one, and needed 1 2 Initial correspondence with NPS staff pri o r to commencing thi s re sea r ch proje c t s u ggested that the full CLI data would be available to qualifi ed researchers ( Br aa 2003) Since this turn ed out not to b e the case, th e types of analyses that could be co nduct e d for this project were greatly redu ce d 72

PAGE 89

to be re-entered into electronic form by hand. The second version was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request; it included most fields of information, but only contained the 31 landscapes that had received a SHPO-approved Level II review, or about 3% of the total identified landscapes in the fifty-eight National Parks. I use both of these sets of data in the analysis below, and begin by describing the development of the complete dataset. The CLI Data The official protocol for the CLI process was published by the Park Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes Program in a manual called the CLI Professional Procedures Guide (PPG), which explains in detail the prescribed components for completing a management inventory (Page 2001). The guide has three sections; Section I explains the purpose and use of the CLI and interprets its relationship to park cultural resource management. Section II focuses on the data fields required for landscapes and component landscape and Section III does the same for landscape features and component landscape features. (These categories are defined below) The latter two sections also provide instructions regarding each data field along with supplemental professional guidance. The Guide draws information from various existing reference materials primarily the National Register Bulletin series. 13 The 13 Chief among these are McClelland eta!. 1999 Andrus and Shrimpton 2002, National Register of Historic Places 1997 Keller and Keller 1987 Seifert eta!. 1997 Parker and King 1998 Andrus 1999 Potter and Bolund 1992 and Nobel and Spude 1997 73

PAGE 90

description of the process below reflects that contained in this manual. As with all processes at this scale, however the actual practice on the ground can differ in any number of minor or major details from the official protocol. Part of the fieldwork in this dissertation was to develop a sense at least for one park of where these differences lay and what they mean for the final product. The CLI methodology involves staff at three levels in the NPS structure: the National Center Clusters/Regions and the Parks. The National Center in Washington DC is home to the highest le ve ls of the NPS bureaucratic structure. There are seven regional offices (Northeast Southeast Midwest Intermountain Pacific West National Capital14 and Alaska) some of which are further divided into two or three clusters ." The CLI methodology was developed by the National Center with input from staff at the regional and cluster le ve ls It was then field-tested by regional and cluster offices and revised based on their input. The initial launch of the program occurred in 1996; the largest revision of the process thus far (including a restructuring of the CLI database and a new release of the PPG service manual) occurred in 2000 After initial de v elopment of the process the main responsibilities for the CLI moved away from the National Center. However the center retains the role of developing 14 None of the 58 National Parks are in the National Capital Region so all disc u ss ion s of regions in this re ea r ch will refe r to th e remaining six on l y 74

PAGE 91

and maintaining standards to ensure consistency and compliance with Section 11 0( a) (1) of the National Historic Preservation Act and other federal requirements .15 They provide training and technical resources and work on staffing and funding for the program. Most of the direct responsibility for carrying out the CLI lies with the staff of the regions and clusters. They gather information on cultural landscapes in the parks under their jurisdiction and provide training and technical information to the field staff. They are also the focal point for data entry (including editing) of the information collected At times they hire pri vate contractors or interns to assist with the inventory, in which case they remain the supervisors and points of contact for them. Each region is responsible for preparing a five-year plan that identifie s strategies and priorities for conducting the CLI which is then updated every fiscal year. At the end of each fiscal year (September 30), they send a copy of the newly generated CLI data to the National Center, where it is uploaded into the national database. All this work is managed by one dedicated CLI coordinator at each office Although they are not primarily responsible for the CLI, the staff of individual parks assist the regions with the inventory process They establish priorities for funding staffing, maintenance and planning for their cultural landscapes generally They develop any interpretive programs that may center on the cultural landscapes. If there 1 5 Section 11 O(a) requires federal agencies to take responsibility for the preservation of historic properties The agencies are required to identify inventory and nominate historic properties to the National R egister that are under their jurisdiction 75

PAGE 92

are any lands outside their boundaries that are associated with the cultural landscape, they may coordinate with neighboring communities to manage them The parks also need to satisfy Section 106 compliance requirements. 16 Both the National Office and the Parks are responsible for documenting conditions of the cultural landscapes for the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) purposes ."17 In addition, three CLI benchmarks require concurrence from the park superintendent (a condition imposed by the CLI program itself); these include the completion of Level II (explained below), revisions to the inventory (and subsequent updates) and Condition Assessment (and subsequent updates) discussed later. To standardize the CLI process among different stakeholders and to facilitate sharing of data, the CLI was automated using a custom-designed software system. The automation allowed for data entry and editing activities complying with the federal guidelines. It also allows for both preprogrammed and ad hoc queries of the data, along with management and other reports associated with the inventory. The database known as CLAIMS (Cultural Landscapes Automated Inventory Management 1 6 Section I 06 of the NHP A integrated historic preservation with all federal agencies' planning decision-making and project execution. It requires federal agency to ensure that the NHPA is administered and that the agency "take into account" any effects of their projects on historical and archaeological resources 17 The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) mandates Federal agencies to account for program result s through the integration of strategic planning budgeting, and performance measurement. 76

PAGE 93

System)1 8 was set up to interface with other NPS systems such as the List of Classified Structures (LCS) National Register Information System (NRIS) Cultural Resources Management Bibliography (CRBIB) and Facilities Management Software System (FMSS). The CLI and the National Register One of the CLI's goals in identifying and evaluating cultural landscapes is to collect information that could be used in determining eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. TheN ational Register of Historic Places is an official federal list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The register was established under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and is administered by the NPS. Currently there are approximatel y 78, 000 listings on the National Register of which roughly 700 are in the 58 national parks. While the listing has no legal authority to protect the property from changes including demolition (most of these controls are implemented at a local level) the listing is recognition that a property is historically significant and may be eligible for federal tax credit assistance if it is private and income producing. The Park Cultural Landscapes Program and specifically the CLI were created to provide bas eline information on cultural landscapes that are already on the National Register or eligible for it. Other NPS programs that ha v e helped ad v ance cultural 1 8 The use of the name CLAIMS for the databa s e has recently been aband o ned by th e CLI Althou g h thi s t e rm w a s in u se throu g h o ut mu c h o f th e p erio d that I am ex aminjn g I w ill r e f e r t o it as the "CLI datab ase" thr o u g hout thi s work. 77

PAGE 94

landscape documentation nomination and preservation are the Historic Landscape Initiative and the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation as well as the National Register itself through their various bulletins Much of the detail of the CLI including such things as terminology and criteria for significance and integrity borrows directly from the National Register. The National Register is primarily geared towards individual buildings or historic districts ; properties must be placed into one of five categories: buildings districts, sites, structures or objects. The properties that are nominated to the National Register usually document buildings in great detail using standardized forms that focus on the history architecture and condition of the structures. Often these do not address the relationship of the building to the site or the landscape context with much detail even when these are the most historically significant components In recent decades the NPS has addressed this shortcoming by producing several bulletins that address cultural landscapes ; their use has improved the quality of nominations for cultural landscapes but many cultural landscapes still remain ignored When cultural landscapes are nominated to the National Register they must be nominated as one of the five National Register property types, or as multiple properties, since there is no separate category for cultural landscapes This point will reappear later when considering the outcomes of the CLI thus far. Most of the 3 000 cultural landscapes 78

PAGE 95

identified in the national park system thus far have been considered potentiall y eligible for the National Register or are already on it (Goetcheus 2002). Hierarchical Classification in the CLI Although it is necessarily a priority for the CLI, standardization also attempts to address the vario us potential complexities of cultural landscapes. One way it does so is by adopting a four-tier hierarchy for subdividing the landscape into identifiable components and/or features. The hierarchy breaks the identified propert ies down into landscap es andfeatures and then into component landscapes and componentfeatures. Landscape represents the entire area of interest, the "parent" to all components and features. Component Landscapes are elements within a land scape that contribute to the significance of a property and which could be individually listed on the National Register. Component Landscapes are documented individually for the CLI. Landscape Features are the smallest identifiable physical units that contribute to the significance of the landscape and that can be managed as individual sites. Component Landscape Features are like landscape features but for component landscapes. Moraine Park, 1 9 in Rocky Mountain National Park for instance, could be seen as a parent landscape significant for its association with the early recreational industry. In this case the Moraine Park Museum site (previously a lodge) as well as the William White summer cabins area could be listed as component landscapes. The meadow in 19 In Co lor ado terminology flat meadows are usually called parks. 79

PAGE 96

Moraine Park would then become a landscap e feat ur e while the amphitheatre associated with the Moraine Park Museum site may be seen as a component landscap e feature. However, if the Moraine Park Museum site were listed as a separate parent landscape (as is actually the case) then this hierarchy would change. As is evident from this example the application of the hierarchy depends on the character and complexity of the landscape. Complex landscapes may use all four classifications to fully explain the scope and connections between the parts and the whole. Others might need only a few of the classifications to fully describe the complexity. The application of the hierarchy is left flexible to leave room for professional judgment in deciding the subdivision of the landscape for the purpose of documentation and the appropriate level of inventory needed at the time. In ve ntory Levels The CLI structure includes a four-tier inventory method for documenting the cultural landscapes: Levels 0 (park r ec onnais sa nce surv ey), I (landscap e r ec onna iss anc e survey), II (landscape analysis and eva luation) and III (fe atur e inventory and assessment). The Le ve l 0 Inventory is meant to be inclusive-the NPS considers it better to include something that is potentially ineligible rather than exclude something that is potentially eligible (Braa 2002). The CLI uses a scoring system to prioritize landscapes for advanced inventory based on a list of criteria (see Appendi x II) ; those with highest scores receive priority Beyond Le vel 0 each subsequent step then 80

PAGE 97

becomes more detailed and more exclusive Landscapes at each stage are deemed either eligible or ineligible for the next stage; those that are eligible are further divided into those that are prioritized and those that are not prioritized for further work. L eve l 0 (Park R e connaissanc e Surv ey) Level 0 identifies the scope of the landscape or component landscapes collects existing information on the resource and documents threats. It also establishes priorities for Level I, based on the types of missing information that may avoid adverse effects on the resource or which are required for park planning or other construction projects The product of Le vel 0 include an indicative list" of significant landscapes strategies for completion of Le vel I and II and a list of research needs L eve l I (Landscap e R e connaissanc e Surv ey ). Historical research forms an important part of this inventory ; sources pertaining to the cultural landscapes are scanned to gather information on the property A site visit is conducted for an initial e v aluation of the significance and integrity of the landscape or component landscape In addition, priorities are established for Level II based on immediate threat including construction projects in the park that may undermine the National Register status of the resource. The products of Level I should include Level I forms indic a tive list of potentially significant landscapes ," strategies for completion of Level II, lis t of 81

PAGE 98

research needs detailed site plans and Resource Management Plans (RMP) including summary charts and project statements Level II (Landscape Analysis and Evaluation). This is a more detailed inventory that identifies the landscape characteristics and the associated features of the landscape or component landscape. For landscapes / component landscapes whose National Register status is undetermined prior to the CLI process, completion of Level II requires a consensus determination by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as to the property's eligibility for the National Register. Level II includes a condition assessment of the landscape / component landscapes and documents treatment if it has already been completed A list of physical features of landscape characteristics are defined as either contributing or non-contributing to the significance of the resource Priorities are established for Level III inventory based on requirement of more detailed information for park planning needs or resource management purposes Products of Level II include revised detailed site maps Level II forms (Coordinator Re view Report) National Register nomination strategy for completion of Level III technical assistant reports and a park CLI information packet including photographs slides, and report Level II may use information from a National Register form or a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) if they exist for the property The CLR predates the current CLI 82

PAGE 99

system; as a result, this document repeats some of the evaluation ofhistory, significance and integrity of a cultural landscape. The CLR proposes treatment options for properties while the CLI only documents past treatment decisions. These reports may be prepared by park staff if expertise is available but are often prepared by consultants Although the CLI and CLR should ideally be parallel efforts often they are not in practice because they are products of different park programs. The Park Cultural Landscapes Program is currently trying to structure the CLI as a part of CLR in order to better integrate landscape identification and management (Lawliss 2004a). L eve l III (F e ature Inv e ntory and Ass e ssment). This level was conceived as a separate effort to identify selected landscape features in more detail. It focuses on physical features identified in Level II as contributing to the significance of a landscape or component landscape. It includes condition assessment and cost associated with treatment. The history and character of the features are recorded and site maps showing the location of the feature are prepared Because it focuses on individual landscape features rather than the landscape as a whole Level III does not revise the information in Level II. The complete inventory includes an in v entory of the parent landscape as well as its component landscapes and associated features, which can take a substantial amount 83

PAGE 100

of time. As the inventory proceeds from Level 0 to Level III additional information is gathered on the property previous information is refined and each subsequent inventory is more exhaustive. The CLI is not considered complete until Level II is conducted, including a determination for National Register eligibility from the SHPO The application of these levels in practice seems to differ in some cases from what the manual prescribes For example, the Midwest Region has proceeded directly to a Level I for some landscapes without completing a Level 0 review first. Perhaps for this reason the NPS has discontinued all public references to the CLI levels as of November 2003, after the research for this dissertation was completed. The formats of review for each le vel are still followed internally but external reporting of landscape progress is now divided only into "co mplete" (Level II completed and certified by SHPO) and not complete" (all else). Because of the lack of progress Level III has been discontinued. Nevertheless these levels were in place for the period that this research covers, and continue to structure the internal documentation work and hence remain relevant tools for analysis 84

PAGE 101

The CLI Database: Contents and Structure The software for the CLI database is based in Microsoft Access. 20 The database contains over 100 fields of data for each landscape. Many fields record data management information such as date the inventory was completed, the name of the persons conducting the fieldwork, or date when data was entered into the CLI database. A few dozen fields contain more substantive information about the subject landscape in question. Some of these are narratives of considerable length, which are also structured to allow graphics, photos and maps to be included along with the text as appropriate. The fields of primary interest to this research project are as follows: The CLI Hierar chy D esc ription: explains the process used in dividing the landscape into landscape features, component landscapes and component landscape features and setting the boundaries of each D escri pti ve and Geographic Information: Includes current as well as historic name(s) of the inventory unit; narrative on the landscape's size, location, setting type style distinct qualities, significant features condition and integrity, as well as summary of landscape characteristic features. The 20 Microsoft Access i s a relational database that can address th e hierarch y u se d in definin g cultural landscapes and the relationships between the landscapes and the component landscap es and associated features. The interface main menu allows the user to access regions clusters parks and inv e ntory units from an alphabetized list. The navigation menu i s ba se d on the hierar c hy of inventory l eve l s ( r egions to clusters to administrative units to parks, all the way down to the co mpon e nt land cape features) Th e six buttons at th e bottom of th e main menu allow the user to access unique functions including inventory units interfaces, report s queries hou sekee pin g and d ocume ntation 85

PAGE 102

boundary should include all historic features of the property as well as a "buffer zone," which may be non-contributing but important in preserving the integrity of the inventory unit. R egiona l Context: Includes a narrative on at least one of three types of regional contexts associated with the in ve ntory : physiographic cultural and political. Most landscapes should have entries for all three. National R eg ist er Documentation I Eligibility: Lists whether or not the unit is already on the National Register. If not, whether it has been determined eligible or ineligible or remains undocumented. A narrative discusses eligibility of the inventory unit including the National Register property category (site, district or multiple property). Sign ificance Level : The National Register significance of the inventory unit /1 (national, state, local or not significant) is noted based on the findings of a Le ve l I or Level II inventory "No t significant" can result from the site being less than 50 years old l acking significance or having lost integrity. Significance Criteria: Notes one or more of the four National Register criteria by which the inventory unit qualifies: (a) associated with events that made significant contributions to the broad pattern of history ; (b) associated with the lives of significant people; (c) represents a distinctive type period or work of 2 1 A lthough the CLI includes international" as an option for National Re giste r level of significa nce the National Register itself does not include this le vel. 86

PAGE 103

a master or possesses high artistic merit; (d) has yielded or likely to yield important information to history or prehistory. S tatement of Significance: A narrative on the unit's historical significance and integrity based on the National Register criteria. Includes the p eriod of significance, historic context theme and sub-theme and facet, area of significance (selected from a list: e.g., agriculture industry science, etc.) and related subcategories (selected from a list: e.g., the area of significance called ethnic heritage can have subcategories Asian, Black Native American, etc.) Cultural Landscap e Type and Use: Which of the NPS's four categories of cultural landscapes the unit falls into (historic designed landscapes, historic sites, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethn ographic landscapes, all discussed in Chapter 2.) Also notes the unit's current and / or historic uses from a pre-defined list. More than one selection is allowed. Chronology and Physical History : Notes major events integral to the history and development of the inventory unit. Each event has a type (selected from a list: e.g., planned, abandoned, homesteaded), beginning and end dates and a narrative May also include the name of any individual or group associated with the events and type of association (also selected from a list e.g. architect, landscape architect, horticulturalist). General Management Information : Notes the management category selected for the inventory unit based on the evaluation of significance, use condition, 87

PAGE 104

and location from the following categories : must b e preserved and maintain e d ; should b e pres erved and maintain e d ; ma y be preserved or maintained; ma y be released, altered, or destroyed. Each category represents legislative mandates and policy considerations which can be determined only at the completion of Level II. These decisions are made by park planning processes that do not involve the CLI staff directly. Condition Assessment and Impact s: Records the current condition (good, fair poor undetermined) including the date of the assessment. Also notes if and when the Park Superintendent concurred with the condition assessment and impacts Narrative discusses changes to the condition from the pre vio us re v iew Stabilizati on Measures : Notes all stabilization actions and concerns, including an assessment of the impact of the deteriorating agents to the inventory units within the past five years (options are low moderate severe and unknown) and the type of impact (e .g. deferred maintenance, erosion neglect adjacent lands) Narrative discusses whether the impact is internal, external or both Treatment: Indicate the treatment that has been approved through the NPS planning process : (1) preservation (2) stabilization, (3) rehabilitation ( 4) restoration (5) reconstruction and (6) neglect. Includes an estimate of the cost of the approved treatment, div ided by structures and landscapes Landscap e Characteristics: lists the tangible and intangible aspects of the 88

PAGE 105

landscape that collectively shaped it during its period of s ignificance Landscape characteristics are organized by categories: Natural S ystems and Featur e s; Spatial Organization ; Land Use; Cultural Traditions; Circulation ; Topography; Vegetation; Building and Stru ctures; Cluster Arrangement; Sm all-Sca l e Features; Constructed Water Features; Views and Vistas; Archeological Sites; and Other. These may be subdivided into features (e.g. under the "vege tation category features such as woodlots shrubs individual trees can be grouped). The landscape characteristics need to be evaluated carefully even if they appear to ha ve lost their historic integrity since the information is still used in determining treatment plans. A narrative explains the evolution of the landscape characteristics and the associated features period of significance and historic integrity of the landscape characteristics and associated features. Also records landscape features (contributing and non-contributing) associated with all the landscape characteristics Funding for the CLI The NPS Cultural Landscapes Inventory program is funded through congressional material weakness appropriations, which are special initiative funds designated for correcting the system-wide deficienc y of baseline information on historic structures (LCS) and cultural landscapes (CLI) These funds are divided among the seven regions and allocated annually The investment individual parks make on cultural 89

PAGE 106

resources especially cultural landscapes, depends greatly on the availability of other nation-wide funds for cultural resources for which the parks compete The success in obtaining funds by some parks may partly be reflected in their progress in the inventory effort. The Cultural Landscapes Program does not have a budget for the CLI at either the national regional or park level (Lawliss 2004b ) CLI Analysis Here I use the CLI data to examine how different types of cultural landscape properties are moving up through the inventory system and how this process differs by region or by park The aim of this process is to provide insight into the potential consequences either intended or unintended of the prioritization process. The different le v els have different requirements for documentation and assessment and the CLI process prioritizes landscapes for advancement through the levels based on criteria of significance and integrity discussed in the previous section Thus one would expect the landscapes at different levels to be distinct with regard to their overall significance and integrity. In this section I ask what the effects of such criteria are on landscapes of different types in national parks in different regions. For example are landscapes related to agriculture more likely to have advanced through the CLI process than landscapes pertaining to industry? Neither of these categories of landscapes necessarily have more significance or integrity than the other nor is either necessarily under greater threat. By examining such differences I am not seeking to 90

PAGE 107

argue that these pattef!1S appear because of any deliberate decision by the NPS staff. Rather I am looking to see whether the criteria being used or any other factors in the process, implicitly end up favoring certain types of landscapes over others One might argue that if those landscapes retain more historic integrity generally they should be preserved at a higher rate. The counterargument is that such differences even if they stem from useful criteria can result in a preserved historical record that is biased towards certain types ofhistory and away from others Although the guidelines state that the presence of direct threats is one of the reasons for advancement to a higher level of review in practice this does not seem to be considered as much as issues of significance and current integrity. In fact the scoring that is used to determine priority does not assign any points to threats (see Appendix II) Many of the properties that have advanced are NPS-built and in continued use; as a whole these are under less threat than landscapes not in continued use, yet these have generally advanced to Level II the most, as will be discussed later. Other criteria, whether implicit or explicit also seem to be in play Given that cultural landscapes that are not in active use and not being treated are constantly losing integrity gradually, any process of prioritization that leads to one landscape receiving attention before another automatically means that the prioritization matters. Given the limited resources granted to cultural landscapes in 91

PAGE 108

the national parks, and the fact that only 3% of landscapes have received full inventories after a decade the impacts of such prioritization on the eventual fates of the landscapes are likely to be large. Thus, the advancement of a landscape may be taken as some evidence for prioritization by the NPS, and examining the sets of landscapes that have advanced should allow for some broad impressions of where landscape va lu e is found generally The main factors that I examine for their relationships to the progression of landscapes on the level ladder include the type of landscape (historic designed historic site, historic vernacular and ethnographic), scale of the property (site, district or multiple thematic property) and its primary original use (e.g. agriculture, mining, transportation recreation) Intersecting with the question of use is the issue of whether or not the "cultural" aspect of the landscape stems solely from NPS park de ve lopment. These NPS-developed cultural landscapes are mostly recreational in use and are far more likely to still be in use with their original function and more likely retain integrity. Since each landscape possess a type a use and a scale, these effects may interact with one another and teasing them apart requires careful analysis. This analysis uses Level 0 as a baseline for comparing to the set of landscapes that have reached Levels I and II. Note that this does not consider the subset of landscapes that never made into onto Level 0 at all for any of several possible reasons 92

PAGE 109

This cannot be done by examining the CLI alone That question will be taken up, among others, in the following chapter. Nationwide in the national parks about a quarter of the identified cultural landscapes have proceeded to Level I. One in twenty has received Level II, and only thirty-one landscapes total (less than one in every thirty) have been certified by their respective SHPO. Since the NPS does not consider the inventory complete until SHPO certification, as of Fiscal Year 2003 about 3% of the inventory is complete.22 Thirteen of these thirty one are component l andscapes (part of a parent landscape listed separately). Although this number seems low, it needs to be made clear that the CLI from start to completion is a drawn out process that can take years to complete. Nevertheless, it is striking to see only eighteen non-component landscapes complete the process after nearly a decade of development. I begin by using the CLI data provided for the entire set of landscapes pertaining to the properties containing the term "national park" in their title. This list was current as of mid-2003. The list includes very little information on each landscape; not much beyond the landscape name, its park and the level of review it has received. Analysis began by hand-coding landscapes according to three landscape attributes: landscape 22 Shortly before this dissertation was finalized I received the numbers for FY 2004 from the CLI office ; the total number of Level II SHPO-certified landscapes completed increased from 31 to 49 (Lawliss 2004c) 93

PAGE 110

type (the NPS 's four-way division into historic site historic vernacular historic designed, and ethnographic) ; primary landscape use (mining/industrial agricultural etc) ; and landscape scale. Given the large(> 1000) number of such landscapes, this was initially done by automating the process based on keywords within the name alone. This builds on the assumption that the name selected for the landscape by the NPS will usually reflect its primary use. Some landscapes are complex and have multiple uses which are not necessarily reflected in the name of the property. For instance Cottonwood Oasis in Joshua Tree National Park sounds likely to have been an agricultural landscape and it was However the site also contains ethnographic history, archaeological remains and a mining camp Unfortunately the una v ailability of the complete dataset made it infeasible to determine exactly all of the multiple uses within every cultural landscape on the CLI. Instead the characteristics of landscapes whose names did not provide a clear picture of the site s historic role (or suggested the possibility of multiple roles) were researched more thoroughly. Information on the site history was gleaned from searches ofNPS brochures planning documents and other internal writings both on the NPS website (www.nps gov) and the government document repositories at the University of Colorado and the University ofWashington. From this work the initial automated work was expanded and refined. 94

PAGE 111

The automation was based on the following rules: Landscap e use: Mining and indust ry: landscapes whose name contained any of the terms: min e, mining furnace coal iron, facto ry, industry, industrial dam h y dro e l e ctric, lead borax. In addition landscapes containing the term mill were hand-coded to identify those related to industry Agriculture: landscapes whose names contained any of the terms: ranch farm agricultur e agricultural, cattle barn, plantation orchard fishery, ditch. In addition landscapes containing the term mill or canal were hand coded to identify those related to agriculture Transportation: landscapes whose names contained any of the terms: road, drive, parkwa y, high w a y, "h wy railroad bridge, lighthouse. In addition, landscapes containing the term canal or trail were hand-coded to identify those related to transportation. Milita ry : landscapes whose names contained any of the terms: military, fort, army. S e ttlem e nt-orient e d sites : landscapes whose name contained any of the terms : c hurch r eside nc e, s tore, hom e st ead, c e m e t ery, hospital s chool cabin (except patrol c ab i n), hou se, saloon Park d e v e lopm ent: landscapes whose name contained any of the terms: rang e r 95

PAGE 112

campground, CCC, picnic develop e d ar e a, entrance, NPS, maintenance residential area, housing area, trail shelter overlook shelt e r patrol cabin, museum, headquarters, visitor center, amphitheatre. In addition, l andscapes containing the term trail were hand-coded to identify those developed by the park for visitors Pre-NPS recreation: landscapes whose name contained any of the terms: chalet, lodge inn, hotel resort, stables, unless individual examination revealed that the property was developed by the NPS, in which case it was coded as "park development." Archaeological : landscapes whose name contained any of the terms : archeology, h l 123 h arc eo ogzca anczent, pzctograp Living e thnographic : landscapes whose name contained any of the terms ethnographic, hom e land, ahupua 'a (the Hawai ian term for a communal land district), tipi Entire settlement: landscapes whose name contained any of the terms town, settlement, village (except NPS-built tourist villages). These were separated from the "settlement-related" category since the latter are generally on the scale of individual sites and these are on the scale of settlements or large districts and this distinction will be important for the statistical analysis. 23 Note that the official NPS spelling of archaeology lacks an a after the h contrary to the spelling now common in the US The latter is used throu g hout this dissertation except when referring to an official NPS use of the term 96

PAGE 113

The above lists of terms were generated through repeated examination of the dataset to determine the common types of resources found in it. Note that they include longer terms of which they are subsets (e.g. a search on trail would capture any landscape containing the word trails) All of the lists resulting from this process were searched for exceptions to be recoded. For instance, Haleakala s Hous e of the Sun contains the word hous e but is not a building ; Isle Royale's Miller Fishery contains mill but is not industrial. Roughly two hundred of the landscapes had names that referred to an indi v idual natural feature (e .g. Willow Park Christine Falls); for these the reason for being considered a cultural landscape was not apparent from the name alone Further research on individual sites identified that majority were park development sites, where the cultural landscape referred to the NPS-constructed trails walls and overlooks, along with the natural feature itse lf. Most of the remainder of these were either ethnographic or pre-park recreational. An additional 105 landscapes did not contain any of these keywords and these were also individually researched and hand-coded. About forty of these had very general names (e.g. Everglades National Park Landscape) and could not be placed into any use or type category. 97

PAGE 114

Landscap e type: The landscape uses above were divided so as to fit within the major landscape types of the NPS It became clear that many of the landscapes were difficult to assign to either the histor ic d e sign e d or historic s ite categorie s unambiguously, since the distinction between the two is somewhat fluid to begin with. In direct contrast to National Historic Sites, few landscapes in the National Parks derive their significance from association with an individual historic person or event one of the possible reasons for being a historic site. For these reason I div ided the landscapes into only three types: Histor ic s i te/d e sign e d : includes the use categories of transportation se ttl e m e nt orient e d sit e s mili t ary, park d eve lopment and pre -park r ec r e ational. Histor ic ve rn ac ular : includes the use categories of agric u l t ure, mining and industry, and e ntir e se ttl e m e nt Ethnographic: includes the use categories of ar c ha e ological and livin g e thnographic. Landscap e s c ale: A separate division which crosscuts that of landscape use and type is the question oflandscape scale. Here I divided entries into three categories again beginning with an automated keyword process and then receding by hand for those that were ambiguous or misclassified ; for example fort and mill are commonly found 98

PAGE 115

in the names of settlements, which would require recoding. The categories were: Structur e oriented: landscapes whose name contained any of the terms : factory, barn church, resid ence, store, hospital school cabin, house, mus eum, visitor center chalet, lodg e, inn, hot e l mill, fort, saloon rang er station headquarters, shelter unless they also contained the terms landscape, district, or complex. Multiple Sit es (Thematic) : any landscapes containing non-specific references to thematic landsca p es (e.g. Recreationa l Resources ofthe Cuyahoga Valley Everglades National Park Landscape) Landscape / district : everything else Through all of this hand-coding, it is likely that some misclassifications occurred, although the inaccessibility of the complete dataset made it necessary. The amount of miscoding is likely to be small enough not to significantly affect the statistical analysis Random error is expected to reduce systematic patterns rather than accentuate them 2 4 so that any statistically significant trends that are observed are unlikely to stem from such error. Systematic errors in coding could be more problematic although the landscapes were re-examined and researched multiple times to identify problems in the classification rules ; the final lists of terms are in fact a 2 4 This is, in fac t part of the statist i ca l d efinition of random e rror ," as opposed to systematic erro r (Goodreau 2004) 99

PAGE 116

result of multiple iterations of this process Moreover after the finalization of all of the categorization process a list of30 (about 3% of the full list) landscapes was randomly generated (using the random function in MS Excel) and provided to an independent researcher who was provided with information on the nature of the different landscape categories, but not the actual decisions on the specific landscapes given The reviewer macie his own determination about the characteristics of these landscapes based upon research into the history of the sites. This list differed from the original categorization for only one landscape-the Chippewa Harbor Site in Isle Royale NP. Further research identified that the original characteristic was probably the most appropriate. Nevertheless this suggests that the process was generally robust. Table 3.1 compiles the number of landscapes that have reached each Level of the CLI process by region. Note that the levels can only be determined from the data from mid-2003 report, while the number of landscapes that are SHPO-certified can only be determined from the FY 2003 FOIA data, thus explaining the larger number for Level II-certified (23) than simply Level II (22) for the Pacific West region. Figure 3.1 shows the information by park. From this table one immediately sees major differences by region and park in terms of overall number of identified landscapes. Although the majority of the National Parks 100

PAGE 117

TABLE 3 .1: The CLI landscapes by level and region As ofmid-2003 AsofFY 2003 Region Total LevelO Level I Level II Level II, certified Alaska 47 46 (98%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Intermountain 252 243 (96%) 3 (1%) 6 (2%) 2 (1% ) Midwest 310 143 (46%) 159 (51%) 8 (3%) 5 (2%) Northeast 32 26 (81%) 5 (16%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) Pacific 331 263 (80%) 46 (14%) 22 (7%) 23 (7% ) Southeast 48 22 (46%) 26 (54%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Total 1020 743 (73%) 240 (24%) 37 (4%) 31 (3%) are west of the Mississippi three of the top five parks with the greatest number of identified cultural landscapes are in the east (Isle Royale Cuyahoga Valley Voyageurs) This is perhaps due (in part) to the fact that the east has had much denser settlement throughout history. However it also likely reflect s some regional differences in identification and documentation since all three of these are in the Midwest Region while none are in the two Atlantic coastal regions Cuyahoga Valley National Park is unique in many ways and was discussed separately in Chapter 2. However these three relatively small Midwestern parks together have almost as many identified cultural landscapes (246) as the entire Intermountain Region (252), which stretc hes from Montana to Texas and Arizona and which contains parks with rich Native American ethnographic heritage These strong differences in regional 101

PAGE 118

4 3 2 D = c:J = 0 D Katmal Kobuk Vahy lake Clal11 Kenei Fjords Denali G.tas d the Arctic Elln Glecier Bay EJ Q Holeakala a s o "' NP of Am S.moa a D 1$ 0 0 Hawa i i Volcanoes = OryTortugas 20, 0 2 0 0 D Virgtnlsb aoo

PAGE 119

patterns combined with the fact that the regions exhibit important differences in the frequency of the various landscape types they contain makes it necessary to consider such regional patterns in the examination of landscape types at different levels below There are also great regional differences in terms of rates of landscape advancement. The Pacific West has been regarded as one of the more prolific regions as far as landscape inventory is concerned The region has a total of 331 cultural l a ndscapes with the earliest documentation conducted in the 1980s over a decade before the nationwide inventory effort began. The region has a comparati v ely small Level I review but by far the largest Level II review which is a much more expensive and time-consuming evaluation than the previous two levels. Three-quarters of the SHPO-certified Level II landscapes nationwide are in the Pacific West Region. This is probably a function of regional differences in administrati v e priorities ; common sentiment is that staff in this region have been especially committed to the cause of cultural landscapes including one member (Cathy Gilbert) who has been influential nationwide However the majority of properties in the Pacific West's large Level II inventory (70 % ) are park-related properties built by the NPS themselves whose value was thus likely to ha v e been relatively easy to document. Although parks in the Pacific West region ha v e an impressi v e selection ofNPS rustic architecture there is also a variety of vernacular cultural landscapes that need more immediate attention 103

PAGE 120

While most regions ha v e focused their attention on a complete or near-complete Level 0 for all identified landscapes it appears that the Midwest Region has progressed directly to Level I for many of its landscapes ; 45 of the 165 landscapes with a Le v el I review there had no Level 0 a phenomenon not seen elsewhere.25 It does suggest that the Midwest region like the Pacific West is using a more focused approach than other regions by examining a smaller number of landscapes but in the later more thorough stages. This early focus on a few landscapes to invest in heavily certainly has the benefit of being cost-effective a v aluable a s set during present budget crises Howe v er, the potential drawback i s that some interesting and unique landscapes whose value would have been uncovered by a broader in v entory could instead be missed or experience considerable additional loss before they do receive attention. These idiosyncratic differences by region need to be taken into account in any attempt to dissect the patterns present in the CLI. Table 3.2 compiles the landscape by the hand-coded landscape types and classes. Note that in the dataset provided thirty-three of the 1020 landscapes had their level information left blank; these were removed from the analysis This table shows similar differences by attributes and type of landscape. From these raw numbers it 2 5 F o r the analysi s below compa ring land scapes hav ing onl y r e cei ve d a Le ve l 0 re v i ew t o those having r ece ived L eve l I o r a b ove, these 45 land s cap es are inc lud e d in the Le v el I o r above" c at ego ry 104

PAGE 121

TABLE 3.2: The CLI landscapes by level and characteristics Total LevelO Levell Level II Landscape Attribute Mining and industry 128 93 (73%) 35 (27%) 0 (0%) Agriculture 146 80 (55%) 57 (39%) 9 (6%) Transportation 84 68 (81 %) 11 (13%) 5 (6%) Settlement-oriented site 141 73 (52%) 66 (47%) 2 (1 %) Military 16 16 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Park development 286 23I (8I %) 38 (13%) 17 (6%) PreNPS recreation 48 27 (56%) 18 (38%) 3 (6%) Archaeological 29 28 (97%) 0 (0%) I (3%) Living Ethnographic 56 52 (93%) 4 (7%) 0 (0%) Entire settlement 15 6 (40%) 8 (53%) 1 (7%) Landscape type Historic site / designed 551 400 (73%) 127 (23%) 24 (4%) Historic vernacular 293 I83 (62%) 99 (34%) 11 (4%) Ethnographic 85 80 (94%) 4 (5%) 1 (1 %) Landscape Scale Individual structure I67 I04 (62%) 59 (35%) 4 (2%) Thematic 26 25 (96%) I (4%) 0 (0%) Landscape / District 794 58 I (73%) I80 (23%) 33 (4%) appears that landscapes that are agricultural in nature, or involve transportation or are related to park development seem to be the most likely to advance to Level II. A wider variety of landscapes have progressed to Level I, including a large fraction of whole settlements or settlement-related sites (churches, cemeteries, homes etc.) and 105

PAGE 122

recreation and tourism sites not built by the NPS No archaeological landscape has progressed beyond Level 0 at all, and only one living ethnographic landscape has. Of the landscape classes ethnographic (i. e archeological and living ethnographic) landscapes fare far worse than all others in terms of advancing to either Level I or Level II; among the different landscapes scales the same is true of thematic landscapes. Interpreting these raw numbers for different types of landscape requires some caution We have already seen that there are large regional v ariations because of administrati v e differences The apparent patterns in landscape types may be partly (or largely) resulting from these differences since certain types of landscapes tend to be clustered in a small number of parks or regions which share that particular landscape heritage. For instance ethnographic landscapes are disproportionately located in the Intermountain Region Other attributes such as NPS-built landscapes ar e more evenly distributed around the country A low rate of advancement for ethnographic landscape s nationwide could reflect either of two different phenomena: perhaps ethnographic landscapes are not advancing simply because the Intermountain Region has not given as much attention to the CLI as other regions ha ve. Or it could reflect the fact that within e v ery given region ethnographic landscapes are not proceeding v er y much either for issues of significance or integrity or something else We wish to distinguish these because the former region-ba s ed cause is largely administrative 106

PAGE 123

and it is likely that this kind of gap will narrow in the long run as those parks or regions currently behind in the process begin to catch up. If the latter more geographically disperse pattern is dominant, however, it likely reflects more substantive and widespread patterns that will continue to hold in the long term if not addressed Again, this does not imply that such patterns are purposeful, although their effects on the historical record will be felt regardless of the cause. These two kinds of patterns can be distinguished by using a statistical method that controls for regional and park level differences. The specific statistical model used here is multiple logistic regression (MLR) This method is designed to examine how large an effect the attributes of a set of items have on the probability of each item experiencing some outcome. Here MLR was used to isolate the effect that a landscape's characteristics has on its probability of having received Level I or Level II, based upon the landscape types coded from the CLI dataset. In effect this test asks the question, "Within individual regions, does a particular kind of landscape fare better than others, regardless of how well landscapes there fare overall? Is this true across all regions?" The same questions can then be asked at the level of the park rather than the region. This approach has three strengths compared to simply examining the raw numbers in Table 3.2. One strength is that it can consider multiple kinds of landscape attributes 107

PAGE 124

and types at the same time even though they are not mutually exclusive. For instance it can isolate the effect that being agriculture-related has on level advancement, while at the same time isolating whether being an individual structure seems to matter, even though some properties can be both (e.g. a bam) Another strength is that it provides an objective measure of what a 'big difference is versus a "s mall" one In statistical practice, a difference is considered "significant" once it crosses some threshold of probability that it could have occurred just by chance (usually 1, 5, or 10 % are considered). Once below this threshold it is believed to represent a meaningful pattern that requires explanation. The MLR approach assigns these probabilities and thus allows for large significant effects to be distinguished from small ones. A third strength is that it takes account of the fact that there are differences in the number of different types oflandscapes; the objective measure of a big versus "small difference incorporates the quantity of landscapes included from the relevant class These analyses were conducted in the software package SPSS and the results are shown in Tables 3 3 and 3.4. Table 3 3 includes the analyses in which the outcome of interest is advancement to at least level I. For this outcome three different models were run (uncontrolled controlled for regional differences controlled for park differences) The uncontrolled involves only the effects of the different landscape attributes and types coded above; it is simply testing for significant differences in the raw numbers shown in Table 3.2. The second test contains the same landscape attributes and types but controls for overall differences in CLI progress by region. 108

PAGE 125

TABLE 3.3: Significant effects, advancement to Level I or above Landscape category Overall Controlled for Controlled for regional diffs. Park diffs. Mining and industry Agriculture Transportation Settlement-oriented site + Military Park development Pre-NPS recreation ++ Archaeological --Living Ethnographic ---Entire settlement + + Individual structure Thematic ----Historic site / designed Historic vernac ular ++ highly significantly more likely to advance in inventory (p < .05) + significantly more likely to advance in inventory (p < .1) highly significantly less likely to advance in inventory (p < .05) significantly less lik ely to advance in inventory (p < .1) The third includes a control for overall differences by park Here I include the information most relevant to the project at hand: whe ther the given lands cape characteristic significantly increases or decreases the probability of a landscape advancing beyond Level 0 I use a+ to indicate "significantly more likely to advance" a-to indicate "significant ly less likely to advance." These appear once to convey a marginally significant effect (below the 10% threshold but above the 5%) and twice for a more significant effect (below the 5% threshold). A blank indicates 109

PAGE 126

that the difference was not significant; that is it was small enough that its probability of being due to chance alone is greater than 1 0 %, and therefore does not require any explanation. More detailed numerical results are included in Appendix III. In the overall (uncontrolled ana l ysis), archaeological and living ethnographic landscapes are significantly less likely to advance beyond Ievell. The fact that these effects are significant is not surprising, given their large magnitude in the raw numbers Landscapes at the thematic level (e.g. "Everglades National Park Landscape ") are also significantly less likely than others to remain at Le ve l 0, likely since they do not reall y represent a coherent cultural landscape in the first place Two other related effects appear; landscapes that either represent entire settlements, or individual architectural elements of such settlements are also more likely to advance. When regional differences in overall CLI progress are considered some of these effects change which provides insight into their nature. For example, the settlement oriented effect disappears. This suggests that it is because many of the settlement oriented sites are in a region that has seen lots of advancement overall and that they do not do significantly better than other landscapes within any given region. Direct examination of the data shows this to be true; the Midwest holds a high fraction of the settlement-related sites (57% of them as opposed to 30 % of the CLI entries generally), and the Midwest dominates the Level I list overall. Thus, the differential 110

PAGE 127

advancement of this type of landscape can be explained entirely by regional differences On the other hand the same cannot be said for the low progression of thematic and living ethnographic landscapes or for the high progression of whole settlements. An opposite effect occurs with pre-NPS recreational landscapes ; they do not appear to have any special progre ss overall, but do once regional differences are considered. This implies that they are advancing disproportionately in some region that does not have a large Level I overall. This is in fact the case; almost half of such landscapes are in the Pacific and Northeast Regions which have small Level I lists These two regions specifically have significantly higher rates of advancing these landscapes than any other. One possible explanation would be that such landscapes can experience adaptive re-use (or continued use) relatively easily given that they were designed for tourism originally. We already saw from the overall regional differences that ethnographic landscapes were likely being underrepresented on the CLI as a whole, since the Intermountain Region has generated a relatively small list. Now it also appears that the y are less likely to be advancing to higher le vels of inventory in general. Many of them also have ve ry generic names in the CLI (e .g. just Ethnographic Landscape, with no further elaboration). The NPS also has archaeological and ethnographic programs in 111

PAGE 128

effect and some of these sites may fall under their domain. In that sense they may already have some reorganization or protection. However, if we are allowing historic sites and districts and vernac ular landscapes associated with European -d erived cultures to receive attention as cultural landscapes (and therefore in some sense viewed as living) while not giving the same recognition to Native American landscapes we will be reinforcing the notion that these that Native cultures were dead and buried" at the time of colonial expansion in all parks, which is often not the case. One argument may be that native cultures often left fewer obvious traces in the landscape than Europeans ones. However there are a considerable number of national parks in the west where evidence of active use by Native Americans at the time of displacement by European Americans can still be seen in the landscape. All of these vario us patterns disappear once park differences are controlled for. To illustrate with an example, the significance of entire settlements in the first two analyses disappears because one particular park Isle Royale has both a large number of Level I landscapes overall, including five whole settlements on the Level I list (out of only fifteen nationwide) Taking this individual park-level effect into account thus explains the observed pattern, given how small the numbers are for any individual park. The lack of effects in this analysis thus states that in terms of advancement to level I, all observed patterns are explainable by park le ve l differences. This could represent an example of what statisticians call "overfitting;" that is, by adding 58 112

PAGE 129

different explanatory variables to the statistical model (one for each park) when there are only 1020 observations to begin with, one can explain almost any pattern, even if does not represent a real "explanation" in the vernacular sense of the word. An alternate way to understand this is: with a relatively small number oflandscapes per park, the introduction of park-specific terms raises the threshold of significance to levels that are so high they become out of reach. On a more concrete l evel, these findings suggest that if the parks with fewer Level I landscapes do catch up and inventory more of their landscapes, then the observed patterns should disappear; if they do not do this, then these patterns should remain. Whether this will happen or not is unclear, although the deliberate nature of the CLI process in recent years suggests that this it is not likely in the short term. Table 3.4 shows the patterns when the outcome of interest is advancement to Level 11.26 There is in fact only one such pattern and it is a new one that is not present in the Level I analysis: a significantly higher probability ofNPS-built park development landscapes proceeding. The fact that such a pattern can be observed even when the total numbers of Level II landscapes are small implies that it is a powerful effect. It would appear that advancement to the final stages of review at this point in time 26 Given the small number of landscapes that have advanced to Level II, conducting this analysis with either regionalor park-level effects would have been a clear case of overfitting Moreover simply including all of the categories from the Levell analysis caused problems with model convergence ; for this reason the categories for landscape types (vernacular vs. site / designed vs ethnographic) were removed. 113

PAGE 130

TABLE 3.4: Significant effects, Advancement to Level II Landscape category Mining and industry Agriculture Transportation Settlement-oriented site Military Park development Pre-NPS recreation Archaeological Living Ethnographic Entire settlement Individual structure Thematic Overall + ++ highl y significantl y mor e lik e ly to adv anc e in in ve ntory (p < .05) + significantl y more lik e l y to advance in inv e nto ry (p < .1) highl y significantl y l e ss lik e l y to advanc e in inv e ntory (p < 05) significantl y l e ss lik e l y to advanc e in invento ry (p < .1) seems to be most likely for NPS landscapes. This is ironic since these are the landscapes that may be under the least threat (since many are in continuous use and thus receive appropriate maintenance) and the ones with the greatest documentation (since the NPS holds most or all of the records pertaining to them already). It should be noted that properties in continuous use are not free from threats; potential threats come from the use itself, or from ongoing management decisions that could adversely affect their integrity (Figure 3 2) This point will be re-examined in depth in Chapter 5. 114

PAGE 131

FIGURE 3.2: Nisqually Entrance Station (Level 11-certified landscape, Mount Rainier NP) Much more information was provided for the thirty-one landscapes that have received a SHPO-certified Level II review (Table 3.5). Although it is not possible to examine this information and compare it to that for other landscapes (since similar information for the other landscapes was not obtained), it is at least possible to see what this information reveals about the ideas it contains on significance and integrity. Twenty out of the thirty-one landscapes on the list are landscapes that were constructed by the NPS or by its federal precursors for park purposes An additional five were constructed by other public or private entities with the original goal of tourism. All 25 of these (out of 31 total) have their relationship to tourism among their chief reasons for historical significance. This alone is remarkable; only six cultural 115

PAGE 132

TABLE 3 5 : SHPO-certified Level II landscapes as ofFY 2003 Park Landscape Origina l use Acadia Schoodic Peninsula Other tourism Channel Islands Rancho del Norte Other Channel Islands Santa Rosa Island Ranching Other District Crater Lake Superintendent's Residence NPS-designed tourism Crater Lake The Watchman NPS-designed tourism Crater Lake Castle Crest Wildflower Trail NPS-designed tourism Cuyahoga Valley Richard Vaughn Farm Other Cuyahoga Valley Point/Biro Farm Other Death Valley Cow Creek Historic District NPS-designed tourism Hot Springs Bath House Row NPS-designed tourism Isle Royale Barnum Island Other tourism Joshua Tree Keys Ranch Historic District Other Lassen Volcanic Mineral Headquarters Historic NPS-designed tourism District Lassen Volcanic Lassen Volcanic NP Highway NPS-designed tourism Mount Rainier Narada Falls NPS-designed tourism Mount Rainier Mowich Lake Entrance Road NPS-designed tourism Mount Rainier Road to Paradise NPS-designed tourism Mount Rainier Wonderland Trail NPS-designed tourism Mount Rainier Nisqually Entrance NPS-designed tourism Mount Rainier Longmire Campground NPS-designed tourism Mount Rainier Christine Falls NPS-designed tourism Mount Rainier Ricksecker Point NPS-designed tourism North Cascades Marblemount Ranger Station Hist. NPS-designed tourism Dist. Olympic Graves Creek Ranger Station NPS-designed tourism Olympic Rosemary Inn Other tourism Olympic Lake Crescent Lodge Other tourism Petrified Forest Rainbow Forest Complex NPS-designed tourism Petrified Forest Crystal Forest NPS-designed tourism Voyageurs Ellsworth Rock Garden Other Yosemite South Entrance Station NPS-designed tourism Yosemite Mariposa Grove Other tourism 116

PAGE 133

landscapes in all of the nation's national parks whose cultural significance is not related to visi tor services have made it all of the way through the CLI process after nearly a decade. This striking pattern is a result of the criteria used for determining historic integrity. Historic integrity is obviously an important quality for a property to retain in order to be considered worthy of preservation (although in the past the NPS has shown no reluctance in restoring some wild landscapes that have lost integrity). Landscapes that were built by the NPS or for tourism generally are more likely to have remained in use and retained historic integrity than other landscapes in a setting that is now used for tourism. Thus NPS landscapes will almost inevitably fare better in this re v iew process than others. However the goal of preservation generally as well as landscape preservation specifically is to represent all periods of historical development that tell us about ourselves as a people ." (Lewis 1993) If the current pattern holds up it is not clear that this goal will be well-served. If the only cultural history that gets preserved in our national parks is the cultural history of the National Park Service and its precursors, we will end up with a very one-sided perspective of our history This point is further brought home by examining the period of significance listed for all thirty-one landscapes. This is charted in Figure 3.3. The majority of landscapes have the 1930 s as their period of significance (a period dominated by CCC rustic construction of park facilities) while the lands represented 117

PAGE 134

Per i od of Sig nifi ca n ce Level II Landscapes 2000 1980 I 1n ITI11 r-.-"-.----. -- I I 1960 1940 1920 I 1900 1880 --------1860 ---1840 1820 1800 Note that there are more than 31 line s in the chart since individual land scapes were allowed to have multiple periods of significance. FIGURE 3.3: Period of significance for Level II-certified landscapes in the national parks have had human habitation ranging from 10,000 years to at least a few hundred years This drives home the point that the need for historic integrity while important in its own right, is resulting in a somew hat distorted representation of the past. Furthermore, these visitor services landscapes are the ones under the l east threat. Although all cultural landscapes are under external threats (from weather erosion and 118

PAGE 135

the like) the NPS-built ones are under considerably fewer internal threats (those generated by the NPS themselves) than others Yet the list of threats generated for these thirty-one landscapes includes 66 that are internal, eight that are external, and an additional eight that are considered both So even for these properties the NPS realizes that most of the threat to the properties comes from the NPS themselves. The few non-recreation landscapes that have made it to this point have a larger number of threats on average ( 4 2 for the former and 2.1 for the latter) and a wider range of threat types than recreational landscapes. Yet despite greater threats, these types of landscapes as a whole are receiving far less attention since past internal threats have reduced their integrity. If this process continues it could end up simply perpetuating the past biases in NPS preservation that the entire enterprise was set up to reverse This point will be returned to in greater detail in the next two chapters. Even for the NPS properties it seems that the descriptions of integrity and significance may be overstated Although field visits form the focus of the following chapter an example from that segment of the research will be illuminating here The statement of significance for Lassen Volcanic Mineral Headquarters states that the "built and natural features combine to present an extraordinarily cohesive landscape composition," with the following description of integrity: 119

PAGE 136

FIGURE 3.4: The landscape of Lassen Volcanic Mineral Headquarters District (Lassen Volcanic NP) The landscape characteristics contributing to the district as they relate to the 1928-1943 period of significance include spatial organization circulation topography cluster arrangement buildings and structures land use vegetation, views and vistas and constructed water features Only one landscape characteristic small-scale features does not retain integrity The removal of original signs rock alignments and barrier rocks and logs surrounding parking areas and the loss of original fencing have negatively impacted the integrity of small-scale features. A visit to the site suggests that both of these statements may be overly optimistic. Although the buildings are in continued use as staff residences and administrative offices the dominant use of the landscape between the buildings currently is as a place to store heavy equipment and park automobiles for park service employees (Figure 3.4 ). Although the details of the NPS rustic style are all still in place both for 120

PAGE 137

the buildings and for landscape features such as culverts, the overall effect is no longer one in which human activity blends with nature This raises an interesting question about the nature of historic districts as cultural landscapes Because of National Register guidelines, many cultural landscapes are nominated in the historic district framework. Yet in practice the significance and integrity of historic districts is often weighted heavily towards the buildings they contain as compared to the landscape itself. Lassen Volcanic Mineral Headquarters is just one case where the landscape itself may be of less interest than the buildings yet i s viewed as a cultural landscape with high integrity. Another is the Utility Area Historic District in Rocky Mountain NP. On the flip side, ROMO's Green Mountain Ranch (Figure 3 .5) retains at least as much of its original landscape as these yet because the main lodge is missing (with much landscape intact), the ranch is v iewed as having lost most of its integrity .27 One major exception to this norm is Fruita Rural Historic District discussed in Chapter 6. Perhaps the clearest illustration of this point comes from the documentation for the reevaluation of McGraw Ranch in Rocky Mountain NP which received Level II SHPO27 The CLI notes that the "historica l integrity of the site was compromised by the removal of the main lodge house, which had incorporated wit hin its walls the o riginal log homestead of Henry Schnoor. Currently th e site has b een listed along with Onahu Ran ch and has be en prioritized in CLI The listing notes that Onahu Ran c h in some ways makes up for the loss of the Green Mountain Lodge in the ove r all story of the s it e" 121

PAGE 138

FIGURE 3.5: The Green Mountain Ranch landscape displaying features from the era of dude ranching (Rocky Mountain NP) certified status in FY 2004. McGraw was originally listed by the CLI as being in "fai r condition In the subsequent review (shown in Appendix V) McGraw Ranch was found to have progressed to the "good" category given the issues and threats that the park had addressed in the interim. A quick examination of these changes, however, indicates that they are largely focused on the condition of the buildings and do not concern themselves with landscape features such as trees fences, and ditches which remain neglected. Despite having received a Level II certified inventory and an adaptive reuse plan for the buildings McGraw Ranch still lacks a long-term treatment plan for the landscape component of the site 122

PAGE 139

FIGURE 3.6: Vail and Vickers Ranch, in operation until 1998 (Channel Islands NP) The six non-tourism landscapes that have made it through the process include some that were allowed to continue their operation nearly to the present for one reason or another. The Santa Rosa Island Ranching District in Channel Islands NP (Figure 3.6) is one example. As described in its statement of significance it is an outstanding example of a 19th and 20th century coastal California livestock ranch .. The ranch was the last known intact Mexican-era land grant rancho that remained intact through the 20th century and until 1998 was one of California s largest operations of it s kind . During the century-and-a-half of operations, carpenters and vaqu e ros constructed buildings fences water systems and roads. In doing so they created a landscape fully adapted to its intended uses. The park was created in 1980 at a time when the NPS was already beginning to understand the importance of cultural 123

PAGE 140

landscapes. The island on which the site was located was not acquired by the park until 1986 and part of the conditions of sale was that the company owning the ranch could continue operations for 25 years thereafter. Thus, the few landscap es not created specifically for tourism that have completed the CLI include some of the rare exceptions in the parks where continued use has been allowed up to the present day The fact that this has happened bodes well for the future of landscapes that have been acquired by the NPS recently or that are in areas to be acquired by the NPS in the future. Overall, it begins to suggest that the future still remains murky for many types of cultural landscapes in our long-held national parks. The next chapter exp lores this point through more in-depth field research. As a final note, it is important to remember that the CLI is a work in progress and thus the current state of each landscape in the inventory process does not represent its final status Nevertheless, there is considerable value in this analysis now As described in more detail in Chapter 1 an examination while the process is underway can provide insight into the priorities that are already being set by the NPS in landscape inventory and attention, either implicitly or explicitly. Although in theory the body of landscapes still at Level 0 could some day progress to higher levels of review in reality only a minor subset of these would have retained historic integrity The CLI project has seen multiple years now of s low advancement after the initial spurt of activity. Even if some take longer to advance, the fact that some did so right 124

PAGE 141

away while others received much slower review is itself informative about their relative priority. 125

PAGE 142

CHAPTER4 CULTURAL LANDSCAPES IN A "NATURAL" PARK: THE CASE OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN NP I now tum to focus on the case study of Rocky Mountain National Park (ROMO). The research in ROMO was designed to investigate how the inventory process has occurred in one park to understand those aspects of the process that cannot be gleaned from reviewing the CLI data alone. The work here is the result of a summer field season (2003) spent in the park on a fellowship as well as repeated visits both before and after ?8 The focus of the case study was multi fold -(1) To understand the CLI process in detail and examine how it unfolded in ROMO and to gauge the roles played by different stakeholders in the process. (2) To explore how cultural landscapes on the CLI are being prioritized in practice. 28 The Rocky Mountain Nature Association (RMNA)--a not-for-profit organization that assists the NPS and other federal agencies in Colorado with education and research programs provided me with the Bailey R esearc h Fellowship to complete this work. 126

PAGE 143

(3) To explore how cultural landscapes on the CLI compare to those that are not listed ( 4) To examine how the extant and non-extant cultural landscape sites are being interpreted in the park (discussed in Chapter 5). No single park or region is completely typical; therefore the purpose of the case study is not to generalize from a single case but rather to see the process from the inside to inform the inquiry. Reconnaissance of other parks allows one to put the case ofROMO in perspective. The case study has the potential to provide useful insights into the practice within the Intermountain Region as a whole, where it is located and whose office is responsible for the process. Despite regional differences in the inventory process (as uncovered in Chapter 3) the case of ROMO illustrates a number of themes which seem likely to represent common threads in the CLI process, especially for the large western parks. These threads discussed later in this chapter are important points to explore and clarify if the cultural landscapes inventory process is to proceed as intended by the Park Cultural Landscapes Program The chapter has three sections; in the first I provide background on Rocky Mountain National Park using mostly secondary (and some primary) sources, focusing on how the park landscapes have been shaped over time and the role 127

PAGE 144

different individuals and agencies played in the transformation. The second section is an overview of cultural landscape sites in the park using archival and field research. In the third section I focus on the thirty-two cultural landscape sites on the CLI to see how they compare to others that could ha ve been listed Additional fieldwork focused on a subset of sites that have an obvious landscape component but are not on the CLI. In general the fieldwork paid particular attention to the landscape characteristics of the site and the degree to which landscapes contribute to the historic character. For the cultural landscape s that no longer remain, field research again focused on a s ubset of properties that possessed relatively high cultural significance or uniqueness. In general, fieldwork for this section paid close attention to the content of signs and interpretive material as well as observation of vis itor s to develop a sense of their purpose of visiting that particular site (discussed in chapter 5). Rocky Mountain National Park: Context and History Rocky Mountain National Park covers 266,000 acres ( 415 square miles) of north central Colorado, in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains (F igure 4 1 ). The park was established b y Congress on January 26, 1915, and dedicated on September 4 of the same year, the ninth national park in the US. It received just over 3 million recreational visits in 2003, making it the fifth most visited of the 128

PAGE 145

FIGURE 4.1: Rocky Mountain NP nation's 58 national parks. The park ranges in altitude from 7500 to more than 14000 abo v e sea level and contains 113 named peaks in numerous ranges The Continental Divide runs the entire length of the park. Although the park is mostly mountainous ; the central-east section (commonly called the Ea s t Side") contains numerous flat meadows up to sev eral square miles in size ; chief among these are Moraine Park Horseshoe Park Bea v er Park (a.k .a. Beaver Meadows) and Hondius Park. Running north-south along the West Side" of the Park is the narrow flat Kawuneechee Valley through which meanders the 129

PAGE 146

Colorado River. The Cache la Poudre runs through a smaller adjacent valley in the northwestern section of the park. The East and West sides are linked together by Trail Ridge Road, which crosses over the Continental Divide. Each side has its own gateway town; on the East is Estes Park, a relatively large town (population over 5000) that draws the vast majority of the visitors, given its proximity to metropolitan Denver. On the west side is the smaller Grand Lake (population under 500) with far fewer visitor facilities. Native Americans' Use ofthe Park Lands (Before 1850) The principal Native tribes inhabiting the general area of the park at the time of European contact were the Ute and Arapaho. As a result of persistent conflicts with other groups the Ute were driven out to the Western Slope sometime in the 18th century The Arapaho arrived in c. 1800 and moved into the South Platte country, the flat plains just to the east of the Colorado Rockies. War broke out between the Arapaho and Ute probably resulting from the Arapaho use of traditional Ute hunting grounds Although little direct evidence exists the area of the park was reportedly the site of several battles between the groups Both the Ute and the Arapaho used a number of passes and trails in what is now Rocky Mountain National Park for warfare travel and hunting and were still doing so during the time of contact with the white settlers. A number of these trails remain 130

PAGE 147

visible in the landscape to this day while others are now a part of the existing roads in the park. Abner Sprague an early settler in Moraine Park mentioned a particular battle between Indian tribes in which the losing party fortified a hill at the west side of Upper Beaver Meadows to defend themselves. This landscape commonly known as the "Indian Fort ," still remains It is possible that this landscape could have been a part of an elaborate game drive system, but in the absence of substantial evidence this cannot be fully ascertained (Buchholtz 1983 ) If the account is credible then the Indian Fort is one of the few cultural landscapes associated with the Native Americans (other than trails) that were active" at the time of contact. The Native peoples also likely used the peaks to trap eagles which were prized for their colorful feathers, although none of these traps have been located within the boundary of the park (Buchholtz 1983) Although their use of land was "gentle" compared to the Europeans some Native American cultural traces are still evident in the park and are mostly managed as archaeological resources. Early Settlers (1850-1900) Although Colorado saw some earlier European-deri ved settlement (particularly the Hispano presence in the south) the event that brought the first major influx of settlers to the Front Range was the Colorado Gold Rush which began in 1 858, 131

PAGE 148

and was initially focused in the mountains to the south of the park. Given the difficult terrain of the mountains the boom cities that sprang up during th e Rush w ere located on the plains below ; Denver quickly emerged a s the queen among the se. Although the plains saw the majority of settlement mining camps to w ns and ranches began to spring up throughout the Front Range. Stephen Long s expedition of 1820 did not make it into the boundaries of the park but did record the location of the highest mountain in the park which w as named after him (Long s Peak now Longs Peak).29 Several hunters and trappers followed including Rufus Sage w ho is belie v ed to ha v e wandered the ar e a from 1 8 41-43 and published Scenes in the Rocky Mountains in 1846 .30 Joel Es tes is giv en the credit for discovering the eponymous Estes Valley in 1863 whil e on a hunting trip. Ha v ing little luck in the gold rush Estes instead s ettled as a f armer in Fort Lupton After seeing the v alle y that now bears his name he decided to try his hand at high countr y ranching The hardships of the winter season became clear after arri val, howe v er so he sold his claim in 1 8 66. Numerous other ranches were established on both the west and east side of the parks (Figure. 4.2) but few 29 T h e a p os tr o ph e h a s s in ce b ee n l os t as part o f the U S B o ard o n G eogr a phi c N a m es' ge n e r a l p olicy di s cour ag in g ap os tr o ph es in pl ace n a m es 30 R e printed in 1 8 5 7 und e r th e name Roc ky M o unt ain Life" the bo o k r e main e d a popular treati s e the Gold Rus h e nthu s i as t s in th e East. 132

PAGE 149

FIGURE 4.2 : Steads Ranch had any more success at making a living from ranching alone than Joel Estes (Holland 1971 ) An alternative source of livelihood became apparent: tourism The elites of the increasingly industrialized and polluted cities were looking for scenic places to spend their leisure time Much of our knowledge of life in this era and the cultural landscapes emerging from it comes from first-hand accounts of v isitors and owners both One such person who left a particularly remarkable record is Isabella Bird, considered to be one of the most remarkable women travelers of the nineteenth century. Her adventures in Estes Park in 1873 were later published as A 133

PAGE 150

Lad y's Life in the Rocky Mountains (1879) comprising the collection of letters Bird wrote to her sister from the Estes Valley. Bird described Estes Park as the most romantic place" and the region as possessing perfect beauty and extraordinary sublimity." She wrote a fairly accurate account of the land and the people about her life as a paying guest on Griffin s ranch her difficult ascent up Longs Peak and her liking for a rugged mountain man with a mysterious past who people called Rocky Mountain Jim (Bird 1880) The region was further popularized as a tourist destination by Frederick Chapin a wealthy traveler who published Mountaineering in Colorado : the P e aks about Est es Park in 1889 and by William Henry Jackson s stunning photographs which acted as v isual ad v ertisements for the natural beauty of the area (Figure 4.3) Aside from spectacular scenery the Estes Park area also offered rich game attracting those interested in such pastimes. Wyndham Thomas Wyndham-Quin the Fourth Earl of Dunraven first visited the area in 1872 and was apparently so enchanted by the game lands that he decided to establish a pri v ate huntin g res e rve in the area His manager Theodore Whyte amassed over 10,000 acres for him exploiting the Homestead Act through fraudulent claims a common frontier land hoarding tactic The Earl commissioned Albert Bierstadt to produce paintings of Estes Park and Longs Peak and asked him to select a spectacular site to build his English Hotel. The hotel opened along present day Fish Creek Road in 1 877 134

PAGE 151

FIGURE 4.3: William Henry Jackson's photo of Estes Park but was destroyed by fire shortly thereafter. The Earl abandoned his plans for the game reserve due to ipcreasing resistance from legitimate settlers; he never returned after 1888 but retained much ofhis lands until 1907 (Buchholtz 1983). Dude Ranching A new type of tourist experience also developed out of the working ranches: the dude ranch. At first, some ranchers took in guests to supplement their incomes It quickly became clear that presenting a view of ranch life to elite tourists could actually generate more money than the ranching itself. Here ranch life or at least a romanticized version of it was a major part of the attraction Both the East and West sides experienced this trend although it was more common on the West Side where a more extreme climate made traditional 135

PAGE 152

FIGURE 4.4 : Horseshoe Inn Resort in Horseshoe Park ranching even more difficult. These early dude ranches laid the genesis for the resort industry that would bring people to this region from near and far in the decades to come. By the time the park was established in 1915 tourists were already visiting by the thousands and several successful resort type businesses were operating in and around the area of the park (Figure 4.4). Mining Mining was concentrated along the western slope ; most mining camps that sprung up during the Gold Rush followed the boom and bust cycle and became ghost towns early in their history. Lulu City (Figure 4.5) along the Colorado River within the present-day park boundaries was platted in 1880 by 136

PAGE 153

FIGURE 4.5: Lulu City prospectors William Baker and Benjamin Burnett from Fort Collins, who planned a town of over 100 blocks based on overly optimistic estimates of strikes Lulu City died quickly; its post office was closed by the end of 1883 less than three years after the town was established and its saw mills saloons and even a hotel were left to wither. In 1889 William White described the deserted town as a marvelous picture like Pompeii" noting the "saloons with the empty bottles on the shelves" and "cookstoves standing in the kitchens (Ba ld win 1980) Today foundations and remnants of structures remain scattered on the original town site. Dutchtown was a much smaller settlement just below timberline in the Never Summer Range's Hitchen s Gulch Settled by expatriates from Lulu City Dutchtown also died out in 1884. Gaskill, the other mining town in the park and 137

PAGE 154

Eugenia Mine-one of the few mine sites on the East Side--met with similar fates. Irrigation Much of the water in Colorado originates in the high country while most large settlements are on the plains; irrigation and water storage and transfer thus play a central role in the state. Several manmade reservoirs were present within the boundary of the future park. The 13. 1 mile-long Alva B Adams Tunnel passes through the park under the Continental Divide bringing water from the western slope to the eastern plains Constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation (1938-56) as a part of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project the tunnel was controversial as the NPS argued that it would cause "impairment" to the natural areas of the park. However political pressures and the great demand for water on the eastern slopes forced the park to concede. A few ditches still remain within the park boundaries ; the largest of them all is the Grand Ditch (Figure 4.6) which diverts water from the Colorado River watershed into the Cache La Poudre River drainage over the Continental Divide at an altitude of more than 10 000 feet. Constructed a century ago by laborers from the US and Japan it is a tremendous example of vernacular engineering which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. When its construction began in 1890s it was the largest high altitude water diversion project in the 138

PAGE 155

FIGURE 4.6: Grand Ditch country, and its construction continued intermittently for three decades before completion in 193 7. The Park Idea" (1900-1915) As mining declined and the population of the cities grew tourism became ever more popular. The area experienced a further boost in tourism after F.O Stanley of Stanley Steamer fame relocated to Estes Park for health reasons and started the Stanley Hotel in 1909. Stanley invested considerable money in the development of the area, especially on the roads that his automobiles used in transporting the growing number of visitors to Estes Park (Figure 4 .7). 139

PAGE 156

FIGURE 4 .7: Visitors to the Estes Park area in a Stanley Steamer While most enjoyed the economic prosperity that increased tourism brought a handful were concerned about the region "losing its wild charms." Naturalist Enos Mills was the most notable of them: a transplant from Kansas Mills lived most of his life in Estes Park for health reasons working as a guide at Lambs Ranch in summers and a miner in Butte Montana in the winters. His travels to California in the winter of 1889 led to a chance encounter with the aging conservationist John Muir who would remain influential in his life and his work creating Rocky Mountain National Park. In the following years Mills popularized the idea of a national park while continuing work as a guide and a correspondent for Den v er ne w spapers ; his appointment as a lecturer of forestry by President Theodore 140

PAGE 157

Roosevelt in 1907 pro v ided travel opportunities to further his cause (Musselman 1965) Mills' writing makes clear the urgency he felt about creating the park : Extensi v e areas of primeval forests have been misused and ruined ; saw-mills are humming and cattle are in the wild gardens! The once numerous big game has been hunted out of existence and the picturesque bea v er are almost gone These scenes are already extensively used as places of recreation. If they are to be permanently and more extensively used and preserved it will be necessary to hold them as public property and protect them within a national park. (Mills 1924) Mills "park idea" was met with considerable resistance from the Forest Service which wanted to create a game refuge in the area. More opposition came from local interests in mining ranching lumbering and irrigation who feared their operations would cease once the park got established. Mills did however find allies in the newly created Colorado Mountain Club whose president James Grafton Rogers (a lawyer by profes s ion) was particularly supporti v e of the park Support e v entually came from the Denver Chamber of Commerce and Boulder and Greeley Commercial Clubs as other businesses rallied behind them. The bill creating Rocky Mountain National Park was twice rejected befor e it finally passed both houses of Congress and was signed by President Wilson on January 26 1915. The bill designated 358 5 square miles as Rocky Mountain National Park considerably less than the 700 square miles that Mills had 141

PAGE 158

FIGURE 4.8: Dedication ofRocky Mountain NP Sept.4, 1915 envisioned. He had wanted the park lands to extend beyond the Mummy Range to Mt. Evans including the region of Central City an active hub of mining activities. However Rogers draft legislation skillfully omitted sections whose inclusion would have further delayed the designation and antagonized local populations. The park was dedicated on September 4, 1915 amidst much fanfare (Figure 4 8) ; today an interpretative sign memorializes the event at Horseshoe Park Dignitaries included Stephen Mather, Associate Secretary of the Interior and soon to become the first Director ofthe National Park Service in 1916 among 142

PAGE 159

other national and state representatives ; Mills presided over the ceremonies (Atkins 1964) The Early Park Years (1915-1933) With a stringent operating budget (roughly $10 000 yearly) and absence of real policies the park operated rather informally in its initial years even after the NPS was created in 1916 Relations between the locals and the federal government remained peaceful in the initial years. However in 1919 the park tried limiting commercial travel within the boundaries to concessionaires only angering local businesses and setting off a long struggle. Enos Mills a local businessman himself, remained involved in a lengthy battle with the NPS over the use of the park roads. Debate over control of local resources peaked when Colorado was forced to cede jurisdiction over roads in the park to the federal government in 1926-the Department of the Interior threatened to divert future appropriations for road work to Yosemite National Park if the state of Colorado did not comply and ROMO had no choice but to capitulate This was followed by an aggressive land acquisition program that led to a growing distrust of the federal government among local businesses. The superintendent revised the existing concessionaire policy issuing no new licenses with the intention of phasing out the existing ones. By 1931 the NPS had already eliminated several privately owned hotels camps and lodges located in the park and was actively pursuing other private properties 143

PAGE 160

FIGURE 4.9: Resort in Moraine Park on land that has since been "naturalized" a practice which gained momentum during the Great Depression when most local businesses struggled due to declining tourism. After the park gained jurisdiction over the properties (usually through purchase), they did allow some concessionaires to operate until the 1950s before returning the sites to their natural" condition (Figure 4.9, Musselman 1965) Park Development (1933-1955) The Great Depression brought the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) to the park. The recruits arrived in 1933 and remained for nine years engaging in a variety of tasks relating to construction (road trail campground and new building construction) and conservation (maintenance, demolition, improvement, 144

PAGE 161

vegetation management) Their camps were located at Horseshoe Park Hollowell Park and at Beaver Creek in the Kawuneeche Valley the only year-round occupied camp being at Hollowell Park (Musselman 1965) Their legacy remains v isible in the park landscapes today in the form of several campgrounds ranger stations, amphitheatres trails and roads including the Fall Riv er Road, their most challenging and cherished project in the park. The CCC-built sites in the park were grounded in the naturalistic" style that the NPS required of all new construction (Figure 4.1 0) Conceived by the founding fathers of the NPS, Stephen Mather and Horace Albright the NPS Rustic" style (also called parkitecture") was inspired by the romantic and idealistic tenets of nineteenth century designers Andrew Jackson Downing and Frederick La w Olmsted. The style remained d e rigu e ur until 1956 when it was interrupted for about a decade by the Mission 66" program NPS Rustic effectively maintained the overall landscape character by blending with the setting. The landscape design an often-forgotten aspect ofCCC' s work followed the naturalistic traditions established by Olmsted in his work in Yosemite National Park and Niagara Falls whereby the work of the landscape architects was expected to hide behind" the naturalness they created (Spim 1995). These de s ign principles first implemented in the parks in the 1920s remain at the heart of park design e v en today. 145

PAGE 162

FIGURE 4.10: The woodland style Moraine Park Amphitheatre Mission 66 (1955-1966) The prosperity and mobility of the post-war era created an exponential increase in visitation to the national parks. The parks needed to expand and upgrade facilities to accommodate the new tourists who not only were increasing in number but arriving in their own private conveyances more and more often (previous visitors had arrived largely by railroad or package tours). The Mission 66 program was designed to improve the visitor experience by revamping the deteriorating facilities from the CCC era Many of these facilities have now deteriorated themselves and some are already being replaced Given their relatively recent construction and small number of advocates, many do not have any kind of protected status. In Rocky Mountain National Park however the Mission 66 146

PAGE 163

FIGURE 4.11: Beaver Meadows Visitor Center construction is generally well maintained as it continues to serve the needs of the park. In fact, Beaver Meadows Visitor Center the park's main visitor center is unique for being a National Historic Landmark of relatively modem development. Designed by Tom Casey (Frank Lloyd Wright's protege from Taliesin Architects) Beaver Meadows Visitor Center (Figure 4 11) incorporates Wright's idioms of integrated design and in many ways shares more with the NPS Rustic than the modem architecture of the Mission 66. The other two visitor centers in the park (Alpine and Kawuneeche) are more representative examples from the Mission 66 era. 147

PAGE 164

The Park Today (1966-Present) By the 1960's many parks natural and cultural environments were under s iege due to a combination of higher visitation, shortsighted management practices and lack of knowledge about larger ecosystem issues ROMO experienced several major environmental problems including fire suppression habitat fragmentation and invasion from non-native species whose effects continue to haunt the park.3 1 The 1960's brought a new understanding of ecosystem science and management, and in ROMO as elsewhere many of these problems have begun to be rectified with the passage of new environmental laws and practices Today some 90% of ROMO lands are managed as "w ilderness" under the National Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964 and the ecosystem is starting to recover. The federal government defines such wilderness as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man where man himself is a visitor who does not remain ... Q{ational Wilderness Preservation Act 1964). In practical terms a wilderness designation means that the NPS is prohibited from any construction including visitor facilities, in these areas (National Wilderness Preservation Act 1964). Despite all this the National Parks Conservation Association s 2002 report on ROMO identified much more progress to be made. For a small (roughly 1 / 8 the size of Yellowstone) 'urban park close to th e populations along the Front Range ROMO experiences high visitation and levels 31 Hess (1993) di sc u sses many s u ch ecologica l issues s pe cific to Ro cky Mountain National Park. 148

PAGE 165

of pollutants; the NPCA report ranked it the ninth most polluted park in the NPS system based on visibility, acid precipitation and ozone rankings (National Parks Conservation Association 2002). Paralleling the growing awareness of environmental protection needs since the 1960s has been a renewed focus on the preservation of cultural resources The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ensured that the park has a legal mandate to consider their actions on historic resources during planning processes. As discussed in Chapter 2 this awareness has since expanded to include cultural landscapes A growing number of studies have sought to document these resources as a first step to their management and preservation. Nevertheless the NPCA report for ROMO also predicts a bleak future for cultural landscapes in the park, pointing out that only one cultural landscape McGraw Ranch had received complete documentation. Cultural Landscape Identification in Rocky Mountain NP Cultural Landscapes Listed on the CLI ROMO now has a total of thirty-two CLI-identified cultural landscapes placing it tenth among the 58 parks in terms of the number of cultural landscapes identified. It i s also unusual in that it is one of the few parks in the west that are prioritizing 149

PAGE 166

vernacular cultural landscapes; three dude ranches in the park have been prioritized so far of which McGraw Ranch has already been successfull y rehabilitated as a research center Two remaining dude ranches Green Mountain Ranch and Holzwarth Ranch, have been prioritized for Level II. The NPS Intermountain Support Office completed a review of cultural landscapes in ROMO in December 1998 A re-analysis in October 2002 led to a priorit y list including fiv e prioritized for Level II, eight prioritized for Le vel I and fifteen not yet prioritized (NPS Document ROMO-C-500.002). The park recommended that three cultural landscapes be removed from the CLI list ; these include Grand Ditch3 2 and Ditch Laborers Cabins (discussed later) Grand Lake Historic District (which partly fell outside park limits following a boundary change) and Boker Club I Bachelor Cabin (at w hich the building was remo v ed b y the park so the landscapes are seen to lack historical integrity) At the 2002 re-analysis t w o pre v iously ignored landscapes (a ski slope built b y the NPS during the earl y history of the park and a golf course pre-dating the founding of the park) w ere discussed although the park is not inclined to pursue them According to the park archeologist since these landscapes ha v e lost their historic integrity they are being allowed to return to natural conditions ," and therefore no longer qualify as 32 C urrentl y (F Y 20 03) r e f e rr e d t o on th e CLI as Gr a nd Ri ve r Dit c h" but offic iall y nam e d Gr a nd Dit c h b y th e USGS 150

PAGE 167

cultural landscapes (Butler 2004a). Table 4.1 charts these multiple stages of review. Prioritization Patterns Of the fifteen Level 0 landscapes that are not prioritized the majority are historic sites and districts that include cabins, ranger stations and building complexes. Most are park-constructed properties with the exception of Mount Wuh Cabin and the Reichhardt Property both historic vernacular sites The remaining are mostly NPS built properties such as ranger stations and patrol cabins exhibiting the NPS rustic style of construction These have been classified as historic designed or historic vernacular The logic of the designation is not entirely clear; for instance while Fern Lake Patrol Cabin is listed as historic d e sign e d Lawn Lake Patrol Cabin is listed as historic v e rna c ular when both are significant for their NPS Rustic style. Some NPS-built sites have been classified as historic v e rnacular, even when they represent standardized designs and styles determined by the agency. The architecture of these sites was designed by trained professionals to look vernacular" and the landscape reflects the role of a large federal agency in shaping the land which hardly seems to satisfy the NPS s own definition of vernacular (not designed by a trained professional reflecting how people have collectively shaped and reshaped the land). 151

PAGE 168

TABLE 4.1: Identified cultural landscapes of Rocky Mountain NP, by in ven tory status Status Landscape name Classification Points Oct 2004 Removed Leiffer House Vernacular (Pioneer, 14 reasons R esort) unknown Discussed Golf co ur se n a na during 2002 Ski run na na reanalysis, no Level 0 completed Level 0 Grand Lake Historic District Vernacular (Recreation, 16 completed, tourism) park Grand River Ditch and Dit c h Designed (Reclamation 14 recommends Laborers Ca bin s theme) removal from B oker Club and Bachelor Vernacular (Recreation, 12 the CLI Cabin tourism) Level 0 Fern Lake Patrol Cabin Designed (NPS Rustic) 14 completed not Lawn Lake Patrol Cabin Ve rna cu l ar (NPS Rustic) 14 prioritized: Mount Wuh Cabin Vernacular (fed'!, 12 conservation) North Forks R anger Station Vernacular (NPS Rustic) 14 Area Thunder Lake Patrol Cabin Designed (NPS Rustic) 14 Twin Sister's Lookout Vernacular (NPS Rustic) 12 Mill Creek Ranger Station Vernacular (NPS Rustic) 12 Complex Eagle Cliff na na Endovalley Picnic Area Vernacular (NPS Rustic) 12 Old High Drive Area33 Vernacular (Rec reation 11 Reichhardt Property tourism) Vernacular (Pioneer 1 2 T u xedo Park R esort) Vernac ul ar (Rec r eatio n 12 Horseshoe Ranger Station tourism) Sprague Lake na na Native American Ethnographic na na Land sca pe34 na na 33 This site is l ocated o utsid e the park boundari es. 34 This landscape s name was changed to Rocky Mountain NP Landscape in the 2003 GPRA report although the identification numb e r was the same. 152

PAGE 169

TABLE 4.1. (Cont.) Status Landscape name Classification Points Oct 2004 Level 0 Utility Area Historic District Vernacu l ar (NPS Ru stic) 16 completed, Aspenglen Campgro und Designed (NPS Rustic) 14 prioritized for De e r Haven Historic District n a na Level 1: Wild Ba si n R oad Designed (Ea rly 12 Sett l ement) 12 Timber Creek Area Vernacular (NPS Rustic ) 14 Gla c ier Basin Campgro und Vernac ular (NPS Ru stic) 12 Milner Pass R oad Camp Vernacular (NPS Ru stic) 14 Moraine Park Lodge Vernacular (Pio n eer R es ort) Level I T rail Ridge Ro ad D es i g n ed (T r ans p ) 16 completed I Fall Rive r Road Designed (Trans p.) 16 prioritized for William Alle n White Ca bin s Vernacular ( Pioneer 16 Level.ll: Settlement ) 1 2 Gr ee n Mou ntain Ran c h Ve rn ac ul ar (Rec r eat i o n 1 6 tourism ) Hol zwa rth Tro ut Lodge and Vernacular (Pioneer Ran ch Historic District (a.k .a. R esort) Neversummer R anch) Level II M cGraw Ran c h na Na completed: O f the eight Leve l 0 prop erties that h ave been prioriti ze d for Leve l I the majority are de ve lop ed b y th e NPS. The exceptio n is th e Moraine P ark Museum, whic h was built as a lodg e b y socialite Imogene Green in 1923 purchased b y the park in 1931 and remodeled as the Moraine P ark Museum in 1936. The rehabilitation involved r azing some twenty seven vernac ular struc ture s The CCC crew helped with the rehabilitation as well as the construction of an amphitheatre at an adjacen t site. The museum and amphitheatre continue to function as an important joint interpr etive site in the p ark. All the s ite s and districts in this CLI l eve l 153

PAGE 170

Figure 4.12 : Fall River Road including the Moraine Park site, exhibit the rustic architecture design of the NPS. The remaining three properties in this category include two campgrounds and one road that represent the same style of construction The five cultural landscapes on Level I that are prioritized for Level II include an equal number of roads and ranches as well as one historic district. Fall River Road (Figure 4 12) was the first automobile road across the continental divide constructed in 1920 (pre-CCC) The road is an astonishing feat of engineering with steep grade switchbacks and retaining walls, and part of it became the improvised Trail Ridge Road in 1938 Today the name Fall River Road refers only to the 9.5 mile-long one-way segment starting at the En do valley Picnic area in the western end of Horseshoe Park up to the Alpine Visitor Center at Fall River Pass where it joins Trail Ridge 154

PAGE 171

FIGURE 4.13: Remains of convict cabins Road. In the upper Horseshoe Park ruins of con v ict camps on the north and south of the road are still visible; these structures were used by the convicts who helped construct the road (Figure 4 13). The convict cabins ruins are determined as non contributing" to the road as a result of "substantial loss of physical integrity while all other construction-era sites including patrol cabin, stable and ranger station in the NPS-rustic style are considered to be contributing (NPS Document ROMO-C-500 .0 02) Trail Ridge Road (Figure 4.14) is the highest paved continuous highway in the United States and shares many attributes with highways in other parks such as the Rim Road in Crater Lake NP or the Road to Paradise in Mount Rainier NP. Each exhibits the advancements in road building technology of the 1930s used in 155

PAGE 172

FIGURE 4 14: Trail Ridge Road several parks. The road extends 37.9 miles through the park from Deer Ridge Junction up to two miles northwest of Grand Lake crossing the Continental Divide at Milner Pass. The road reaches a maximum elevation of 12,183 feet without ever exceeding a 7 % gradient. Trail Ridge Road was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places in 1984. The CLI classifies it as a Historic Designed Landscape significant for its association with early transportation in the park The William White Cabins (Figure 4.15) are located on the eastern slope of Moraine Park on a plateau affording spectacular views The buildings are 156

PAGE 173

FIGURE 4 .15: William White Cabin Moraine Park significant for their association with the Pulitzer Prize-winning author and politician William Allen White, who used the cottages as his summer vacation home. The main cabin is used for the Artist-in-Residence program and offers spectacular views of the meadow and the mountains beyond The site was nominated to the National Register in 1973. The CLI classifies it as a Historic Vernacular Landscape significant under the Pioneer Settlement and Resort Industry theme Both the ranches listed in this category are located in the Kawuneeche Valley on the West Side. Holzwarth Ranch, located along the Colorado River is the more prominent of the two (Figure 4.16). The structures remaining today are from the 157

PAGE 174

FIGURE 4.16: Holzwarth Ranch Holzwarth Trout Lodge which expanded in 1923 to include an upgraded facility across the river called Never Summer Ranch. The park bought the Holzwarth Trout Lodge and the Never Summer Ranch in 1975 returning the latter to nature while keeping the former. The park currently uses this site to interpret pioneer life in the Colorado River Valley. A hay meadow reclaimed by the Holzwarths from a jumble of beaver ponds is included in the boundaries of the district (NPS Document ROMO C-500.003). The property was nominated to the National Register as Holzwarth Historic District. The CLI classifies it as a Historic Vernacular Landscape significant under the Pioneer Settlement and Resort Industry theme. Green Mountain Ranch is also along the Colorado River, accessible by a dirt driveway off Trail Ridge Road. Although the main lodge has been removed most 158

PAGE 175

other structures relating to the ranch such as the bam and cabins remain in fair condition. The later additions blend in with the originals, retaining a sense of place and time. The ownership of the ranch changed hands a few times before the NPS purchased it in 1959 Today the structures are used as housing for employees Adjacent to Green Mountain Ranch is the Onahu Ranch another dude ranch from the same period which was initially determined ineligible in 1985 per the McWilliams Survey but was deemed eligible in 1997. The CLI initially listed it separate from the Green Mountain Ranch but in FY 2003 listed them together because of their spatial and historic connections (Braa 2002). McGraw Ranch Historic District wa s nominated to the National Register in 1998 and recei v ed a Level II Cultural Landscapes Inv entory in 1999 The property has been rehabilitated as a research facility since 2002 (Figure 4 17) Although the case is generally being touted as a successful model its future as originally determined by the NPS was to have followed a different course had it not been for the intervention of local preservation groups and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The park planned on returning the ranch to wilderness" in 1993 but today it operates as a successful and popular research center. The McGraw Ranch case has been pivotal as it marks what appears to be the beginning of a new understanding of cultural landscape management in the park 159

PAGE 176

FIGURE 4.17: McGraw Ranch but it also raises a few unresolved issues for the preservation of vernacular landscape s that will be discussed in the later chapters. Some Prioritization Issues Dominance ofNPS-Built Properties. NPS-built properties from the period 1930-1940 dominate the CLI; all le ve ls contain large numbers of ranger stations patrol cabins, roads and campgrounds One might assume that the large number of NPS-developed landscapes on the list is simply because there are more of such properties in the park to begin with. This is not the whole story There are numerous cultural landscapes within the park whose significance is at least as great as other individual landscapes included on the CLI. The CLI Level 0 is supposed to be inclusive, that is containing anything that might reasonably be 160

PAGE 177

considered a cultural landscape, yet many non-NPS sites are not included. Examples of these are given in the following sections. The case of Reichhardt Property (Level 0 not prioritized) exemplifies the problems that such prioritization may have on the future of cultural resources in the park The Reichhardt Property is associated with Anna Wolfram, an early pioneer who homesteaded in the area and established a tea room for tourists. The property is not only an excellent example of vernacular traditions of construction; it is also associated with a single woman pioneer, a phenomenon interesting to historians and the public and for which there are few remaining places available for interpretation. The park has already erased other sites ofwomen's history such as the Harbison Ranch (homesteaded and run by two sisters) and is currently allowing the Reichhardt site to return to wilderness because the buildings happen to be in a state of disrepair as a result of years of neglect. 35 That a property such as this one, which has such great interpretative potential, is being ignored in favor of other NPS rustic sites of greater historic integrity but far less rarity, is unfortunate. Even though the CLI Level 0 list acknowledges the potential of the site it has not been prioritized for reasons that are unclear other than the poor condition of the buildings on the site and the lack of interest the park has in this 35 This statement is based on the information from CU. Per so nal co mmunication with Park Archeologist Bill Butler (2005) shortly before the finalization of this do c um en t s tate s that plans for the property s s tabilization are under consideration 161

PAGE 178

property due in part to some unresolved political issues of access generated by private landholders living on the road to the site. 36 Neglect ofNative American Landscapes The Native American groups associated with Rocky Mountain National park were Ute and Arapaho ; the significant archaeological as well as historical evidence of their use of this area was discussed earlier. Most of the sites associated with the native cultures are managed as archaeological and ethnographic sites rather than as cultural landscapes. Such sites experience the same general stages of management as cultural landscapes (identification e v aluation treatment and interpretation) but the goals and details of the processes often differ. As per the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 the park is responsible for identifying documenting and evaluating cultural resources on these properties including archaeological sites for the National Register. Treatment depends on whether a site is going to be impacted by a project is eroding from natural processes or needs to be interpreted One main treatment is stabilization, but for archaeological sites an alternative is excavation to extract information Information on archaeological sites is stored in the Archeological Sites Management Information System (ASMIS) a complex database with about 100 standardized fields (on location description significance condition threats and management information) In 36 Mor e r ece ntl y the park ha s i nitiated a c ampai g n to rai se mone y for the pr o p e rty (Yo s t 200 5a). 162

PAGE 179

addition to the ASMIS the NPS created the Ethnographic Resources Inventory (ERI) to list ethnographic sites on their properties Like the ASMIS, this database stores information on ethnographic sites that the parks use to better integrate the perspectives of traditional peoples in cultural resource management. The park archeology program is well developed even if the methods and goals of arc heological management differ somewhat from those of cultural landscape management. On the other hand, according to the National Parks Conservation Association's report, the ethnography program in the park is not as well developed. So far there has not been a complete overview and assessment of sites related to Native cultures in the park and baseline information that can guide future protection and management of such sites is missing.37 There is how ever an oral histor y project underway which is being assisted by the tribal elders to develop a Native American interpretive plan (National Parks Conservation Association 2002). The park has a considerable number of sites associated with early occupation (Figure 4.18) that are designated and protected as Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP). None of these sites are on the CLI, even though Ethnographic Landscapes are one of the four types of cultural landscapes that the NPS recognizes. There is a thematic entry in Level 0 related to native cultures 37 According to park archeologist Bill Butler the park is now making significant progress in developing evaluation and treatment approaches for many of these properties and will be cons ulting closely with the Ute and Arapaho as this work contin ue s into the future (Butl er 2005). 163

PAGE 180

FIGURE 4.18: Indian-built wall Tombstone Ridge termed Native American Ethnographic Landscape" which lists a variety of geographically dispersed resources under one heading Although the entry identifies deterioration/destruction of landscape elements due to inadequate understanding of the resource they are not prioritized Ironically it seems that a lack of understanding disqualifies them from higher levels of review in which the y would be researched in order to be better understood Most ethnography sites are viewed as archaeological since the native people were banished from the parks at or before their creation As already seen in the CLI chapter howe v er this reinforces a dichotomy between Native and non-native cultures since non natives were also driven out of the park yet their cultural imprints for the most 164

PAGE 181

part are managed as cultural landscapes (except for the mining sites in ROMO discussed later). Advances such as the oral history program help reduce this div ide, but the lack of integration between these living history activities and the phys i cal evidence of the Native presence in the area is a missed opportunity to reinforce how recently these cultures held sway in the area Some NPS scholars have argued that ethnographic landscapes are sufficiently different from the other three types of cultural landscapes that they need a fundamentally different approach to documentation and determination of integrity and significance: Thus a fundamental difference between cultural and ethnographic landscapes as perceived in the NPS is whose history and cultural identity determines the significance of a given geographic space and with whom the ability and authority to identify and describe it rests (Evans Roberts and Nelson 2001). This fundamental difference appears to be affecting landscape practice within ROMO a s none of the CLI staffhav e chosen to identify or describe any of the landscapes associated with the Ute or Arapahoe Rather than simply lea v ing them off the list for this reason is problematic however if that list aims to be inclusi v e of all four types of cultural landscapes. It would seem the NPS needs to decide either to explicitly maintain the identification and management of ethnographic 165

PAGE 182

landscapes separately from other cultural landscapes or else better integrate them into the CLI process in a way that accounts for their uniqueness Roads Receive More Attention than Other NPS-Built Sites Within the NPS-built landscapes that have been prioritized roads appear to do better than other properties. All the main roads in the park have been in v entoried and prioritized to some degree. Trail Ridge Fall Riv er and Wild Basin are exemplary examples of linear features that ha v e remained in continued use since the time of their construction. As a result they have received routine maintenance and care e v en more so than other NPS-built properties in continual use. Mountain road s in the park s y stem bring most of the public into close contact w ith all of the landscapes that they would otherwise never experience. As such they ha v e remained symbols of the NPS especially in mountainous parks where the y represent impressive engineering feats in their own right. As a result the y have been maintained by parks ROMO included compared to other cultural resources Yet given how integral they are to park operations and how important their maintenance is to visitor safety they are by far the least threatened elements (comparatively speaking) at least in terms of deterioration and neglect. A complete CLI will of course be important in ensuring that future road improvement projects are as historically sensiti v e as possible. Interestingly, the park has an elaborate system of trails that are also maintained also built b y CCC 166

PAGE 183

and also involve designed elements such as water drainage systems and bridges but are not on the CLI. 3 8 The stated CLI criteria of significance and integrity do not explain this discrepancy. Potential Cultural Landscapes not listed on the CLI The Level 0 inventory is supposed to be as inclusive as possible but it appears that there remain a variety of landscapes that are excluded for no obvious reason. The trails mentioned above are one example; equally unclear is the presence of some CCC campgrounds but absence of others, despite comparable historical significance and integrity and despite representing the same period of history Of the five campgrounds in the park, three are listed of which two are classified as historic vernacular and one as historic designed. More systematic is the complete absence of the park's mining-related properties from the CLI. The park has at least four documented mining-related sites, including Eugenia Mine and the communities of Lulu City (Figure 4 19) Gaskill, and Dutchtown none of which appear on the CLI listing Lulu City and Gaskill both were settlements of hundreds of people from the Colorado gold rush era, where considerable visible evidence of the town plan remains in the form of 38 Park s taff indicate that efforts to pla ce historic trails on the National R egister have increased in the period just prior to finalization of this manuscript with two r ece ntl y nominated and more possibly in progress. (Yost 2005b) 167

PAGE 184

FIGURE 4.19 : Lulu City today foundation pits and the remains of structures, both of which are fading. Lulu City went from a booming mining town in 1880 to near ghost town rather abruptly; Gaskill was platted to be considerably larger but experienced the same fate as Lulu City. Dutchtown a small outpost of Lulu City is unlikely ever to receive much preservation attention given its remote location away from the park roads. Gaskill is easily accessible however, yet contains no documentation and little reference in any park literature The park purchased the Lulu City town site (160 acres) in 1948 In 1973 when Ferrel Atkins prepared a National Register Nomination for Lulu City he noted the extent of neglect pointing out that the site was deteriorating rapidly from both natural and human He estimated that the structures had "'melted about 2 feet since his previous inspection in 1962 Nothing was done in terms of stabilization probably as the nomination 168

PAGE 185

recommended no treatment "beyond defining the main street patterns." (Atkins 1977). Lulu City appears on park signage and literature but has not benefited from much interpretation effort. A site like Lulu City has great interpreti v e potential since it is accessible along a relatively flat trail and contains surface remains ; y et it has not received nearly the same amount of attention as the ranches. Perhaps the pastoral landscapes of ranches and farms are considered more compatible with the image of nature than extractive landscapes of mining and logging. The NPS long suppressed e v idence of human activity in the park s generally; it would not be surprising that the slow reversal of this process would favor those types of human activity that possess an aura somewhat more sympathetic to wilderness This pattern remains evident in the overall CLI as seen in Chapter 3. The absence of all of the mining landscapes from the CLI in ROMO suggests it is at play here as well. It would be disappointing if the latter component of regional and national history is ignored however because it does not fit a consensus image of history One might argue that these mining sites were already abandoned when the area w as designated as a park and had lost historic integrity In reality although the structures were in various states of decay landscape elements such as the patterns 169

PAGE 186

of community planning were still evident. Now that they are ruins perhaps they would be better managed as archaeological sites as some park staff are ad v ocating given that the parks have a long established tradition of arch a eology Just as with some of the Native sites however mining was an activity of the recent past and managing it as archaeology distances it from our experience more than managing as a cultural landscape In some ways they are the most interesting landscapes of all properties on the CLI since as ruins they are historical places where the landscape component comes into the foreground presenting significant evidence of extraction and settlement. Absence of Irrigation History. Also absent on the CLI are the many irrigation resources ( ditches, dams and reservoirs) that are vital to the history of the region and to the West in general. The Grand River Ditch and laborers cabins-one of the oldest and most distinctive cultural landscapes in the park was remo v ed from the CLI list on the basis that the ditch is pri v ately owned despite being located in the park (Braa 2002) Yet it is a tremendous example of vernacular engineerin g (Figure 4 20) which appears on the National Register of Historic Places The camps that served as homes to the workers who built the ditch are also ineligible because of loss of integrity despite being owned by the park and representing a great opportunity to relate the story of nonEuropeans in the de v elopment of the interior West. In 1976 the National Register nomin a tion for 170

PAGE 187

FIGURE 4.20 : Grand Ditch under construction Grand Ditch identified the ruins of nine cabin s at one camp including a co ok s hack and blacksmith s hop The camps along w ith a ditch rider's road running the full length of the ditch and the L a Poudre Pass Bam (erected by the ditch company in 1893) were all determined to contribute to the Grand Ditch Historic District (McWilliams 1985) Even though the CLI identified the ditch as a "significant land feature and recommended a Historic Resource Study for it, the park seem s reluctant mainly due to the complex i s sues posed by the extern a l o w nership of the ditch .39 This seems to be one reason wh y the park has not pur s ued thi s landscape when in fact it should ha v e been all the more rea so n for 39 T h e p a rk 's His t oric Stru c tur e Pr ese rvati o n Pri o ritie s Jis t whic h ass i g n s p oints t o s it es t o d e t e rmin e pri o rit y f o r pr ese rv atio n wo rk pl aces Gr a nd Dit c h las t (fifti e th ) o n th e Jis t w ith a t o t a l sco r e ofO. T h e firs t o n th e lis t i s M cGra w R a n c h w ith a sco r e o f 1 04. 171

PAGE 188

them to be involved.4 0 The ditch is still functional and privately owned but the land around the ditch as well as the camps and the barn and other related structures are owned by the park. Historic vernacular landscapes clearly present complex preservation challenges in the parks ; if not in continued usage they risk losing their meaning; if in continued usage they risk losing their historic integrity (in the way it is assessed by the NPS). The problem is compounded by judging vernacular landscapes by the same yardstick as designed landscapes which can result in many valuable properties never making it onto priority lists and being lost. Yet just as we have seen already, both the ditch camps and the ditch itself represent a unique and more historically significant resource than many of the individual NPS-built sites that have advanced on the list. The concern of external ownership does not apply to the ditch camps as a cultural landscape by themselves, although their significance is less clear when the ditch itself is not included. The added difficulties of this property mean that park staff would need to be especially devoted to vernacular cultural landscapes in order to preserve them. Yet such unique vernacular properties are the ones that tell us the most about our cultural history, and represent the very core of the CLI's mandate. 40 In fact th e NPS i s c urrently involved with inventorying privately h eld cottages w ithin Glacier NP This might s u ggest that owne r s hip is not the e ntire issue. 172

PAGE 189

CHAPTER 5 TREATMENT AND INTERPRETATION OF CULTURAL LANDSCAPES IN THE NATIONAL PARKS This chapter shifts focus from inventory to two subsequent stages of cultural landscape management in the NPS : treatment and interpretation The first section focuses on different treatments cultural landscapes are receiving in some of the national parks in the US especially those in parks managed as "natural." The NPS recently adopted four types of treatments for cultural landscapes (preservation rehabilitation restoration, reconstruction) which are directly modeled after treatments defined in the 1960 s for architecture. Although the types of individual treatment are the same cultural landscapes more often need a combination of these treatments rather than just one since they tend to be more complex in scope and scale than individual buildings or even historic districts. The objective of this section is to understand how well the treatments apply to a variety of cultural landscape properties found in the national parks and where there may still be systematic unresolved issues in the application of treatments. The second section focuses on cultural landscape interpretation a significant yet often neglected aspect of cultural landscape management. In order to fully realize the social 173

PAGE 190

benefits of cultural landscape preservation, the NPS must successfully communicate the complexity of a given landscape both in terms of its natural and cultural systems and their interactions. The cultural systems include possibly complex historic layering that may possess components that are both seen and unseen. The role of interpretation in achieving this goal cannot be underestimated The section begins by reviewing the interpretative programs in the NPS, with a focus on published materials and signage, to see how the agency is interpreting the different cultural landscape sites in the national parks. Cultural landscapes that have been lost or have not received listing or treatment can still be interpreted ; hence many are included in the section. Cultural Landscape Treatment Cultural landscape treatment is significantly more difficult than identification. When the treatments are applied to historic landscapes there is always a challenge to understand the dynamics of natural systems and to incorporate that understanding into plan designs and various degrees of intervention." Doing so requires some codification, but "reliance on codification, as exemplified in The S ec r etary of the Int e rior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Prop erties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, holds the potential to negate the very idiosyncratic landscape qualities that set one place apart from another." (Alanen and Melnick 2000). 174

PAGE 191

Many philosophical and practical tenets influence the section of treatments for a cultural landscape. Charles Birnbaum attempted to outline these considerations in Preservation Brief 36 the defining document for cultural landscape preservation in the NPS (Birnbaum 1994). Chief among these are historic significance and integrity Other practical determinants include the level of documentation the property has received historic and proposed use cost and issues of staffing and maintenance. The selected treatments are expected to take into account the diversity of resources in the landscape and their interrelations, as well as allow for appropriate changes to the biotic components in the landscape Preservation Brief 36 also recommends a detailed treatment plan based on the four treatment types identified in The S e cr etary of the Int e rior s Standards for the Tre atm e nt of Historic Prop e rti e s w ith Guid e lin e s for the Tre atm e n t of Cultural Land s cap e s (Birnbaum and Peters 1996) prior to conducting any work on the property. A Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) or other equivalent historical research that documents the history, significance integrity and character defining features of the property should be used to determine the treatment plan. These four different treatment types are organized along a tiered framework of invasiveness that is inversely related to the degree of historic integrity a property retains. Properties with maximum historic integrity tend to receive the lowest treatment and v ic e ve rsa (Birnbaum 1994). The fact that there are four landscape 175

PAGE 192

types (historic designed, historic sites historic vernac ular and ethnographic) and four treatments might suggest that there is some explicit relationship between landscape type and treatment type, but that is not the case. This is not to say that certain treatment types do not in practice work better on certain landscape types. This topic will re-emerge among others as we examine the different treatment types and examine the many examples of their application by the NPS in practice. Preservation The act or pro cess of applying m e asur es n ecess ary to sus tain the existi ng form, integrity, and materials of an hi storic property Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the prop e rty generally foc u ses upon the ong o ing maint e nan ce and r e pair of hi storic materials and feat ur es rath er than extens iv e rep la ce m e nt and n ew co n str u ctio n New additions are not wit hin the scope of this tr eatment ; however the limited and sensit ive upgrading of m ec hani ca l e l ec tri ca l and plumbing syste m s and oth er code-re quir ed work to mak e properties functional is appropriate w ithin a p reservat ion proj ect Preservation is the least intrusive and the most cost effective of all four treatments since its main focus is stabilizing a cultural landscape property to slow down deterioration. In the process the treatment should maintain the maximum amount of the original fabric possible especially for the character-defining features, yet allow for appropriate changes that are integral to the development of the landscape. However due to the presence of biotic components in most cultural landscapes preservation as a treatment is less straightforwardly defined for such properties than it is for buildings that are relatively static. For example, no matter how much 176

PAGE 193

preservation effort one expends on a designed tree-lined all ee, each tree w ill eventuall y die A compatible replacement would need to be found in mo s t cases. Although the same is true for the loss of architectural elements biotic entities are much more individually varied Obtaining a new element that is compatible in all necessary details with (and creates the same visual pattern as) the one that is lost may be far more difficult. The high frequency with which preservation is recommended compared to all other treatments means that it has become a sort of"default treatment for landscapes in which the park has an y interest. Its application can appear somewhat arbitrary at times gi v en how often it is recommended even for properties facing gra v e external threats Preservation is particularly common for the many scenic cultural landscapes on the CLI in which the natural component is dominant. For these landscapes the cultural component refers to the NPS-constructed visitor facilities and the views of the natural site from these facilities. In most cases the goal of the preservation is twofold : (1) to maintain the NPS constructed trails and boardwalks that bring the v isitors to lookouts and viewing platforms and (2) to maintain views and vistas to the scenery by keeping biotic growth in check. Although these are valuable goals they have been necessary components of ordinary maintenance long before the rise in interest in cultural landscape preservation Among the many cultural landscape sites that fall into this category a few examples include the Petrified Tree (Le vel 0 ; Figure 177

PAGE 194

FIGURE 5.1: Petrified tree (Yellowstone NP) 5.1) in Yellowstone NP (based around a single ancient redwood) Narada Falls (Level II) in Mount Rainier NP (a very popular waterfall), and Man zani ta Lake / Reflection Lake (Level 0) in Lassen Volcanic NP. For landscapes that were not designed by the NPS (and thus not in continued use) preservation alone is of less clear value The more successful examples seem to be found predominantly in the southwest, where dry climate combined with a predominance of geological rather than biotic elements makes the natural rates of landscape change relatively slow. An example of this include the Pioneer Register in Canyonlands NP (Historic Site Level 0), where early travelers recorded their passage through Grand Wash Canyon by carving their names and dates of passage into the 178

PAGE 195

FIGURE 5 2 Pioneer Register (Capito l ReefNP) sheer rock walls (Figure 5.2). Remains of an early road through the site can also be seen. The park maintains the historic graffiti while placing great emphasis on discouraging visitors from leaving their own marks on the site which constitute the main external threat. Wolfe Ranch (Historic Vernacular Landscape Level 0) in Arches NP comprising a weathered cabin corral and fences near the lookout to the famous Delicate Arch is another neatly preserved cultural landscape site in a desert setting The NPS has stabilized the property and provides routine maintenance to counteract the effects of large number of visitors coming to the site given its proximity to Delicate Arch The climate ensures that the structure is otherwise in little danger and the grounds of the ranch see little biotic change as well. Many other 179

PAGE 196

ranches and farms around the country have been targeted for preservation alone, but in these settings preservation must involve more direct attention to the biotic components of the landscape. Unfortunately, in most cases the traditional means by which these underwent change (through farming grazing and the like) differ from the methods used to "preserve" them. Rehabilitation The a c t or process of making possibl e a c ompatibl e us e for a prop erty through r epair, alterations, and addition s w hil e preservi ng thos e portion s or features w hi c h conve y its hi s tori ca l or c ultural values. Rehabilitation can be described as preservation plus" ; this treatment preserves much of the existing historic fabric but allows for congruous additions and alterations to meet present needs and codes. For buildings rehabilitation remains a popular treatment for private owners of historic buildings being updated for new uses given the associated federal tax credit programs. The treatment also extends well to cultural landscape sites that have significant architecture associated with them McGraw Ranch (Le ve l II) in Rocky Mountain NP and Rosemary Inn (Level II; Figure 5 3) in Olympic NP are both early resort facilities that ha v e been rehabilitated for their current use as research facilities Similar cases are seen a t George Stanford House (Level 0) in Cuyahoga Valley NP (a farmhouse currently used as a Hostelling International hostel although the bam remains unused) Lake Crescent Lodge (Level 180

PAGE 197

FIGURE 5.3: Cabins at Rosemary Inn (Olympic NP) II) in Olympic NP (now a concessionaire) and Enchanted Valley Chalet (Level 0) in Olympic NP (now a summer ranger station) Rehabilitation clearly remains a successful treatment in managing historic buildings by finding new uses for them. A common theme for all of these examples is the dominance of the architecture within the landscape In most cases the treatment extends to the landscape primarily by way of regrading trails to meet ADA specification or construction of new parking or visitor facilities and in some cases replanting native or historical species The Loomis Museum cultural landscape site in Lassen Volcanic NP originally developed in 1926 by photographer Benjamin Loomis during the two-year eruption period has been rehabilitated to include new ranger stations and restrooms as well as accessways 181

PAGE 198

FIGURE 5.4: Loomis Historic District (Lassen Volcanic NP) that echo the overall Spanish Mission style of California dominant on the site (Figure 5.4). This and other successful examples fall mostly into the historic site and historic designed landscape categories, since rehabilitation usually involves reuse and reuse of vernacular or ethnographic landscapes themselves (as opposed to the buildings within them) that maintains the historic time period in the landscape is difficult as discussed in the previous chapters. 182

PAGE 199

Restoration The act or process of accurately d epicting the form features, and charac t e r of a property as it appeared at a parti cular p eriod of time by mean s of the removal of fea tur es from other p e riods i n its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration p eriod The lim ited and se nsitive upgrading of mechanical, e l ectrica l and plumbin g sys t e m s and other code-re quir e d work to mak e prop er ti es functional is appropriate w ithin a r esto ration project Restoration attempts to take the cultural landscape site back to a particular period in time based on its period of significance. This treatment is intrusive conceptually, and may involve removing historic fabric from other historic periods as well as constructing lost features from the period of significance. Restoration is recommended only when the goal is to depict a landscape in a particularly significant time in its history. All additions and alterations should be based on historic documentation and not conjecture. One of the fundamental issues is the presence of a living and changing biotic component in cultural landscapes, which does not adapt well to "locking the resource in a particular time" approach commonly used for architecture Hence restoration is not often a particularly appropriate treatment for the biotic components in a cultural landscape. On the other hand, when it is not applied, the buildings and their settings represent different historic periods presenting a rather confusing experience A perfect example is seen in the bam at Cuyahoga Valley's Stanford Farm (Figure 5.5) located amid a manicured lawn. 183

PAGE 200

FIGURE 5.5: Stanford Farm (Cuyahoga Valley NP) The fieldwork indicates that on the whole restoration also extends better to designed cultural landscapes and sites than it does to vernacular and ethnographic landscapes since the latter two derive significance mostly from use and traditional cultural practices. In ethnographic landscapes especially historic significance is derived mainly from associational value based on ongoing cultural traditions and practices. While maintaining the setting is important for retaining the feeling of association the meaning achieved by returning the landscape to a particular past time period is ambiguous Obstruction of the natural continuum can even have a detrimental affect on the associational value cultural groups have with a site. 184

PAGE 201

FIGURE 5.6 : Fruita Rural Historic District (Capitol ReefNP) Despite these complexities, the national parks contain at least one outstanding example of restoration for a vernacular landscape: Fruita Rural Historic District in Capitol ReefNP (Figure 5 .6). Here the orchard landscapes were restored to the patterns when the Mormons first settled the Fremont River valley in the late 191h century The Mormon pioneers planted orchards along a narrow strip of land surrounded by towering mesas and buttes using ingenious irrigation techniques, literally transforming a parcel of the desert into fruited plains The treatment plan devised by Cathy Gilbert from the Columbia Cascades Support Office (Seattle) and Kathleen McKoy from the Colorado Plateau Support Office (Denver) called for undoing some of the incompatible changes from later periods reconstructing five 185

PAGE 202

acres of orchards, tearing down some dilapidated structures as well as restoring others to conform to the historical period (Gilbert and McCoy 1998) Fruita Rural Historic District (2000 acres, 9 buildings and 7 structures) was added to the National Register in 1997. What makes Fruita unusual is that it was determined to have historic integrity even when the NPS had erased most of the original buildings on the site during a Mission 66 redevelopment period. As has been seen in many previous examples buildings usually contribute disproportionately to the assessment of historic integrity for a cultural landscape, a challenge that was successfully overcome for the first time in the case of Fruita The NPS had acquired the town of Fruita with the intention of locating the new Mission 66 visitor center on the site, but those plans did not materialize as the site proved incompatible for the intended developments In the meantime however the park had already tom down many of the buildings comprising the town. They allowed the orchards themselves to remain (Figure 5.7) since they proved very popular with locals and tourists alike and provided a much needed respite in the desert heat. Today the orchards form the center of an entire complex that serves as a significant site for interpreting Mormon history, culture and daily life in the desert west. 186

PAGE 203

FIGURE 5.7: Orchard at Fruita Rural Historic District (Capitol ReefNP) Why did Fruita succeed so well, and why have so few other vernacu l ar landscapes seen similar success? One part of the story seems to relate to luck since the inability to locate the Mission 66 center at the site was crucial in determining the future of Fruita Rural Historic District. A major part was the hard work and vision of specific figures within the NPS (including Cathy Gilbert) and from outside the bureaucratic structure as well (chiefly Robert Melnick from the University of Oregon) But another major part was the presence of a local community near the park many with shared cultural connections to the original inhabitants of Fruita who cherished the landscape. Without their input in the process (sometimes welcomed by the NPS sometimes unwelcome) Fruita would be a very different place today. 187

PAGE 204

FIGURE 5 .8: Olympic Hot Springs (Olympic NP) If Fruita succeeded so well then why have most other complex vernacular landscapes seen their treatments focus largely on the buildings? The simple answer is that they lacked this same combination of forces as Fruita but it is not immediately obvious which ones specifically were missing The role of outside forces that ha v e a clear and personal interest in the cultural landscape is probably the most important. Evidence for this comes from a second vernacular landscape that has seen some success although not to the extent of Fruita Olympic Hot Springs in Olympic NP once a popular resort and community is now a successful vernacular landscape albeit in a much altered form from its original (Figure 5 8) There is a loosely organized hot springs community around Washington State that has some investment in the property and is willing to maintain the vernaculamess. Perhaps these examples 188

PAGE 205

suggest that for vernacular landscapes to truly succeed there is a need for official continued use or some invested community who make it de facto in use This is perhaps largely because these vernacular landscapes can be used or participated in by the public. Orchards and hot springs are very different from hay fields and mines in this regard since the former are inviting places that encourage interactive participation (picking fruit or soaking) while the latter often represent a frozen image of the past and are not easily used for their original purposes by visitors or park neighbors. If one takes the CLI at face value, it would actually appear that vernacular landscapes have undergone successful preservation. Yet this impression is based upon a rather confusing use of the concept 'vernacular within the CLI. In Rocky Mountain NP and seemingly within the entire Midwest region, for instance the CLI lists many NPS-built ranger stations and other such rusticated sites in the vernacular" category. Although the construction of these sites involved the use oflocal material and rustic detailing they are the direct product of (and reflect the ideology of) a large government agency and not a local community By the NPS' own definition vernacular cultural landscapes evolve as a result of use by people whose acti v ities or occupancy shaped that landscape Many of these sites did not e v olve out of innovation or need ; in fact these were designed to look vernacular by trained 189

PAGE 206

professionals in distant offices.41 Thus none of these can reall y be said to represent successful preservation/restoration of a vernacu lar landscape Reconstruction The act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form features and detailing of a non -s urviving site, lands cape, building structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of tim e and in its histori c loca tion Reconstruction is the most invasive treatment, consisting of completely recreating a site from little or no remains. Such a demanding task is rarely undertaken and when it is all efforts are taken to salvage any historic material possible For cultural landscapes almost all examples of reconstruction are at the level of indi vidua l features, not the landscape as a whole In Fruita Rural Historic District for instance five acres of the much larger orchards were reconstructed (while the man y other acres that remained were merely restored) in order to enhance the overall sense of place and time. More often individual buildings and structures within cultural landscape properties are reconstructed as part of a plan to maintain the overall historic character of the site. For instance, the Everett Covered Bridge (Cuyahoga Valley NP) was reconstructed on the same location after it collapsed in 1975 since it is an important character defining 41 The rol e of landscape architects in creating these sit es is discussed by McClelland ( 1998) 190

PAGE 207

feature of the site. Within the Rim Village landscape (Level 1) of Crater Lake NP, the Crater Lake Lodge was demolished and reconstructed starting in 1991 due to threats of imminent collapse. (This type of reconstruction, in which the original exists in some form at the time the reconstruction is planned is considerably easier since the original can be studied extensively with an eye toward reconstruction). Under most circumstances, buildings related to visitor services such as a lodge would undergo one of the less invasive treatments long before they reach the point of needing reconstruction. However, in this case the structure was actually owned and operated by a concessionaire who did not conduct proper repairs. By the time the NPS was able to step in, not only was reconstruction called for, but surprisingly little of the historic fabric could be directly saved, short of reuse for some of the materials. The building was returned to a 1920s style when it was in the prime, while still meeting the current safety codes and standards (Gilbert and Luxenburg 1990; Figure 5 9). Why was reconstruction called for in this case, instead of simply constructing a new building altogether? The NPS in fact originally proposed to do just that. In this case, there was a public outcry when the park announced the decision to demolish the Crater Lake Lodge, which many viewed as a cherished icon of the park. Again, the fact that there was an external constituency who considered the feature "theirs" allowed the Lodge to survive, albeit in this case in largely reconstructed form. However the public outcry focused mostly on the loss of the building itself and not 191

PAGE 208

FIGURE 5.9: Crater Lake Lodge (Crater Lake NP) on the accompanying landscape change when it was clear that reconstruction of the lodge would disrupt the original landscape design of the site. The landscapes have since been reconstructed but it suggests that the public values the building much more than the landscape. Crater Lake Lodge is now considered an important character-defining feature for Rim Village cultural landscape just as Everett Covered Bridge is for Cuyahoga Valley In each case great care and resources went into reconstructing the element; in the case of Everett Bridge this was done explicitly with the goal of retaining historic character and meaning in the cultural landscape. Yet in both cases, the landscape around the structure does not reflect the same historic period In the case of Everett Covered 192

PAGE 209

FIGURE 5.10: Landscape at Rim Village Historic District (Crater Lake NP) Bridge, the industrial landscapes from the time of the bridge are today pastoral. The historic designed landscapes in Rim Village are somewhat altered especially at the west end (where parking has been expanded ; Figure 5.1 0) and around the Lodge (during the time of the reconstruction) and only partially contribute to the historic integrity of the area The guidelines on reconstruction for cultural landscapes emphasize the importance of basing treatment on accurate historical documentation since reconstruction can be particularly prone to creating a contrived sense of history. Yet again focus on structures with comparatively little consideration of their relationship to the surrounding landscape has led the many cultural landscape sites down exactly that route 193

PAGE 210

Neglect the "Fifth Treatment" In addition to the four treatments in the Secretary of the Interior's report, the parks often practice neglect as a treatment. This can be an implicit treatment, in the sense that it is not adopted directly, but rather that none of the other four treatments is approved. This means that elements of the cultural landscape will be lost especially for landscapes not directly related to NPS visitor services. The only question is the time frame over which this loss will occur, not whether it will occur. Some of these landscapes will later be accepted for one of the four treatments but much may be lost by then. Obviously this is partly an issue of prioritization, which was discussed at length in earlier chapters. Neglect can also be an explicit treatment however, with the NPS making an active decision to abandon a landscape or property to the elements. A decision of neglect signals the ultimate demise of the property This may result even if the CLI process yields support for the preservation of a property The CLI has no legal mandate over the parks unless it is complete in which case it has the backing of the SHPO, so even inventoried sites can be neglected by individual parks if it so chooses, regardless of the identified historical significance and integrity An example is the Anna Wolfram property in Rocky Mountain NP; the CLI notes great historic significance of the site particularly for its unique opportunity to interpret women's pioneer history yet the park has until now paid little attention to the property (Figure 5.11 ). 194

PAGE 211

FIGURE 5.11: The Wolfram Tea Room (Rocky Mountain NP) The parks have many legitimate practical constraints of staffing and funding that pre ve nt them from paying attention to all their cultural landscapes. From the fieldwork it became clear that the many landscapes that are neglected can be explained by a relatively small number of factors : Lack of historic integrity or p e rc e ption of it : Often historic integrity plays a much greater role than significance in determining whether or not a property will receive treatment. Although the NPS sometimes uses an expanded definition of integrity for landscape compared to architecture, it is still true that no matter how historically important a site or structure may have been if its present condition fails to meet standards of integrity under the seven categories of location design setting 195

PAGE 212

materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, it cannot quality for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. (Howett 2000) Unlike with architecture significance and integrity can sometimes be at odds with one another in cultural landscape s because of their dynamic nature. Vernacular landscapes ha ve often suffered because of this approach since they retain more historic significance when in continual use but also stand to lose historic integrity because of use. This dilemma is further compounded b y the vernacular properties being judged by the same high standards of historic integrity set b y the NPS for designed landscapes and historic sites. Inaccessibility of the site: Cultural landscapes that are not readily accessible are less likely to be actively erased, but are more likely to be neglected. In this category are numerous mining and other exploration sites that can only be accessed by backcountry hiking trails This limits visitat ion to only the adventurous explorers, and thus the sites are neglected since investing in them is not seen as "cos t-effective" given the small number who will directly experience the site. The sites in Canyonlands NP from the John Wesley Powell expedition down the Green and Colorado Rivers are a prime example. Of great interest to many visitors (since they pertain to the ever popular historical topic of western exploration, and a particularly adventurous piece of that history), the remaining traces in this cultural landscape are nonetheless neglected since very few visitors ever get near the rivers. 196

PAGE 213

FIGURE 5.12: Lost Horse Mine (Joshua Tree NP) Low aesth e tic appreciation: Some types of landscapes (e.g. pastoral) seem preferred because they better match people's idea of" harmony with nature" than other types (mining, industrial) even though history is then skewed in the process (Figure 5.12). This results in certain types of landscape receiving more attention than others This point was examined in Chapter 3 in detail. One can imagine this beginning to change along with current tastes as the growing interest in lofts and other converted industrial properties suggests. Missing buildings and oth e r subtle imprints : Cultural landscapes that have their buildings missing are more likely to be seen as having lost their historic integrity compared to those that have their historic landscape missing. The historic landscapes 197

PAGE 214

of many historic districts are non contributing by virtue of being covered with modem parking asphalt yet these properties have received much greater inventory and treatment attention while those that have lost their buildings but have contributing landscape are ignored. The Utility Area in ROMO is an example of this while Fruita is the exception. A related issue is the fact that some landscapes wi thout architecture leave particularly subtle imprints on the land, making preservation or interpretation even more difficult. Edward Abbey's Trailer Site in Arches NP, where Edward Abbey wrote some of his famous works, is one such site. The site is located along a dirt road in the park's Windows District between a public latrine and a maintenance area. The site affords a stunning view of the Windows District and the La Sal Mountains in the distance, but retains few obvious traces of Abbey's life there except for remnants of the trailer's cement platform in the overgrowth. The site has not been memorialized in any way, despite the large base of Abbey fans who have great interest in the site (Figure 5 .13 ). No use for the park: If there is no use or visitor interest in a property the park will not spend its limited resources on maintaining the site. Often buildings on cultural landscape sites that are readily accessible may be u sed by the park for hou sing and other administrative purposes but to have the landscape conform to the period of the building is not something the parks are concerned about. They see the landscape 198

PAGE 215

FIGURE 5.13: Edward Abbey trailer site (Arches NP) around to be used for contemporary needs to provide additional parking putting a storage shed or expanding existing buildings. The listing of such sites on the CLI may result in conflicting expectations. In general theoreticians as well as practitioners recognize that cultural landscapes are not well suited to analysis using preservation criteria derived largely from architectural models." (Howett 2000) All four of the possible treatments extend better to designed cultural landscapes and sites ; these also happen to be the two most inventoried categories. We will now consider whether truly vernacular and ethnographic landscapes fare better in terms of interpretation which can proceed without all of the same concerns for high integrity than they do in terms of treatment. 199

PAGE 216

Cultural Landscape Interpretation [T} he quality and importance of an y pre s e rvation proje c t is d e termin e d not b y the int e gri ty of the site, but by the quality of w hat is made of th e site through interpr e tation of its history Catherin e How e tt 2 000. This section will focus directly on on-site interpretive activities and programs as they relate to cultural landscape sites in the national parks. Many cultural landscapes have received some form of interpretation including both those that have been inventoried as part of the CLI and those that have not. The number is far too large to allow for an exhaustive analysis of interpretive efforts among all ; instead I simply draw examples from each of the NPS-defined cultural landscape categories. As in the chapter on inventory however I will combine my discussion of historic sites and historic designed landscapes since the two are not distinguishable from the CLI data that I was able to obtain In general interpretation is a process by which the NPS helps the park v i s itors connect with the natural and historic places in the parks The NPS describes the main goal of interpretation as educating the park visitor by enhancing their understanding and appreciation ofthe site and promoting good stewardship (National Park Service 2004). Cultural landscape interpretation is based on similar principles but is a bit more challenging than architectural sites due to the generally more complex nature of 200

PAGE 217

landscapes (and of the v ernacular processes that create many of them). As with architectural interpretation cultural landscape interpretation needs to communicate how the landscape existed in its period of significance and how it has evolved to its present state The most commonly used interpretive tools include signage brochures and other printed materials museum exhibits and ranger-led tours and programs Interpretive programs are developed based on a site's level of historic significance and integrity as well as assessments of visitor interest. In the previous section we saw how visitor interest and access can affect treatment, but for landscape inventory and treatment such considerations are generally implicit; for interpretation the interests of the visitors themselves play a greater role in decision making If a site is deemed to be of interest then the form of its interpretation will be largely shaped by integrity issues In general if a site retains high integrity (intact character-defining features, etc ) the NPS recommends minimal interpretation as if allowing the site to speak for itself. The recommended interpretation is to guide the visitors to the existing historic features without "introducing obtrusive interpretive devices such as free-standing signs." On the other hand if the site has compromised historic integrity but sufficient significance interpretation will need to be more elaborate using markers and photographs along with extant features to help visitors visuali z e the site as it existed in the past. By filling in an understanding of the lost character-defining 201

PAGE 218

features, this process ideally helps communicate the history of the site as well as the larger physical and social context of that history (Birnbaum 1994). Interpretation considers visitor interest more highly than treatment does. On the other hand interpretation is freer from the constraint of historic integrity since it is easier to interpret a site with low integrity (or even one that has been mostly lost) than it is to preserve it or conduct any other treatment. The presence of these differences mean that a comparison of the landscapes that experience treatment versus interpretation (and the types of each they receive) provides evidence as to the roles that significance and integrity each play separately in cultural landscape management, and what that implies for the future This examination forms the focus of the rest of this section It is important to begin with an understanding of how current interpretation practices have evolved out of a century of administrative and philosophical changes both in and out of the NPS. Enos Mills the creator of Rocky Mountain National Park is also considered one of the founding fathers of the field of interpretation as we know it today. Mills developed principles and techniques that shaped current interpretive practices in multiple settings including the NPS In his early years in Estes Park Mills conducted nature walks and guided treks to Longs Peak but considered himself different from a regular trail guide, whose primary responsibility would be to bring people to and from the destination safely Instead Mills considered himself a natural 202

PAGE 219

FIGURE 5.14: Enos Mills leading a tour in Rocky Mountain NP guid e someone who would educate people on the marvels and processes in nature and rouse their excitement about them (Mills 1920; Figure 5.14). Although this may sound ordinary today it is only because this philosophy has been widely adopted; at the time it was actually quite innovative. Another leading figure in shaping modem interpretation practice is author Freeman Tilden Tilden conducted an independent review of interpretation practices in the national parks in the 1950s and published his findings in Interpr e ting Our H e ritage, which remains the seminal work in the field. In this work and others Tilden developed a set of six interpretive principles that focus on the need to be both informative and provocative relating the subject being interpreted directly to the object (the visitor) while emphasizing the "big picture Tilden's premises were more 203

PAGE 220

FIGURE 5.15: Ranger-led twilight talk (Yosemite NP) an extension of Mills s basic philosophy than a redirection since both en v isioned that interpretation should go beyond the routine exchange of factual information and instead reveal the truth behind the information ." (Tilden 1977; Figure 5.15). The ideas of Mills and Tilden can clearly be seen in much of the work done in the field today down to the very definition of interpretation. TheN ational Association for Interpretation (NAI) defines interpretation as a "communicatio n process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the interests of the audience and the inherent meanings in the resource. (National Association for Interpretation 2004) Th i s definition is in fact ba sed on a similar one originally adopted b y the NPS 204

PAGE 221

In the early years of the NPS the agency did not have any standardized interpretation program nor did it provide any funding or support to parks for this purpose. As a result much of interpretation was in the hands of private parties who had a personal interest in the parks. In the primarily natural parks, local trail guides introduced visitors to the natural scenery, the tradition out of which Enos Mills was working. Local enthusiasts conducted similar work in historical parks ; Gettysburg National Battlefield is an example with perhaps the most well-documented early interpretation efforts. Such interpretation (for natural science and history alike) was informal and highly varying in quality, and much of the historical material at least placed entertainment value as high as historical rigor (Mackintosh 1986). As the NPS began to realize the importance of interpretation they created the Division of Education in 1925 and placed it on equal standing with the Divisions of Landscape Architecture and Engineering. Ansel Hall, chief naturalist of the NPS, initially headed the Educational Division, which was located at the Forestry School at the University of California at Berkeley. (Its name was even briefly changed to the Division of Education and Forestry). The stated purposes of the educational division were to standardize and carry out all educational activities in the park, including hiring park naturalists who would ultimately carry out the interpretive responsibilities. As interpretation needs grew, the NPS created the Division of Interpretive Services within the Education Department (Mackintosh 1986) 205

PAGE 222

When the NPS took over direct responsibility for interpretation, the main objective of the agency was to develop and enhance its image as an educational agency However, most of their initial efforts were limited to dispensing basic tourist-related information. Serious efforts at interpreting history were focused on the battlefields, forts, and other historic parks that the NPS had inherited from the War Department in 1933 Interpretation in scenic parks was very limited, since there "appreciation [was] conditioned by vision and not necessarily knowledge (Mackintosh 1986). In the historic parks, however "intellectual response receives greater stimulation" in appreciating a site. Thus the natural parks in general received less interpretation compared to the historical parks, except for some early living history-type interpretive programs relating to native cultures associate with different parks. These included a replica of an Indian camp behind the museum in Yosemite NP where an "old squaw" demonstrated basket weaving prepared food and sang songs for the visitors. Native Americans performed traditional dances at Mesa Verde NP and weaved at Lassen Volcanic NP as a way of educating visitors in their respective cultures (Figure 5 .16). Living history programs for native cultures had numerous critics, however, given how many of these groups had lost their ancestral lands so that the parks could be created in the first place. They have largely fallen out of use for Native cultures because of this and other sensitive issues. On the other hand, such practices have been popular 206

PAGE 223

FIGURE 5 .16: Hopi dancers (Grand Canyon NP) with visitors, and continue to this day for various non-native cultural displays, such as the Mormon living history activities at Capitol Reef (Mackintosh 1986). In Rocky Mountain NP, one ofthe seasonal rangers dresses in period costumes, playing a 1920s guest at the Horseshoe Lodge Site in order to interpret the story from the point of view of early women visitors to the park The first comprehensive interpretive programs were developed in Yosemite and Yellowstone National Parks in the 1920s, under Ansel Hall's leadership. Many foundational ideas for park interpretation were conceived and developed in these two parks, including wayside exhibits, amphit he atres and museums. The interpretive precedents set in these parks were then adopted by other parks as they de ve loped their 207

PAGE 224

FIGURE 5.17: Wayside signage at Triple Divide Peak (Glacier NP) own guided hikes exhibits and interpretative lectures (Figure 5 17). For example, the first "woodland amphitheatre" was built in Yosemite National Park (sponsored in part by the Sierra Club), and became a prototype for the now-ubiquitous amphitheatre designs in national parks across the country (Figure 5.18) Even today these amphitheatres remain popular venues for ranger talks. The CCC recruits who worked in the parks during the Great Depression gave physical form to many of these new interpretive concepts Since Congress was reluctant to fund educational activities in the parks, the early park museums were largely developed by the American Association of Museums (AAM) 208

PAGE 225

FIGURE 5.18: Ranger-led talk at amphitheatre (Badlands NP) using grant monies; the best-known examples can be seen in Yellowstone and Grand Canyon NPs. Private philanthropy also benefited museum construction in Mesa Verde and Lassen Volcanic NP. John D. Rockefeller Jr. and others contributed for the museum in Mesa Verde, while the Loomis family donated the Loomis Memorial Museum to the Lassen Volcanic National Park, which continues to serve its original function today The design and production of museum exhibits was initially handled by multiple facilities, but since 1970s has been consolidated in the Interpretive Design Center at Harpers Ferry WV. The nature of the exhibits has changed considerably since the early years of interpretation from a narrative format to a more interactive and engaging format using visual aids. The objective today is to avoid 209

PAGE 226

FIGURE 5 19: Early attempt at interpreting social history (Great Smoky Mts. NP) information overload for visitors, instead focusing on telling a small portion of the vast story to generate greater interest. This same approach is used in visitor centers and other interpretive material as well not simply in museums (Figure 5.19). This approach matches well with the newer emphasis on social history, which emphasizes the idea that broad patterns of history can be deduced from smaller, more intimate stories of everyday individuals. Today the interpretive materials and guidelines continue to be generated by the Interpretative Design Center, while the implementation of interpretation falls to the parks themselves (for the content and placement of signs) and to park rangers (for 210

PAGE 227

daily interpretation talks and programs, although the general content of these are determined by the park). Since 1995 the NPS has also had an Interpretive Development Program (IDP), which develops national standards for interpretive effectiveness, provides training, and develops curricula and other resources to aid interpretive activities in the park (Lacome 2004). Despite all of these developments, in the "natural parks" like Rocky Mountain, interpretive material for natural history (in terms of signage and content of ranger programs) still far exceeds that for cultural history. Interpretation can be divided into that which is on-site and that which is off-site. On site interpretation makes the site itself central to the interpretive activities. One element of interpretation that is mostly site-specific is signage. Publications can be either on-site (through a brochure rack at the site, for instance) or off-site (at the visitor center); the same is true ofranger-guided programs. Although off-site interpretative efforts are a significant component ofNPS interpretation, they are beyond the scope of this chapter and will only be discussed in connection with on-site interpretation where necessary. Historic Designed Landscapes and Historic Sites Historic sites and historic designed landscapes encompass a wide variety of properties As seen in Chapter 3, many of the cultural landscapes on the CLI that fall 211

PAGE 228

into this category are scenic cultural landscapes; here the role cultural forces play in shaping the landscapes is relatively minimal; these properties tend to fall near the natural end of the nature-culture spectrum along which cultural landscapes can be arranged. Naturalized Scenic Landscapes For many of these scenic cultural landscapes, the "cultural" component refers largely to the NPS-built visitor access facilities to a dominant natural site such as a waterfall. There is another class of these landscapes however; one in which the natural and cultural elements have become more intertwined and more difficult for the casual observer to tease apart. I call these naturalized scenic landscapes" since in them the cultural component often becomes hidden "behind the nature"; without interpretation it would be difficult for the casual visitor to know that the site was at all the product of human intervention. A superb example of this is Eco Pond, in Everglades NP, which is not on the CLI. The pond was built as a part of the Flamingo Area s sewage treatment, to cleanse polluted water by natural filtration and evaporation processes before being released into the ecosystem. Today the site provides an excellent habitat for wildlife especially butterflies and aquatic life such as the alligator. A half mile long boardwalk and trail (including an observation deck) loops around the pond, allowing visitors to view the wildlife. The pond is sufficiently "idyllic" that few visitors would suspect 212

PAGE 229

FIGURE 5.20: Eco Pond (Everg l ades NP) the history of the site if no interpretation were provided (Figure 5.20). The NPS signage placed at the beginning of the boardwalk does an exemplary job of making clear the constructed nature of this seeming l y natural site, and challenging commonly-held conceptions that nature and culture are necessarily in opposition. The site demonstrates that the needs of society, for example sewage treatment can be fulfilled in ways that are both harmonious with the natural environment and aesthetically pleasing a tenet of l andscape architecture since Olmsted Another example, also from Everglades NP, is the Anhinga Trail site (Figure 5.21). The trail which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places but not on the CLI, uses a portion of the old Ingraham Highway, built by the Ford Motor Company 213

PAGE 230

FIGURE 5 21: Anhinga Trail (Everglades NP) to bring Model T owners to Royal Palm State Park the first state park in Florida. The remaining portion of the road has been removed to restore the natural flow of water through the area The trail connects to a boardwalk which loops over a freshwater saw grass marsh to a viewing platform. The excavation of loose limestone for the road s surface created a pond and a ditch alongside the road which now seem to merge seamlessly with the marsh into one ecosystem The site also once contained the Royal Palm Lodge built by the Florida Federation of Women s Clubs who managed the state park until it was incorporated into the ne w national park in 1947. Except for s ome orange trees and non-native ferns, not much remains of the designed landscapes of the lodge. 214

PAGE 231

Like Eco Pond this site has been "naturalized" over the years which could provide difficulty for interpretation The vast majority of visitors to the site are there with the purpose of viewing the wildlife, and any signage explaining this history could be thought of as taking away some of the apparent "naturalness" of the site that the visitors wish to experience. Nevertheless, the signage does not shy from discussing the history of this linear feature. The board in the visitor center posts information and pictures of the site before it was naturalized to its present state including images of both the Lodge and the Road A stone sign near the head of the trail attempts to inform visitors about the built nature of the wildlife habitat. Fortunately for the NPS, perhaps the majority of visitors to the site seem to be more interested in the plentiful wildlife and seldom read the signs completely, so that mostly those who are really interested in interpretation for its own sake discover the story. Nevertheless the clarity with which the park interpreters have explained the history of the site and connected the message to a larger issue in the visitors experience (the importance for human activity to work with nature not against it) is impressive. That they could have avoided the task altogether and simply presented the site as "natural ," with few visitors ever knowing the difference, makes the outcome all the more positive. Ironically while Everglades NP contains multiple examples of well-interpreted cultural landscapes where visitors may not be expecting them, the CLI work for 215

PAGE 232

Everglades contains only a single entry: the "Everglades National Park Landscape ," which is listed as having undergone a Level 0 review in 1998. Such a CLI-defined landscape is so broad as to be of little practical meaning. What it means that these landscapes have been interpreted but not officially documented for the CLI will be discussed later in the chapter. Non-naturalized Scenic Landscapes. In contrast to these landscap es in which the cultural component has become truly hidden within the natural component there are a much larger number of primarily natural landscapes in which the built component remains more distinct. Most of these are the set of landscapes, mentioned in previous chapters, for which the cultural component refers to the NPS-built visitor access facilities such as viewing platforms, trails, stone walls and the like Although the design approach used by the NPS makes the construction as harmonious with the surroundings as possible, the agency's contributions to the site remain clear in most cases. For this reason and because the emphasis at the site is on the scenic natural element itself I call these "non -natur alized scenic landscapes. For all of the many cases of this type that were viewed, the focus of the signage is on the natural science aspects of the site (Figure 5.22) This is not surprising; most of these sites were interpreted before they were identified as cultural landscapes and from the parks' viewpoint as a whole they remain natural sites. As one of many 216

PAGE 233

FIGURE 5.22: Geological signage Excelsior Geyser (Yellowstone NP) examples the sign by the boardwalk to the Petrified Tree in Yellowstone discusses the geological history of the site, focusing on the processes that occurred some 50 million years ago resulting in the fossil tree. There is no mention of the human history, which consists of the NPS s construction of the trail and platform, as well as some vandalism in the early part of the twentieth century that Jed to the loss of two other trees One could hardly argue that it is inappropriate for the signage to focus on the natural features of the landscape when the natural science is so compelling and is the very reason for the existence of the cultural landscape Nor could one expect much discussion of the agency s role in landscape design, maintenance and use of the site ; rarel y are these design elements particularl y unique. While environmental critiques could argue about the problems resulting from ignoring the human hand, 217

PAGE 234

here the nature of the human role is immediately clear to the visito r and requires little effort b y the NPS to dispense information at the level of individual sites. The fact that the lack of interpretation at these sites seems neither surprising nor inappropriate tells us something very fundamental about the progress of cultural landscape preservation in the national parks. Many scenic landscapes have made it to higher inventory levels yet the NPS 's very own interpretation practices towards them indicate that outside of the CLI they are not really viewed as cultural landscapes. Although these scenic sites are cultural landscapes in the bro ad sense of the term, such a broad definition would in fact qualify the entire park as a cultural landscape. Although this may be the most inclusive perspecti ve from the point of view of interpretation, it does not provide a clear or practical guide from the management standpoint. Built Cultural Landscapes. I use built cultural landscapes to refer to sites w here the role of cultural forces in shaping the landscape is dominant. Again, many of these landscapes revolve around NPS -built sites such as ranger stations patrol cabins, and administrative or housing districts. In many examples, the non architectural component is minimal other than the immediate grounds of the building; for others, it is more extensive but non-contributing, having lost integrity. A minority of these sites are of unique architectural histor y and levels of grandeur, in which case 218

PAGE 235

FIGURE 5.23: Drill Field (Yellowstone NP) they receive substantial amounts of interpretation, in terms of signage, brochures and ranger programs such as at Fort Yellowstone in Yellowstone NP. The uniqueness of this landscape comes from its design as a military garrison constructed by the US Army who managed the park before the NPS was created Many of the buildings have seen adaptive use including the Albright Visitor Center and Museum (originally the bachelor quarters) Fort Yellowstone is well interpreted by signage, and by a self guided tour through the historic districts. The tour encompasses not just buildings but landscape elements also including the drill fields (Figure 5 23) Many other historic districts that have been recognized as cultural landscapes sites by the CLI have not received the same level of interpretation. Lassen Mineral 219

PAGE 236

Headquarters District in Lassen Volcanic NP is a nationally recognized district with a Le vel 11-certified CLI but has received little attention in terms of interpretation. The Utility Area Historic District in Rocky Mountain National Park has met the same fate These examples illustrate the same point as the scenic landscapes but from the opposite direction. Here the lack of interpretation makes it clear that these are again not really viewed as cultural landscapes by the NPS outside of the CLI. In the previous section it was because they fell at one extreme (overwhelmingly naturalistic with minimal and non-unique built components). Here the opposite is the case ; sites like the ranger stations and historic districts may be designed in "naturalistic style but they are still overwhelmingly built and the interaction of culture and nature is not unique. Yet again these have received more attention and adv anced more rapidly on the CLI because their integrity is easy to determine. A counter argument might be that these sites receive little interpretation solely because they are not on the tourist routes, having been adapted for other behind-the scenes support functions. Yet building-focused landscapes that are on the CLI and on the tourist circuit also receive comparatively little interpretation Ironically, some of these sites are themsel v es u s ed as locations for interpreting other elements of the park's natural history. The Lassen Museum in Lassen Volcanic NP and the Moraine Park Museum in Rocky Mountain NP are examples. The Moraine Park Museum was 220

PAGE 237

rehabilitated as a museum by the CCC, who also constructed an adjacent amphitheatre and trail. The site has since performed the function of an interpretive center; the museum contains interpretive panels and artifacts on the natural as well as the cultural history of the park. The second floor window on the porch offers a spectacular vis ta of Moraine Park which was once the hub of recreational developments in what is now the park. Signage there focuses only on natural science, completely ignoring the human history of the park. Interpretation of the human settlement in Moraine Park is limited to a small sign in the parking lot. Although the site is on the National Register and the CLI, it has so far not received any interpretation. The Seismograph Museum (Loomis Museum) in the Manzanita section of Lassen Volcanic NP suffers the same "s hadows under the tree" syndrome-while this site has continued as an interpretive site since 1920s its own landscapes are not interpreted to the same degree. In this case, the landscape is unusual in both style and complexity for an NPS site; the buildings have been constructed at different time periods, but all using vario us interpretations of Spanish Mission style All have been linked using landscaping elements that echo the same style. In place of a traditional amphitheatre the site has a large table under a rustic wooden canopy around which the ranger and visitors can sit and conduct more hands-on" programs involving volcanic materials. Despite all this, except for a small plaque embedded in the wall dedicating the building to the memory of the scientist's daughter, there is no signage on the site 221

PAGE 238

relating this unique landscape design despite recognition as a National Register site on the CLI The sites from the recent past are not only the least interpreted but also the most threatened especially those constructed during the Mission 66 period of park developments In fact the recent interpretation that they do receive seems to be trying to justify their demolition as seen in the Paradise Visitor Center at Mount Rainier NP The interpretive signage titled Innovative but Impractical ," explains this decision quiet aptly: Paradis e is a part of a National Historic Landmark District w ith histor ic archit ectu r e that fits the natural setting. The d e sign of this v isitor center conflicts wit h the more traditional structures around it It also no lon ge r meets current building codes or acc e ssibility guidelines Its ramps are too steep, and there is no e l ev ator ... the n ew v i sit or center wi ll b e mor e ene rgy efficient and wi ll b e designed to fit into the natural and historic lands cape of Paradis e Ironically in 1965 this structure replaced the Paradise Lodge a naturalistic design structure that was tom down to make room for the Mission 66 ; loss of the new visitor center to one that returns to naturalistic design will mark a full circle The demise of Mission 66 is now generally blamed on the limited funding at the time since after the war the New Deal architecture would have been exceedingly costly for the massive amount of facilities expansion the parks needed to undertake in a short period (Allaback 2000). The NPS justifies the removal of the Mission 66 sites on these 222

PAGE 239

grounds, although some modern architecture / landscape preservationists believe it stems more from the current rejection of modern architecture as a whole. In either case, these constitute a set of properties that are not recognized as cultural landscapes even though visitor centers from prior periods have been recognized, as seen in the example of Fishing Bridge Visitor Center in Yellowstone NP constructed during the CCC era of park developments. Vernacular and Ethnographic Landscapes These two types of cultural landscape best represent the nature / culture interplay that lies at the heart of cultura l landscapes as they are commonly understood. Unfortunately they are also the least inventoried categories in the parks (not including NPS-built properties that are sometimes listed as such) as seen in Chapter 3. These two categories are the most challenging to preserve but at the same time have the highest potential to yield vital and unique historical information about the emergent relationships between cultural groups and the land. They also appear to generate the most interest once the visitor is made aware of the cultural history Ethnographic. The locations of many ethnographic sites are classified so they remain out of reach of general visitation and e v en of visitation by qualified researchers In addition many are managed as either archaeological properties or Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) sites thus placing them technically outside the 223

PAGE 240

realm of cultural landscapes As a result, for this research little information could be gathered on ethnographic sites that qualified as cultural landscapes according to the CLI. From a somewhat limited cross-section survey it was generally seen that nati ve cultures received enormous attention in the print media available at visitor center bookstores and other outlets, but comparatively little on-site interpretation. The printed interpretation is often about the culture of the Native groups from the general area, with limited reference to their sites in the park where evidence of their lives can still be seen. The lack of site-specific interpretation (which could be either on-site or off-site) allows the Native presence on present-day parklands to remain fairly abstract and disconnected from the actual landscape In Rocky Mountain NP, for instance the Ute Trail (Figure 5.24) used by the eponymous native people associated with this region has received no on-site interpretation, despite the fact that it is particularly visible from the muchvis ited Alpine Visitor Center. Another example is the Bannock Trail in Yellowstone NP, a similar trade route that is also easily accessible from the nearest road, and clearly visib le nearly a century after it was less regularly used. A major exception to this is Mesa Verde NP, where Native cultural landscapes form the entire basis for the park's existence. These are on such a scale of grandeur and significance as to demand interpretation, and of course the le ve l of interest from the public is immense. 224

PAGE 241

FIGURE 5.24: Ute Trail (Rocky Mountain NP) Interestingly, though even here in the most "Native" of the wes tern national parks, the number of landscapes on the CLI associated with Europeans and the NPS exceeds that associated with Native Americans. Vernacular. In contrast to the other types, there are numerous examples of inventoried vernacular landscapes with on-site interpretation Some ha ve already been discussed including Fruita Rural Historic District. Fruita is interpreted b y wayside signage; individual structures such as the schoolhouse get their own signs providing background information on the site. The orchards are marked by wooden planks with the fruit farmers' names inscribed on them (e g "Max Krueger") A few get their own historical markers such as the Amasa Pierce Orchard which provides a 225

PAGE 242

FIGURE 5.25: Amasa Pierce Orchard (Capitol ReefNP) biographical sketch of the farmer and his family (Figure 5 .25) Other signs point to the rules and regulations about picking fruits and payments The orchards have carefully placed historic farm equipment in view, adding to the overall historical sense of the place. The Gifford farm property is interpreted by signs and also has some semblance of a living history program; the store sells Mormon memorabilia by people wearing traditional clothing for instance Hale Farm and Village in Cuyahoga Valley NP has similar elements of living history while Mormon Row in Grand Teton NP conducts similar signage about the names of each property owner and their positions within the community. McGraw Ranch in Rocky Mountain NP is an old dude ranch that has recently been rehabilitated as a 226

PAGE 243

FIGURE 5 26: Interpretation for Brandywine Village (Cuyahoga Valley NP) research facility The site receives interpretation from wayside exhibits addressing landscape site orientation the history of the site and the partnership with the National Trust in rehabilitating the site The Lehman Ditch and orchards in Great Basin NP have also been successfully interpreted with both incorporated into a self-guided nature trail around the visitor center area. The self-guiding pamphlet describes the history and engineering of the ditch and the role of irrigation in the west more generally as well as the orchards that are present below (but unlike at Capitol Reef, are not set up for public gathering of the fruit.) Examples of vernacular landscapes that are no longer extant but remain 227

PAGE 244

interpreted by on-site signage include the Brandywine Village in Cuyahoga Valley NP (Figure 5.26) among several others in various national parks Despite the relative success of interpreting vernacular cultural landscapes there remain many examples where there is little or no interpretation For example Grand Ditch in Rocky Mountain NP is an exemplary case of an early irrigation project in v olving immigrant labor whose use remains uninterrupted to this day (see chapter 3 for more detail). Although the ditch is privately owned, the park has right-of-way access for the road ; other features associated with this landscape including ditch camps and a bam, are located on park property providing ample on-site interpretati v e opportunities. Yet none have been taken advantage of so far despite the fact that multiple popular hiking trails cross the ditch. The reasons why so many unique v ernacular landscapes have no on-site interpretation are not immediately clear. One might guess that it is lack of interest in the s ite s by the public Yet some of these sites possess considerable off-site interpretation including Lulu City, the mining site in Rocky Mountain NP that was pre v iousl y discussed Lulu City is labeled on park maps and is the subject ofbooks and printed brochures in v isitor centers yet the on-site interpretation comprises a small wooden plank "Lulu City I 1879-1884 I Population 200") Edward Abbey s Trailer Site also possesses no on-site interpretation at all despite the fact that the visitor center carries 228

PAGE 245

many of Abbey's books and strongly plays up his relationship to the park. In addition, according to the NPS visitor center staff a photo appeared in a June, 2004 issue of the Zephyr (a community paper from the gateway town of Moab) that showed a handmade sign a visitor had placed on the port-a-potty near to the site that said "Edward Abbey Memorial Toilet. It seems likely this was intended as a tongue in-cheek way of conveying the desire of the visitor to see the site memorialized and it also seems likely that the visitor is far from alone in that desire One might also believe accessibility is a factor, yet several vernacular landscapes that have not been interpreted are fairly accessible. The Edward Abbey Site is one as is Lulu City. Others include the dude ranches in Grand Teton NP that are now used for different purposes including seasonal housing and rafting and horseback riding outfitters. The Lamar Buffalo Ranch in Yellowstone NP (Figure 5.27) is now a research center while the Onahu Ranch in Rocky Mountain NP is used for park housing. Another possibility might be "sign fatigue"; the NPS is loathe to add more signage explaining more elements in the landscape when there are already numerous ones to interpret geological and ecological topics Yet the example of the Harbison Ranch also suggests this is not the full story The Harbison Ranch was run by two sisters, Annie and Kitty who operated a dairy and took in guests The park acquired the Harbison land in the mid-twentieth century; a couple of cabins are believed to be still standing in the Grand Lake maintenance area, and the irrigation ditch that they 229

PAGE 246

FIGURE 5.27: Lamar Buffalo Ranch (Yellowstone NP) dug runs through the Kawuneechee Visitor Center and has been incorporated into the landscape design. At the Harbison Picnic Area over looking much of the ranch is a large interpretive sign on elk (Figure 5.28). It discusses how elk populations (which occur throughout the park not only at this site) have made a comeback after being hunted nearly to extinction and examines their habitat and grazing behavior. There is no mention about the cultural history of the site The Kawuneechee Visitor Center has occasional ranger led tours to the ear l y ranches in the west side including Harbison but their numerous interpretive exhibits do not acknowledge the women pioneers who homesteaded the very site at which it is located. Although it might be argued that interpreting landscapes that have either disappeared or lost historic 230

PAGE 247

FIGURE 5.28 : Natural history signage at Harbison Picnic Area (Rocky Mountain NP) integrity is of little value in cases such as the Harbison Ranch it can be crucial since the site is one of the few places from which such history can be interpreted Perhaps the main explanation then is simply that there has not been enough time or money to interpret all of the unique vernacular landscapes in the parks in depth and the CLI will hopefully spur interest in doing so Most of the vernacular cultural landscape interpretations that were explored in the fieldwork actually predate the CLI but perhaps now that the inventory has had considerable time to proceed a wave of translating these findings into interpretation might come next. In some sense this may be the most feasible positive outcome of the CLI process We have a lread y seen 231

PAGE 248

that seriously maintaining the meaning in vernacular landscapes themselves in places without inhabitants will continue to prove difficult if not impossible for the NPS in the future resulting in the pattern that designed and historic sites have fared much better than vernacular ones in identification and treatment. Now we have seen that vernac ular landscapes actually do better in interpretation since they represent a larger share of the landscapes that are truly blends of culture and nature and ha ve something interesting to tell the visitor. The landscapes that are at the two ends of the nature culture spectrum ("non-naturalized scenic landscapes and built cultural landscapes") seem likely to continue receiving the most treatment with those in the middle (vernacular cultural landscapes) receiving considerably less treatment. In this case a shift in emphasis on interpretation for vernacular land scapes, even for those that have lost most or all of their integrity may be a positive outcome possible from the CLI in terms of maintaining interest in the complex middle ground of the nature culture spectrum 232

PAGE 249

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS This study has examined the current state of cultural landscape inventory treatment and interpretation in the US national parks It included a review of the NPS cultural landscapes inventory (CLI) process reconnaissance of cultural landscape sites in more than a dozen parks around the country and fieldwork in Rocky Mountain National Park The research has led to the identification ofboth strengths and shortcomings with the current approaches used to inventory treat and interpret cultural landscapes in the US national parks The National Park Service has made, and is continuing to make, major strides in the management of cultural landscapes on their properties. In the last decade alone they have developed field-tested and subsequently revised a set of methods to make the inventory of cultural landscapes more systematic comprehensive and effective. In the process the CLI-in a relatively short period of time-has brought much needed attention to cultural landscapes in the NPS that have seen years of neglect. There has been a concomitant rise in attention for treatment of cultural landscapes as well this time through a separate, less centrally coordinated process called the CLR The two are beginning to trickle down into efforts at interpretation of cultural landscapes as well. Gi ve n that 233

PAGE 250

the CLI and other related developments are such long, extensive undertakings, they are best evaluated throughout their implementation in order to ensure that they fulfill their full potential to guide cultural landscape preservation efforts in the national parks. Many of the unresolved issues in cultural landscape preservation in the national parks stem from the practical constraints of funding and staffing that are to be expected in any large public agency such as the NPS Others relate to more substantive, theoretical issues. Although the former were not intended to be the main focus of this study, they were found to be interrelated with the latter to a sufficient degree as to warrant some attention. Both of these types of strengths and shortcomings are thus brought together for discussion below. Cultural Landscapes Inventory This research was able to provide an independent review ofthe CLI's strengths and weaknesses through a reconnaissance of cultural landscapes in multiple parks, and examination of the two versions of the CLI data that were made available for this project. From this work I found that cultural landscapes inventory has been well served by the design as a progressive framework and the structure of the database itself, which allows for a great amount of depth to be achieved for the most significant sites while still providing a broad, inclusive survey within the bounds of 234

PAGE 251

available resources. Since each cultural landscape site is unique, the CLI design leaves room for local decision-making on those matters for which local information is greatest including categorization of sites into sub-landscapes and identification of character-defining features among other site specific and park management information This research found that the biggest challenges that the CLI faces today lie in the details of its implementation. Currently the program is administered through the regional offices each with one principal staff member who is responsible for the parks in their jurisdiction This is a daunting task for an individual given the large number of very different sites spread over a regional jurisdiction. This is especially true for inventory levels above the reconnaissance (Level 0) which require substantial familiarity with the history and condition of the very varied set of landscapes. Additional staff would certainly help but are not possible under the resource constraints of the program. For the most part the solution that has been taken in practice is to rely on parks to be partners in the CLI process. This has one great benefit in addition to providing additional hands: the park staff generally possesses the greatest knowledge of the specific landscapes in their park before the inventory even begins ; the regional staff simply does not ha ve the same intimate knowledge of the sites. For this reason and because the regional staff may not have 235

PAGE 252

time on hand to vis it every site, they often have had to defer to the parks judgments on historic significance and integrity assessments ofthe site.42 Although the involvement of the parks has benefits this research has identified some systematic and interrelated drawbacks to this approach in practice, with critical impacts on the nature of the historical record being maintained in the park landscapes For many parks, particularly the western wilderness parks, cultural landscapes are not viewed as a priority, and as a result the inventory (beyond the reconnaiss a nce) has been particularly slow in some locations and even remains undeveloped to this day in some parks (with the exception of the Pacific West Region discussed earlier). The parks do have interest in cultural landscapes to some extent, but for the large wilderness parks this is generally a much smaller more narrowly imagined set than the CLI is trying to in ventory.43 A related issue is that while familiarity with individual landscapes may be high at the park level expertise on cultural landscape theory and the broad objectives and methods of the CLI program are not. The regions house much more expertise in this regard. Clearly the CLI has a challenge in 4 2 The regional office r emoved the Moraine Park site in ROMO as a parent land scape from the Level 0 reconnaissance, even though the CLI had initially included it since park staff decided that the area had little historic integrity (Butler 2004b) 4 3 In fact, it appears the staff a t Rocky Mountain National Park is st ill debating with the region over the reconnaissance list generated in 200 1 seeking to reduce it from thirty-two properties to just two. I was asked by the regional office to obtain the mo t recent list of CLI from ROMO and use it for this research; however the park's version contained only "one (McGraw Ranch) and possibly the Moraine Park Museum and Amphitheater (But l er 2004d) 236

PAGE 253

motivating parks to accept the broad definition of cultural landscapes and to take interest in all sites although doing so would undoubtedly lead to better stewardship. The consequences of this approach are already emerging. In multiple w ays, the path that the CLI has actually followed differs substantially from that which is described as the official process and in ways that suggest that the parks (in some cases the regions') perspectives on cultural landscapes determine the fates oflandscapes more than the national perspecti v es do. Perhaps the clearest case is that of landscape prioritization The Professional Procedural Guide (PPG) for the CLI states that during the Level 0 inventory the landscapes that are to be prioritized for Level I are those that "lack information where the lack of information adversely affects the preservation or management of the resources." During the Level I review priorities for Level II inventories are landscapes with immediate threat. .. that ha v e undetermined National Register Status or are lacking information." This research did not find this to be the case, however The prioritization so far appears to be based on just the reverse those landscapes that are not particularly threatened (comparati v ely speaking) have been prioritized compared to those whose historic integrity remains at stake due primarily to neglect by the parks The park s tend to identify those landscapes that they see value in and that value judgment seems to be intertwined to a large extent by management concerns 237

PAGE 254

One way to understand the consequences of this situation is to return to the ve ry definition of a cultural landscape Although many different definitions exist, they all have at their core the idea that a cultural landscape results from the inter actio ns of humans and the natural world. Under this general criterion then cultural landscapes can include almost everything that the eye can see from urban industrial sites on one end to large tracts of virtual wilderness on the other and everything in between. In practice the concept of cultural landscapes is often focused more on those places that lie somewhere around the middle of this nature-culture spectrum. These "middle landscapes are the places that re vea l by far the most interesting details about the history of human interaction with the land a feature that some consider to represent the core of cultural landscape significance (Cronon 1995b ). Unfortunately as was see n in pre vio us chapters the middle ground i s the area where the parks seem to be demonstrating the least interest a pattern also reflected in the inventory. Although the official CLI criteria do not intend to ignore middle landscapes at all (their basic division into four types includes two----vernacular and ethnographic that are predominantly of this nature) in practice the emphasis of inventory is on cultural landscape sites where either the natural or the built component is strongly dominant. This seems to be because the regions tend to rely on information that the parks provide to them during the reconnaissance survey, and parks seem to focus on cultural landscapes that lie more towards either end of the nature-culture 238

PAGE 255

spectrum. This was seen in the detailed examination of the different landscapes that have received the greatest amount of review in the CLI process. Currently, the properties with advanced inventories share certain characteristics more th a n the general set of landscapes that have been identified through the CLI. These include time period style and cultural groups associated with them. Seen as a snapshot the cultural landscapes that have received complete inventory are far more homogenous than the rest. These are disproportionately from the period ofNPS de v elopment and from pre-park recreational developments that have been maintainable with their original use during the early years of the NPS If this pattern were to persist it would not only result in loss of interesting pre-park sites but also further the notion that the national parks were created out of pristine wilderness a view that can increase the divide between nature and culture in the minds of visitors and shape en v ironmental ethics and stewardship not favorable to cultural resources in natural areas As noted the CLI has numerous NPS-built sites prioritized even though they are the ones for which the most information is already a v ailable in NPS repositories. They are also comparatively the least threatened as many remain in continual use and receive some degree of ongoing maintenance This is exactly the opposite of what would be expected from the CLI criteria or would make the most sense in terms of protecting sites that need more immediate attention or would educate the v isitor most about the broad patterns of American history in the national park context. To be truly 239

PAGE 256

representative the landscapes that are actually advancing to complete in v entories would need to include Native American sites, mining and exploration sites ranching irrigation early recreation and NPS development from the full length of the nature culture spectrum as seen in the reconnaissance (Level 0) list from different national parks. The ethnographic landscapes which generally range from the middle out to the nature side of the nature-culture spectrum were seen to be particularl y underrepresented in the CLI. For many parks the CLI lists ethnographic landscapes generally without giv ing an y specifics about the resources e.g. Ethnographic Landscape at Canyonlands." Rocky Mountain National Park has up to twenty-five Traditional Cultural Properties as well as trails related to area tribes (Butler 2004c) none of which ha v e been listed in the CLI which simply has one entry called "Ethnographic Resources in ROMO. This could be in part due to the lack of expertise at the regional le vel to determine v alue in ethnographic resources a complex and specialized task One could then argue that these are all best handled by the TCP program although its emphasis on archaeology means that this risks presenting Native cultures in the parks as dead and buried and those of European, Africanand Asian-Americans as ali v e Given the current state ethnographic landscapes are the least likely to benefit from the CLI unless there is a substantial shift in focus of the process. 240

PAGE 257

Although the staff at the Park Cultural Landscapes Program did not intend the different inventory levels to have any "value," prioritization so far suggests otherwise. The CLI may not assign implicit value to the Levels but they do prioritize sites for complete inventory. This prioritization is supposed to be based on formal criteria including information needs and threat, but the patterns that emerge suggest that there is more (or less) to it. The presence of these patterns alone suggests that the levels have more meaning than is proposed, since there are significant differences among the landscapes that have ended up at each one. This meaning does not have to be intended in order to be present, nor to have consequences for the future of cultural landscape preservation. Not all the sites listed on the reconnaissance level will receive complete inventory; those found to lack historic integrity or lacking significance will not proceed. In addition, in any situation with the clock of historic integrity ticking as long as treatment is withheld, prioritization must always imply some form of value Those that are given low priority will have lost much more integrity by the time they reach treatment, if they do; and giv en the finite amount of resources available as well as the high standards used in determining historic integrity, they are much less likely ever to reach the point of receiving treatment at all. From this research it becomes clear that the sites that emerge from complex cultural interactions with nature are those that are losing integrity the fastest due to neglect yet the least likely to be prioritized. 241

PAGE 258

These concerns are perhaps somewhat inevitable as long as issues of appropriate treatment for cultural landscapes remain unresolved. What is the point of prioritizing a landscape for inventory when there is no clear answer for what should then be done with it? Yet certainly the point to address this is not in the process of inventorying, when historic significance of the site ought to be playing a major role. These issues with inventory must be resolved by ensuring that the regions as well as the parks fully understand the CLI program s criteria for assessment, and especially that issues of historic integrity are not to completely trump those of historic significance. Ensuring that the parks understand the broader objectives of the CLI program and are able (and willing) to carry them through is especially important, since the implementation of treatment and interpretation of cultural landscapes remains largely the responsibility of the individual parks This is an unusual disconnection between two stages of what would seem to be a logically integrated process No matter how highly the CLI staff rates the historic significance of a property and identified imminent threats faced by it, the park ultimately makes the decisions as to how to follow through with that property. Although the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) technically mandates the parks to review their historic resources (including cultural landscapes) during planning processes in practice the vague and varied definitions of cultural landscapes have allowed many parks simply to ignore those 242

PAGE 259

properties in which they have little interest. Thus, it is vital to ensure that the parks understand the importance of cultural landscape preservation and the goal of maintaining a sense of connection to our collective past-the NPS' overarching mlSSlOn. A final crucial change is that the CLI and CLR need to be jointly streamlined as they share much information on assessment of historic inventory and significance.44 The two are thought of as representing parallel but distinct efforts that should inform each other. Each has some information to provide that the other does not, yet in practice the two share enough similarities that the completion of one for a park's properties often means that the other may not be conducted. The Park Cultural Landscapes Program is currently trying to coordinate the two which seems to be a valuable development in terms of better use of resources (Lawliss 2004b ). Treatment and Interpretation The treatments for cultural landscapes discussed in Preservation Brief 36 attempt to address the complete scope of such sites in the NPS system. The previous chapter discussed how the four treatments have been applied to a variety of sites based on the 44 For instance the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation (part of the Park Cultural Landscapes Program) lists the primary goals of the CLI as evaluating the historical development existing conditions and management of cultural landscapes in the National Park System" For the CLR they note a research section that includes a narrative chronological history analysis of integrity and significance based on National Register criteria and documentation of existing conditions" (Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation 2004). 243

PAGE 260

reconnaissance survey. With a few notable exceptions, this research found that treatments so far have focused more on the built components of a cultural landscape site, including buildings and structures, while not paying enough attention to the less obvious landscape features that are integral to the complete understanding and interpretation of the site. The research also found that in the CLI, sites that have their buildings intact but with non-contributing landscapes (e.g compromised by the addition of new structures or asphalt parking that altered the original landscape plan) were seen to have retained enough historic integrity to warrant complete inventory On the other hand, sites that had their buildings missing or deteriorated while the landscape component (layout, open spaces, views original materials connections) remained mostly intact were more likely to be ignored in all stages of the cultural landscape preservation. This discussion is important here, because assessment of historic integrity for cultural landscape sites based on the condition of the buildings translates into how those sites receive treatment. It is no coincidence that cultural landscape sites with a dominant built component receive higher inventory and are more likely to receive early treatments compared to those that have subtle cultural imprints Some examples of this can be seen at Grays Pasture (Island in the Sky) in Canyonlands NP and the Abbey Trailer Site in Arches NP both inventoried at Level 0 and without any treatment thus far. The main systematic exception seems to be naturalistic sites with NPS-built visitor access ways which largely lie at the opposite end of the spectrum 244

PAGE 261

One reason for treatment to be focusing on buildings is the fact that many sites began receiving treatment before they were identified as cultural landscapes through the CLI process The parks recognized these sites as possessing historic value in their structures and treated them in ways they considered appropriate within that framework. Since the CLI is comparatively newer the NPS should not be criticized as long as they are planning to expand the scope of future treatment plans based on their own recognition of such sites However for the individual parks to make this change mid-stream and recognize the full scope of cultural landscape sites may be particularly difficult. The CLI can enhance this understanding by contributing detailed documentation of a site that is part of the complete inventory ; the CLI alone cannot change the course of deeply entrenched practices and perspective however. Generally the uses and type of interpretation (curatorial or adaptive use) that the parks foresee for a particular historic site drives the selection of treatment for that property This is as true for cultural landscapes as for other properties. If a ranching site that retains historic integrity is to be used for park housing or for a new use such as an educational facility then rehabilitation would likely be recommended as a treatment. In comparison if it were to be used as a center for interpreting ranching history then restoration would be the main thrust. "Use" of some form plays a crucial role in preserving historic sites in general. This research made clear that in most cases 245

PAGE 262

of landscapes that contained buildings and were experiencing any kind of adaptive use, the use was focused on the buildings alone. In the case of vernacular landscapes, the NPS has been grappling with the most effective way to treat and interpret a site where traditional uses of the land have been discontinued. The parks have focused attention on vernacular sites with dominant building components that they can reuse The rehabilitation plan for these again tends to focus on buildings; and often the landscapes do not even reflect the building's period of significance This conflicting image of the past is both confusing and misleading. It is unreasonable to expect the NPS to introduce cattle to maintain ranchlands or employ special crews to take care of vegetable gardens. Not only would this require a different management strategy, it would force the parks to largely let go of the wilderness image they have worked hard to develop. It would also be very expensive. Although there are some counter examples (Fruita Rural Historic District being the clearest) the fact is that there remains no generalizable way to reuse many of the vernacular landscapes in the parks as a whole in a way that maintains significance in the landscape as well as the buildings. The NPS has not resolved this, nor has this research given the particularly challenging nature of the problem. There may yet be imaginative solutions we have not discovered although even then it seems unlikely that they will be worthwhile for the majority of remnant vernacular landscapes. 246

PAGE 263

This problem is due partly to the fact that the elements of a working landscape tend to deteriorate at a much faster rate than the building when not in use Any treatment plan for v ernacular landscape would need to address this because the indi v idual features will find it hard to meet the same standards of historic integrity used for buildings At the same time howe v er maintaining or restoring each indi v idual landscape feature is neither feasible nor for that matter, needed Given this perhaps the main emphasis of cultural landsc a pe preservation particularly for middle landscapes ought to shift from treatment to interpretation This seems to be the most likely wa y to achie v e a broader framework of cultural landscape preservation that concerns itself less with restoring the historic integrity of the component parts and more with preserving a sense of place and time (Cook 1996). To that extent interpretation needs to play a more critical role in cultural landscape preser v ation in the NPS perhaps even greater than it does for other historic sites given the scope This is not a novel observation to come from this research; Catherine Ho w ett has gone as far as suggesting that perhaps the entire field of cultural landscape preservation should be renamed cultural landscape interpretation. (Howett 2000). In practice the study noted that the interpretation of cultural landscapes is not much different from other historic sites in the national parks Also ironically the NPS sites that are being prioritized and documented at the fastest rate receive the least interpret a tion Some parks have interpreted a small number of cultural landscape 247

PAGE 264

sites that have disappeared while most ignore them even when there is opportunity to interpret diverse histories from those sites. Most on-site interpretation is often limited to a wayside sign focusing on the building that once stood on the site while natural science interpretation takes precedence in most off-site museum exhibits and other programs If rightly done cultural landscape interpretation although complex, has the potential to bring even the vanished landscapes "alive" in the minds of visitors. Vi v id explanations of processes of change in the landscape interconnections bet w een features nature-culture interactions as well as other idiosyncrasies of a particular site can achie v e something treatment alone ne v er can In fact for some landscapes in which there is no real possibility for any treatment to maintain integrity the best solution for maintaining a sense of time and place may be to let the cultural landscape site "return to wilderness focusing all efforts on providing education and interpretation about the resulting succession. If this succession takes decades or even centuries then there remains a major chance to provide the public with a sense of how the landscape changes following human activity Simply releasing to succession without providing any interpretation would miss this opportunity entirely, since the slow loss of the cultural traces would not be balanced out by the visitors educational experience. The circumstances under which such a path should be followed will need to be worked out in more detail ; but the one clear feature is that it must be combined 248

PAGE 265

with thorough and vivid interpretation about the ongoing change in the land to have any benefit. Today it is easy to criticize the NPS for not having incorporated a more forward looking vision of cultural landscape management in the i r early years. Of course, such a concept did not even exist when the agency started its work Still it is interesting to imagine how the parks might be different today had cultural landscapes been considered from the outset. These include both positive and negative changes It would mean that hundreds of interesting and unique cultural landscapes would have been preserved that are now l ost forever. However it would have been far more complex from the management point of view, and required considerable resources It might also have opened the door too wide to allow for increased environmental abuse and degradation Some environmental historians criticize the NPS for having created new cultural landscapes since the parks would have evolved differently without controls. Although this point is technically valid, it is true of any landscape and any intervention There is no guarantee that these landscapes natural or cultural would have retained any meaning without NPS intervention The NPS may have made errors with both ecological and cultural landscape management, and sometimes the damage may be irrevocable But they have come a long way in managing cultural landscapes identifying over a thousand cultural landscapes in over fifty parks in a decade, researching many in depth developing treatment plans for some, and expanding their 249

PAGE 266

interpretation efforts towards cultural landscapes generally In the process they have brought more attention to cultural landscapes as a whole than ever before Limitations This research has attempted to chart the paths cultural landscape preservation has taken in the national parks and to explore how it could proceed in the future. Like any work of scholarship it is not without its shortcomings and limitations. Foremost is the specificity of the subject. The study focuses only on the national parks in the US; the findings do not necessarily provide any insights into inventory treatment and interpretation in other NPS properties and US federal agencies. The statistical analysis is based on the limited data that were made available by the Park Cultural Landscapes Program As a result a considerable amount of hand coding was required to do the analysis leaving room for error. The limitation of the data means that many different hypotheses about patterns in the inventor y process / could not be tested The analysis was centered on the assumption that the different levels of in v entory provide some picture of how likely a landscape is to receive complete inventory, and how soon. That the Park Cultural Landscapes Program did not intend the CLI levels to have any v alue is recognized Howev er, it is e v ident that there are intrinsic effects of prioritizing certain types of property before others The analysis suggests that the levels do provide some meaning ; however there is always 250

PAGE 267

the possibility that the future will differ considerably from the past the sets of landscapes not yet prioritized will catch up, and these patterns will not see their way into the efforts at landscape treatment. The study determined broad patterns of inventory treatment and interpretation based on reconnaissance of a select number of properties (roughly one-third of the parks in the continental US) The parks were not randomly selected for the reconnaissance survey, so they are not entirely representative of all national parks. Although the hand selection did take some practical issues of travel into consideration, there was still a strong attempt to include a variety of regions, landforms, visitation levels and other criteria as discussed in the last chapter. Nevertheless, the specifics in parks not v isited as a part of this study will differ. Finally the reconnaissance was guided by the CLI Level 0 list, which is not a complete list of cultural landscapes in any particular park Hence the research is most likely to have missed cultural landscape sites that were not on the CLI list. The fieldwork in Rocky Mountain National Park was designed partly to compensate for this since it would allow for time to learn about all of the different landscapes in one park that did not make it onto the CLI. Nevertheless this rich picture was only obtained for one park; for the service-wide reconnaissance, there was little opportunity to learn about the landscapes that were ignored altogether. Thus all of the 251

PAGE 268

work based upon this reconnaissance systematically misses whatever types of landscapes the regional and park staff decided were not of sufficient integrity or significance. It was seen that in ROMO these landscapes were different from the CLI landscapes in quite unexpected ways; for other parks those differences can only be guessed at. Conclusion This study looked at cultural landscapes sites in the national parks in the U nited States To achieve both depth and breath in the work, the research design included a case study of a national park (Rocky Mountain National Park) and reconnaissance of more than a dozen parks to obtain a broad cross-section of the properties that are listed by the CLI and to observe how they were being treated and interpreted. The study found that while the CLI program has brought attention to the cultural landscapes sites in the NPS system its listing and prioritization methods are overlooking many of the interesting landscapes those that are true interactions of nature and culture. In some sense then they are perpetuating the nature-culture divide through their microcosm of cultural landscapes sites. The CLI has so far prioritized more naturalistic and built sites while ignoring the middle landscapes whose importance has been widely acknow l edged in the field In addition these prioritized landscapes are already under comparatively less threat than others, and have comparati ve ly more information available. These patterns contradict the stated 252

PAGE 269

goals of the CLI to prioritize sites based on threat and lack of available information or documentation. As ofFY 2003 about 3 % of identified cultural landscape sites in the national parks have received a complete inventory Although the CLI inventory was not meant to be an index of how much value the NPS ascribes to particular sites the patterns that have emerged so far suggest that there are some indirect or implicit affects guiding the inventory outcomes other than the stated criteria The CLI is obviously taking more interest in the NPS-built properties from the roughly twenty-five year period between 1916-1940. In this category fall the naturalistic and designed landscapes, while ethnographic and vernacular tend to predate the park. These latter groups happen to be the most threatened and have the least information available. The delay in prioritizing these middle landscapes will lead to further compromise of their historic integrity. As historic integrity tends to play a great role in sites receiving attention the more they lag behind the more likely that they will be lost perpetuating a vicious cycle that began before the NPS developed its cultural landscape programs Given the limited resources in the NPS in general and in cultural landscape programs in particular perhaps the CLI will need to focus more on the middle landscapes that are representative of the different types time periods and cultural groups that shaped the environs of the parks 253

PAGE 270

The NPS also needs to expand their framework for treatment and interpretation to include a wider range of the components within cultural landscape sites To focus on buildings alone might risk the landscape components being underappreciated and neglected Interpretation needs to play a much greater role in cultural landscape preservation in general because it is through interpretation that the NPS can truly carry out its role as an educational agency The NPS has made significant advancements in interpretation over the past few decades, but can continue to develop this to focus more on the complex interplay of cultural landscapes to ensure that the interpretation is an enriching experience for the visitor. To quote Alanen and Melnick (2000): "It is neither feasible nor desirable to preserve all or even most cultural landscapes. How can the protection of even a relatively few cultural landscapes provide something meaningful for society as we enter a new century and millennium? The NPS has advanced the practice of cultural landscape preservation in the last decade more than ever before Nevertheless, as argued in this thesis, it is crucial that they remain attentive to the ways in which their inventory practice affects which cultural landscapes ultimately receive treatment and interpretation and how that treatment and interpretation could make human imprints on the land more widely understood and valued. Doing so will ensure that cultural landscape preservation in the national parks does indeed provide something meaningful for society. 254

PAGE 271

EPILOGUE A number of changes have occurred within the CLI program since the end of FY 2003. On a technical level the CLI program has been transitioning to a new set of terminology replacing the categorization of landscapes according to four levels of review with a simple compl e t e vs. incompl e t e dichotomy The compl e t e category (actually referred to as complete fair and accurate by the CLI office) lists all landscapes that have received a Level II inventory and have been certified by SHPO Less than 5 % of landscapes in FY 2004 are complete; in the incomplete category fall the remaining 95% of the properties. All other distinctions among landscapes in terms of re v iew progress are now strictly internal and not reported outside the agency The binary system is an attempt to simplify the listing process and make it less confusing to field staff ; however the Level 0 Level I and Le vel II revie w processes are still substantively the same. The only major change in the review process itself is the elimination of Level III which was not used for any analysis in this w ork. Although this change occurred during the writing of this work the research here covers the period when the levels were still published and in effect and thus their use was retained throughout this work. 255

PAGE 272

The preliminary conclusions embodied in this dissertation were circulated in draft form and presented at conferences beginning in 2003 Since then significant progress has been made regarding the overall numbers of landscapes that have received complete reviews. The total number of landscapes with "complete, fair and accurate listings for National Parks (Level II certified) for FY 2004 is 49, a 58% increase from FY 2003 The new properties include a variety of landscape types, with vernacular landscapes featuring prominently on the list. The region of Alaska has gone from no Level II-certified landscapes in any of its parks to six landscapes from five different parks. Among these are a mill site and an archeological district. The Pacific Region has six new listings and the remaining regions together have seven. The Southeast still has no Level II certified landscapes at all in its National Parks 256

PAGE 273

APPENDIX I IMAGE CREDITS Manish Chalana: figures 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.19, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.6, 4.10, 4 .11, 4 .12, 4 13, 4.15, 4.16, 4.19, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 5.4 5 .5, 5 6, 5.7, 5.8, 5 9 5 10, 5.12, 5.13, 5.20, 5.21, 5.22 5.23, 5 24, 5 25 5.26, 5.27, 5.28. The National Park Service Historic Photograph Collection: figures 2.1 0, 2.11 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16 5 .15, 5.16, 5 .17, 5.18, 5 19. NPS RMNP: figures 2.12, 4.7, 4.9, 4.17, 4.18 5.11, 5 .14. The National Park Service : figures 2.18, 4.1. The Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Di vision: figures 2.9, 4.3. The Western History I Genealogy Department of the Den ve r Public Library: figures 4.2 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, 4.14, 4.20. The USGS: figure 2.2. Q.T. Luong: figure 2.7. The David Monteith Collection: figure 2.8. NPS Yellowstone: figure 2.17. Channel Islands Aviation: figure 3.6. 257

PAGE 274

APPENDIX II SCORING SHEET FOR PRIORITY LIST Park Identification : Name: Org Code: Alpha Code: Inventory Unit Name : CLI Hierarchy: Parent Landscape: Landscape: Classification: RMP Statement Completed and Approved by Superintendent for CLI Work: Level 0 completed: Level 1 completed: Landscape Resource Description: Threats: Criteria : 258

PAGE 275

1. Little or no information is available about the specific landscape or component landscape and the lack of data and documentation is adversely affecting preservation or management of the resource. No Level 2 work completed (Level 0 or 1 only) 5 Partial Level 2 (analysis not completed) 3 Level 2 form completed (CLAIMS entry may not be completed) 1 SCORE: 2. Level 2 CLI is needed to provide critical landscape baseline information for park planning, design, construction or resource management projects Project(s) scheduled to begin within 1-3 years Project(s) scheduled to begin within 4-5 years Project(s) scheduled to begin within 5-10 years SCORE : Existing Documents: Projects: 5 3 3. Level 2 CLI is needed to provide critical cultural landscape baseline information for park cultural and-or natural resource research projects Project(s) scheduled to begin within 1-3 years Project(s) scheduled to begin within 4-5 years Project(s) scheduled to begin within 5-10 years SCORE: Existing Documents: Projects: 259 5 3

PAGE 276

4: Continuing Level 2 CLI project (previously partially funded) Yes 5 No 1 SCORE: TOTAL: Additional Notes: 260

PAGE 277

APPENDIX III MULTIPLE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ON CLI LANDSCAPE ADVANCEMENT All analyses were conducted in SPSS v 1 0.1.3 using the default model-fitting criteria for multiple logistic regression. Sig represents the probability of observing the effect by chance alone; v alues less than 0.10 were identified in the chart in the main text. E x p(B) represents the increase in the odds of ad v ancement for a landscape exhibiting the characteristic compared to those not exhibiting it; a value abo v e 1 indicates higher odds of ad v ancement and a value below 1 indicates lower. 261

PAGE 278

1. Outcome= Levell or above, contrast= NONE IN DUST AGRIC TRANSP SETTLE MILIT NPS TOURISM ARCH EO ETHNOG TOWN INDSTRUC THEME DESIGNED VERNAC Constant S E .828 824 .581 578 9 .181 .564 .566 1 087 645 894 226 1 089 .664 897 383 Sig Exp(B) .721 1 345 193 2 919 603 739 058 2 992 509 002 597 742 155 2 237 .021 .081 007 174 083 4 720 778 938 027 090 629 725 599 624 033 442 2. Outcome= Levell or above, contrast= REGION S E df Sig. REGION 121.681 5 .000 REGION ( 1 ) 1.077 6.493 1 .011 REGION ( 2 ) 1 .121 .433 1 510 REGION ( 3 ) 1 077 16 226 1 000 REGION ( 4 ) 1 169 4.630 1 .031 REGION(5 ) 1 123 14 733 1 000 IN DUST 973 127 1 722 AGRIC 973 262 1 609 TRANSP 682 814 1 367 SETTLE 707 2 594 1 107 MIL IT 8.413 .421 1 516 NPS 687 1 955 1 1 62 TOURISM 698 5 632 1 018 ARCH EO 1 229 1 109 1 292 ETHNOG 725 3 285 1 070 TOWN 1 184 3 298 1 069 INDSTRUC 256 1 396 1 237 THEME 1 162 5.268 1 022 DESIGNED 806 1.832 1 176 VERNAC 1.062 356 1 .551 Constant 1 138 11.111 1 .001 2 6 2 Exp{B} 15 543 2 092 76 540 12 .381 74.490 1 .414 1 645 1 .851 3 124 004 2 615 5 237 274 .269 8 .581 739 069 336 .531 022

PAGE 279

3. Outcome = Level 1 or above, contrast = PARK B S E Wald df Sig PARKABBR 125 746 52 000 PARKABBR(1) 9 272 270 822 .001 1 973 10636 218 PARKABBR(2) 7 714 270.824 .001 1 977 2238 827 PARKABBR(3) 6 806 270 822 .001 1 980 903 605 PARKABBR(4) 7 .971 270 823 .001 1 977 2895.941 PARKABBR(5) 9.591 270.822 .001 1 972 14635 533 PARKABBR(6) 7.409 270 823 .001 1 978 1650 804 PARKABBR(7) 8.401 270 823 .001 1 975 4452.426 PARKABBR(8) 7.050 270.822 .001 1 979 1152 984 PARKABBR(9) 9 115 270 822 .001 1 973 9087 545 PARKABBR(10) 7 150 270 823 .001 1 979 1273 858 PARKABBR(11) 9 375 270.823 .001 1 972 11792 756 PARKABBR(12) 7 089 270.824 .001 1 979 1198 243 PARKABBR(13) 12.185 270 822 002 1 964 195796 522 PARKABBR(14) 8 596 270 822 .001 1 975 5412 183 PARKABBR(15) 14.488 270 823 003 1 957 1958451 069 PARKABBR(16) 336 316 569 000 1 999 714 PARKABBR(17) -2 014 276.480 000 1 994 134 PARKABBR(18) -2 014 279 318 000 1 994 .133 PARKABBR(19) 10 737 270 822 .002 1 .968 46037.457 PARKABBR(20) 9 088 270 822 .001 1 .973 8850 562 PARKABBR(21) -1.802 277 552 000 1 995 165 PARKABBR(22) -2 228 276 888 000 1 994 108 PARKABBR(23) -1. 233 331. 538 000 1 997 .291 PARKABBR(24) 7 814 270 822 .001 1 977 2475 577 PARKABBR(25) 7 677 270 822 .001 1 977 2157 977 PARKABBR(26) -2 935 282 764 000 1 992 053 PARKABBR(27) -1. 735 280 689 000 1 995 176 PARKABBR(28) -2.201 274 915 000 1 994 .111 PARKABBR(29) 8 038 270 822 .001 1 976 3097.439 PARKABBR(30) 7.847 270 822 .001 1 977 2559 213 PARKABBR(31) 2 995 279 365 000 1 .991 050 PARKABBR(32) -1. 920 274 120 .000 1 994 147 PARKABBR(33) -2 087 286 .191 000 1 .994 124 PARKABBR(34) 8 019 270 824 .001 1 976 3038 818 PARKABBR(35) -2 958 285.150 000 1 992 052 PARKABBR(36) 9 063 270.822 .001 1 973 8633 916 PARKABBR(37) -1.501 282 033 000 1 996 223 PARKABBR(38) -1. 965 282.839 000 1 994 140 PARKABBR(39) -2 087 274.834 000 1 994 124 PARKABBR(40) -2 345 279 596 000 1 .993 096 PARKABBR(41) -1. 325 326 738 000 1 997 266 PARKABBR(42) -2 215 287 747 000 1 994 109 PARKABBR(43) 8 705 270 822 .001 1 974 6035 903 PARKABBR(44) 8 188 270 823 .001 1 976 3597 267 263

PAGE 280

3 (cont.) B S .E. Wald df Sig Exe{B} PARKABBR(45) -1. 970 294.918 000 1 995 139 PARKABBR(46) -2 .651 286 342 000 1 993 .071 PARKABBR(47) -3.098 284.454 000 1 .991 045 PARKABBR(48) 1 784 295 580 000 1 995 168 PARKABBR(49) -1. 822 281. 018 000 1 995 162 PARKABBR(50) -1. 192 285.110 000 1 997 304 PARKABBR(51) 328 382 998 000 1 999 720 PARKABBR(52) 000 382 996 000 1 1 000 1 000 IN DUST -1.521 1 546 968 1 325 218 AGRIC 1.254 1 507 692 1 .405 3 504 TRANSP 070 839 007 1 934 933 SETTLE .572 938 372 1 542 1 772 MILIT -11.365 55.339 .042 1 837 000 NPS 713 .858 .691 1 .406 2 040 TOURISM .969 .873 1 234 1 267 2 635 ARCH EO 1 595 1 627 .961 1 327 4 929 ETHNOG 143 1 176 015 1 903 1.154 TOWN 3 103 1 906 2 .651 1 103 22. 259 INDSTRUC 325 383 719 1 396 722 THEME 976 1 508 .419 1 517 377 DESIGNED .434 1 220 126 1 722 1 543 VERNAC 873 1 703 263 1 608 2 395 Constant -10 226 270 823 .001 1 970 000 4. Outcome = Level2 or above, contrast= NONE B S.E. Wald df S i g Exe{B} IN DUST -7.498 14 554 265 1 606 .001 AGRIC 039 1 298 .001 1 976 962 TRANSP 1 250 883 2 005 1 157 3.490 SETTLE -.160 1 062 023 1 880 852 MILIT -5 .961 41. 075 .021 1 885 003 NPS 1.427 890 2 572 1 098 4 164 TOURISM 1 268 .901 1 980 1 159 3 555 ARCH EO .752 1.434 275 1 600 2 122 ETHNOG -6 118 21.974 078 1 .781 002 TOWN .171 1.561 012 1 913 1 187 DESIGNED -.158 1 329 014 1 906 854 VERNAC 1.362 1.615 .711 1 399 3 903 Constant -4 084 1.011 16 .331 1 000 017 264

PAGE 281

APPENDIX IV RESOURCES FOR PRIMARY DATA The analysis of cultural landscapes in ROMO draws on my own fieldwork and numerous primary and secondary sources These documents are described here. All were located in the McLaren Library (Utility Area Historic District ROMO) unless otherwise noted The Atkins Files: One file drawer is filled with a collection of notes and unpublished manuscripts compiled by Dr. Ferrell Atkins, a mathematics professor (now retired), who was a seasonal ranger during the 1950s -1980s, and continues as a volunteer. These files comprise a brief history and assessment of most identified structures in the park arranged by location on USGS quads. They were thus used as a major source for the history of structures in the park and proved helpful in identifying possible landscapes that were not included in the CLI. As this source is specifically a survey of structures, it does not necessarily include much landscape information although some landscapes were identified through discussions with Dr. Atkins These notes have been compiled in the Historic Sites and Buildings Survey, Historic Structures Catalog (2 volumes) and used as source material for pre vio us National Register nominations 265

PAGE 282

in the park. An additional two file drawers which are called "third drawer files" include CCC newsletters and other correspondence files or memos and clippings of historical significance. Maps: USGS 1:24000 from 1957 1961 and 1976 These maps allowed for identifying historic structures, ground cover and transportation resources from different time periods. Older maps helped in determining the location of cultural landscapes whose locations in other documents were described using landmarks that may no longer exist or may have changed name. Sup e rint ende nt s Mon t hl y R e ports and Annual R e ports. The monthly reports are available for the years 1915-1967 These are monthly accounts of activities in the park. For this project they were particularly helpful in finding information on new constructions as well as erasures of inholdings. The monthly reports were discontinued in 1967 probably as a result of different divisions in the parks starting to keep their own records (Barnes 2004). Annual Reports have continued however. They are a v ailable for years 1915-1953 (bound versions) and individual Annual Reportsfor1956,58, 60 ,61,63, 64 ,65, 66, 72/73,76,77, 79 80 ,81,82,86 ,87,98, and for 2000-03. The Annual Reports contain more statistical information on park visitation fatalities and other management-related data than the monthly reports which are more narrati v e in nature 266

PAGE 283

Internal ROMO docum e nts: Rocky Mountain National Park uses a standardized numbering system for internal memos and documents wich are stored at McLaren Hall. This project relies especially upon the following documents: ROMO-C-103 070 Comprehensive Maintenance Plan for Historic Structures ROMO-C-301.1 02 Document and Evaluate Historic Structures ROMO-C-302 002 HSR/CA for each National Register Structure / Property ROMO-C-400.120 HRS Significant Cultural Resources ROMO-C-401.200 SHS Oral History ofROMO ROMO C-401.201 SHS Oral History of the East Side ofROMO ROMO-C-500 002 CLI for Historic Sites ROMO-C-500 003 National Register Nomination Form for Ne v er Summer Ranch ROMO-C-603 .701 Input Cultural Resources Data into GIS ROMO-C-603.702 Map of Historical Resources ROMO-C-603 703 GIS Mapping of Historic Sites 267

PAGE 284

The photo file s These contain numerous black and white photographs that are arranged by themes. Most are related to geology plant and animal life Those under the heading History'' include photos of East and West side private inholdings lodges ranches and an assortment of people Under the heading ROMO Activities photos rele v ant to the project include those of roads and bridges trails the CCC and the WPA as well as interpretation activities such as visitor center operations and naturalist programs Under the "ROMO Facilities heading images of administrative buildings and museums amp h itheaters and other buildings as well as human environmental impacts proved useful. The Est e s Park Trail-Ga ze tt e is a local paper published in Estes Park since 1921 (known as the Estes Park Trail from 1921-1971 ) Bound volumes are a v ailable in McLaren Library from 1981-1997 ; other years are available in the Estes Park Public Library The local paper reported many of the park events including a schedule of programs in the summer months It is a good source of information on park operations and activities. Other indexes to local newspaper in the Estes Park Public Library include material in the 1908 "Mountaineer" the 1912 -1914 (summer only) "Trail" and the 1920 (summer only) "Trail Talk." Vertical fil e s include clippings and printouts pertaining to both natural and cultural resources of the park ( ranging from studies of tundra to bighorn sheep to wind 268

PAGE 285

speeds) and biographical information for park personnel (from superintendents to artists-in-residence). Materials on specific topics in the files such as Holzwarth Ranch have been copied from other manuscripts, newspapers and books. The files provide a quick starting point for research in the park. The untranscribed oral history tapes are held at the Museum Storage Facility (Barnes 2005). Secondary sources relevant to the project are listed in the bibliography. A few important ones include Rocky Mountain National Park-Historical Background Data by F. Ross Holland Rocky Mountain Park Administrative History by Lloyd Musselman, Historic Background for the Rocky Mountain National Park by H.E. Rensch and Rocky Mountain National Park: A History by Curt Buchholtz. The McLaren Library also has a host of government published reports, National Register nominations, pamphlets, brochures and theses conducted on park-related subjects. Other repositories for documents relating to the cultural resources in the park include the Technical Information Center (TIC) in the Federal Center at Lakewood, Colorado. This contains historic architectural drawings of properties from the time of the CCC. The Museum Storage Facility in Rocky Mountain National Park has old photo albums as well as a list of structures in the park, useful for information on cultural resources that may no longer exist. The State Historic Preservation Office in Denver has several National Register nominations of properties in the park, including the multiple 269

PAGE 286

nomination of the park from 1975-1983. The Western History Collection in Denver Public Library Stephan Hart Library at the Colorado Historical Society and Norlin Archives in Boulder ha v e a wide range of materials on the general histor y of Colorado and the area of the park. 270

PAGE 287

APPENDIX V: CONDITION OF McGRAW RANCH MEMORANDUM 1M RPL.VREFERTO H42(ROMO) Memorandum To : Through: From: Subject: U nit e d S t ates D e p a rtm e nt of the Int erior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Roclcy Mountain National Puk Ems Part Col ora do 8051 7 Directoc, Intermountain Region Historical Landscape Architect, Intermountain C ultural Landscapes Program Superintendent Rocky Mountain National Park Conditio n of McGraw Ranch cultural landscape Please update the condition of the McGraw Ranch cultural landscape in the CLAIMS database t o good condition Rocky Mountain National Park has cocrected the following deficiencies contributing to the "fair" listing : Impact Deferred maintenance Exposure to e lements Neglect Vandalism/ Theft/ Arson Fair condition Buildings and strucrures are n o t being maintained Landscape maintenance is also not being performed Some o f the r oofs are leaking and some windows are broken The buildings and structures are not being maintained Vegetation is also not being take n care of. Some of the buildings have been broken into Go o d condltlon With the exception of one n on conuibuting building, the buildings and structures have all been brought to good condition and are being maintained The landscape rehabilitation is complete On-going landscape and buildin g maintenance will keep the cultural landscape in good condition. With the exce ption of one non conuibuting buil ding all roofs and windows have been repaired All buildings and landscape elements are maintained through a mixrure o f National Park Service emp l oyee and volunteer labor. Since the ranch has been occupied, break-ins and vandalism have been significantly reduced There has not been a break-in s i nce 2001. TAKE PRIDEi:f::::..t 271

PAGE 288

Digital phot os to su pport thi s r eq uest are save d o n th e e ncl ose d cd If you h ave any questions regardin g thi s r eq u est foe free to call Dr. William Butler, a t 586-1332 o r C h eri Yost, at 5 86-1394 Va ug)m L Baker cc : Bill Butler Ch eri Y os t 272

PAGE 289

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahem, Katherine. Cultural Landscape Bibliography: an Annotated Bibliography of Resources in the National Park System. Washington D.C.: Cultural Landscapes Program 1992 Ahem, Katherine, and the National Park Service Park Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes Program. Cultural Landscape Bibliography: Resources in the National Park System. Washington, D.C.: Park Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes Program, 2000. Alanen Arnold R "Documenting the Physical and Social Characteristics of Mining and Resource-Based Communities." APT Bulletin 11, no 4 (1979): 49-68. Alanen Arnold R., and Robert Melnick. Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America. Center Books on Contemporary Landscape Design Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Albright Horace M., and Robert Cahn. The Birth of the National Park Service: The Founding Years, 1913-1933. Salt Lake City: Howe Brothers, 1985. Allaback Sarah. Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2000. Andrus Patrick W. Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America's Historic Battlefields. National Register Bulletin No. 40. Washington D.C.: National Register of Historic Places 1999. Andrus Patrick W and Rebecca H Shrimpton. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin No. 15. Washington, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, 2002. Arnold, Anne Morrison Elyse Deffke Bliss Jackie Elliott, Charmayne Gooch, and Karen Stopher Stapleton. Steads Ranch and Hotel: Echoes within the Moraines. Bellevue Colo.: E.D. Bliss 2000. 273

PAGE 290

Arps Louisa Ward Elinor Eppich Kingery and Hugh E. Kingery. High Country Names: Rocky Mountain National Park. Boulder Colo.: Johnson Books 1994 Arthur Clare. The MacGregors and Black Canyon Ranch. Estes Park Colo.: Rocky Mountain National Park, 1984 Atkins D. Ferrel. "Historic Files. Unpublished manuscript Rocky Mountain National Park Library, Estes Park Colo. n d Atkins D. Ferrel. Historic Lodges and Resorts ." Unpublished manuscript Rocky Mountain National Park Library, Estes Park, Colo. 1993 Atkins D Ferrel. Historic Sites and Buildings Survey, to Provide a Basis for Protection Interpretation and Maintenance of Historic Sites and Buildings in Rocky Mountain National Park Unpublished manuscript Rocky Mountain National Park Library, Estes Park Colo., c.1965 Atkins D. Ferrel. Historic Structures and Sites of Rocky Mountain National Park Colorado. Unpublished manuscript Rocky Mountain National Park Library Estes Park Colo. 1964 Atkins D. Ferrel. History of the William Allen White Cottage Transcript of Museum Program July 16, 1981." Unpublished manuscript Rock y Mountain National Park Library Estes Park Colo. 1981. Atkins D Ferrel. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form Lulu City Site ." Unpublished manuscript Rocky Mountain National Park Library Estes Park Colo., 1977 Atkins D. Ferrel and Jim Larson. Rocky Mountain National Park Historic Buildings and Sites: An Interview with Fred McLaren. Unpubli s hed manuscript Estes Park Public Library Estes Park Colo. 1963. Atkins D Ferrel and Dorie Shilts The Old Fall River Road : Motor Nature Trail. Estes Park Colo.: Rocky Mountain Nature Association 1969. Baker Daniel P., III. Interpreting Rocky Mountain National Park's Past People : An Interpretive Tool for Rocky Mountain National Park's Interpreti v e Division ." Unpublished manuscript Rocky Mountain National Park Library, Estes Park Colo., 1999 274

PAGE 291

Baldwin, Susan B. "Historic Resource Study: Dutchtown and Lulu City Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado." Unpublished manuscript, Rocky Mountain National Park Library, Estes Park, Colo. 1980. Barnes Sybil. E-mail to Manish Chalana September 2004 Barnes, Sybil. E-mail to Manish Chalana. June 2005. Barthel, Diane L. Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical Identity. New Brunswick N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1996. Bartlett Robert V "Environmental History in Historical Perspective Journal of Policy History 12, no. 3 (2000): 395-99 Beals, Ralph L. Ethnology of Rocky Mountain National Park: The Ute and the Arapaho. Washington, D .C.: Government Printing Office 1935. Beautiful America: Our National Parks. New York: Beautiful America Publishing Corp. 1924. Beck, Larry and Ted T Cable. Interpretation for the 21st Century: Fifteen Guiding Principles for Interpreting Nature and Culture. Champaign, Ill. : Sagamore Publishing, 1998 Bernstein Fred. "Mission of Mercy." Architecture 90, no. 7 (2001): 46-47. Birch Eugenie Ladner, and Douglas s Roby. "The Planner and the Preservationist: An Uneasy Alliance." Journal of the American Planning Association 50 no. 2 (1984): 194-207 Bird Isabella L. A Lady's Life in the Rocky Mountains. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1880. Birnbaum Charles A. "Making Educated Decisions on the Treatment of Historic Landscapes ." APT Bulletin 24, no. 3 (1992): 42-51. Birnbaum Charles A. "Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes. Preservation Briefs 36 (1994). Birnbaum, Charles A. A Realit y Check for Our Nation's Parks CRM Bulletin 16, no 4 (1993) : 1. 275

PAGE 292

Birnbaum, Charles A. Heather L. Barrett, and Ellen Shillinglaw. Making Educated Decisions 2 : A Landscape Preservation Bibliography Washington D.C.: Dept. of the Interior Service Historic Landscape Initiative 2000. Birnbaum Charles A and Christine Capella Peters. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: With Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Washington D.C.: National Park Service Historic Landscape Initiative 1996 Blatti Jo and New York Council for the Humanities. Past Meets Present: Essays About Historic Interpretation and Public Audiences. Washington D C : Smithsonian Institution Press 1987. Bouse Derek. "Culture as Nature: How Native American Cultural Antiquities Became Part of the Natural World Public Historian 18, no. 4 (1996) 75-98 Braa Brian. E-mail to Manish Chalana No v ember 2002 Braa, Brian. E-mail to Manish Chalana March 2003 Braa Brian "Re-evaluation of Rocky Mountain National Park Cultural Landscape." Memorandum to Jill Cowley Rocky Mountain National Park Library Estes Park Colo., 11 October 2002 Brett John A. Ethnographic Assessment and Documentation of Rocky Mountain National Park Unpublished manuscript Rocky Mountain National Park Library, Estes Park, Colo., 2003. Buchholtz C. W. Rocky Mountain National Park : A History. Boulder Colo.: Colorado Associated University Press 1983. Buggey Susan. "Associative Values : Exploring Nonmaterial Qualities in Cultural Landscapes ." APT Bulletin 31, no. 4 (2000): 21-27. Buggey Susan "Historic Landscape Conservation in North America: Roaming the Field over the Past Thirty Years." APT Bulletin 29 no. 3 (1998): 37-42. Buggey Susan. Special Issue : Conserving Historic Landscapes." APT Bulletin 24 no 3 (1992) : 3 Buggey Susan and Genevieve P Keller. Managing Cultural Landscapes through Values Technology and Planning APT Bulletin 31, no. 4 (2000): 3 276

PAGE 293

Burr a Charter. 1999. Australian ICOMOS. http: / / www.icomos org/ australia/burra.htm l (15 July 2004). Butler William B. E-mail to Manish Chalana. 22 March 2004. Butler William B E-mail to Manish Chalana 18 August 2004 Butler William B. E-mail to Manish Chalana 14 Oct 2004. Butler William B E-mail to Manish Chalana 25 May 2005 Butler William B E-mail to Manish Chalana. 8 July 2005. Butler William B. The Ranches and Resorts of Rocky Mountain National Park. Unpub lished manuscript, Rocky Mountain National Park Library Estes Park Colo. 2004. Cairns, Mary Lyons. Grand Lake in the Olden Days; A Compilation of Grand Lake, the Pioneers and The Olden Days. Den ver, Colo : World Press Inc. 1971. Carr Ethan Practice: Landscape Architecture in National Parks [U.S ]." Landscape Architecture 90, no 10 (2000): 56 58,60-63 Carr Ethan. Wilderness by Design: Landscape Architecture and the National Park Service. Lincoln Nebr.: University ofNebraska Press, 1998 Chase Alston. Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America's first national park New York : Harcourt Brace and Co., 1987 Christensen Norman L. "Landscape History and Ecological Change ." Journal of Forest History 33, no. 3 (1989): 116-25 Clark Kate Preserving What Matters: Value-Led Planning for Cultural Heritage Sites ." Conservation : The GCI newsletter 16, no. 3 (2001): 5-12 Clay Grady Real Places: An Unconventional Guide to America's Generic Landscape. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1994 Conzen Michael P. The Making of the American Landscape Boston: Unwin Hyman 1990 Cook Ian Cultural Turns / Geographical Turns: Perspecti v es on Cultural Geography New York: Prentice Hall 2000. 277

PAGE 294

Cook, Robert. "Is Landscape Preservation an Oxymoron? George Wright Forum 13, no. 1 (1996) 42-53. Cosgrove, Denis E Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. Madison Wise.: University of Wisconsin Press 1998. Cosgrove, Denis and Peter Jackson ''New Directions in Cultural Geography." Area 19, no. 2 (1987) : 95-101. Cronon William. "The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature." Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature Edited by William Cronon, 69-90 New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1995 Cronon, William, ed. Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature New York : W W Norton and Co. 1995. Cullingworth J. B. Historic Preservation in the US: From Landmarks to Planning Perspectives. Planning Perspectives: 7 no. 1 (1992): 65-79. Cultural Landscape Program Development in the NPS Midwest Regional Office. CRM Bulletin 14, no. 6 (1991): 20-21. Cultural Landscapes: The Intent and the Tenor of the Times ." CRM Bulletin 14, no. 6 (1991) : 1. Dagenhart Richard and David S Sawicki "Architecture and Planning: The Divergence ofTwo Fields." Journal of Planning Education and Research 12, no. 1 (1992) : 1-16. Ditmer, Joanne. "Saving Rocky Mountain National Park: Service Seeks Opinions on Preservation. Denver Post 6 July 1996 E-01. Drummond Alexander. Enos Mills: Citizen ofNature. Niwot Colo.: University Press of Colorado 1995. Duncan James "The Superorganic in American Cultural Geography" Annals of the American Geographers 70 no. 2 (1980): 181-198. Dunra ven, Windham Thomas Wyndham Fourth Earl of. Past Times and Pastimes London: Hodder and Stoughton Limited 1922 Evans, Michael Alexa Roberts and Peggy Nelson "Ethnographic Landscapes ." CRM Bulletin 24, no 5 (2001): 53-56. 278

PAGE 295

Fielder, John, T. A. Baron, and Enos Mills. Rocky Mountain National Park: A 100 Year Perspective Denver, Colo.: Westcliffe Publishers, 1995 Fitch, James Marston. Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World. Charlottesville Va.: University Press ofVirginia, 1990. Floyd Myron F "Managing National Parks in a Multicultural Society: Searching for Common Ground," George Wright Forum 18, no. 3 (2001): 41-51. Foote, Kenneth E. Re-Reading Cultural Geography. Austin, Tex.: University ofTexas Press, 1994. Foote Kenneth E. Shadowed Ground: America's Landscapes of Violence and Tragedy. Austin Tex.: University of Texas Press, 1997. Foresta Ronald A. America's National Parks and Their Keepers. Washington, D.C : Resources for the Future Inc., 1984 Fox Stephen R. The American Conservation Movement: John Muir and his Legacy. Madison, Wise : University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. Francaviglia Richard. Reading the Landscape of America's Historic Mining Districts. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa Press 1992 Francaviglia, Richard "Selling Heritage Landscapes." Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America. Edited by Arnold R. Alanen and Robert Melnick, 4469. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 2000 Geertz Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books 1973. Gilbert Cathy and Gretchen Luxenberg. The Rustic Landscape of Rim Village, 19271941, Crater Lake National Park Oregon. Seattle: National Park Service Cultural Resource Division, Pacific Northwest Region, 1990. Gilbert Cathy and Kathleen McCoy. Cultural Landscape Report: Fruita Rural Historic District, Capitol ReefNational Park Denver Colo.: National Park Service Intermountain Region 1998 Gillette Jane Brown Taking the Initiative." Landscape Architecture 87 no. 5 (1997): 76-81. Goetcheus Cari. "Cultural Landscapes and the National Register." CRM Bulletin 25, no. 1 (2002): 24-25 279

PAGE 296

Goetcheus Cari. Letter to Manish Chalana. June 2005 Goodreau Steven E-mail to Manish Chalana. July 2004 Green Bryn. Re-E v aluating Nature: Cultural Landscape Conservation ." Built En v ironment 23, no. 3 (1997) : 210-20. Grenville Jane ed Managing the Historic Rural Landscape. Issues in Heritage Management. London: Routledge, 1999 Groth Paul. "Frameworks for Cultural Landscape Study Understanding Ordinary Landscapes. Edited by Paul Erling Groth and Todd W Bressi 1-24 New Ha v en Conn.: Yale Uni v ersit y Press 1997 Groth Paul. Generic Buildings and Cultural Landscapes a s Sources of U rban History Journal of Architectural Education 41, no 3 (1988) : 41-44 Groth Paul. "J. B. Jackson and Geography." Geographical Review 88, no. 4 (1998) : 111Vl. Groth Paul. Making New Connections in Vernacular Architecture. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 58 no. 3 (1999) : 444-51 Groth Paul and Todd Bressi. Understanding Ordinary Landscapes. New Ha v en Conn. : Yale Uni v ersity Press 1997. "HABS : 54 Years of Documenting Historic Landscapes." Landscape Architecture 77 no. 4 (1987) : 86-89 Haines Robert. "Prospectus: Holz w arth Historic Homestead Ranch Rocky Mountain National Park. U npublished manuscript Rocky Mountain National Park Library Estes Park Colo., 1977. Hamer, D A. History in Urban Places: The Historic Districts of the United States. Urban Life and Urban Landscape Series. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press 1998. Harbison HomesteadCabin Drawings I Grand Lake Entrance Unpublished manuscript Rocky Mountain National Park Library Estes Park Colo. 1966. Hardesty, Donald L. Ethnographic Landscapes Transforming Nature into Culture. Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America. Edited b y Arnold R Alanen and Robert Melnick 169-185 Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 2000 280

PAGE 297

Hayden Dolores The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995. Head, Lesley Cultural Landscapes and Environmental Change. Key Issues in Environmental Change. London: Arnold 2000. Hendricks, Gordon. Albert Bierstadt, Painter of the American West. New York: HenryN. Abrams, Inc., 1973. Hertfelder Eric "The National Park Service and Historic Preservation: Historic Preservation Beyond Smokey the Bear. Public Historian 9 no. 2 (1987): 13542 Hess Karl. Rocky Times in Rocky Mountain National Park: An Unnatural History Niwot, Colo.: University Press of Colorado 1993. Hickey JeffreyS An Uneasy Coexistence: Rocky Mountain National Park and the Grand River Ditch Master's thesis, University of Colorado, 1988 Hine Thomas. "Preservation's Shackles : Is the Movement Doomed to Enshrine an Imagined Past ?" Architectural Record 189, no. 11 (2001 ): 90-92. Hof, Marilyn Interpretive Priorities for Rocky Mountain National Park: A Case Study. Master s thesis, Colorado State University 1979. Holland F Ross Rocky Mountain National Park; Historical Background Data San Francisco: U.S. Office of History and Historic Architecture Western Service Center, 1971. Holleran Michael. Boston's "Changeful Times : Origins of Preservation & Planning in America Creating the North American Landscape. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Horowitz, Helen Lefkowitz "Toward a New History of the Landscape and Built Environment." Reviews in American History 13, no. 4 (1985): 487-93. Hoskins W. G. Fieldwork in Local History London: Faber and Faber 1982. Hoskins W G., and Christopher Taylor. The Making of the English Landscape. London : Hodder and Stoughton, 1988 Hosmer Charles Bridgham and National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. Preservation Comes of Age: From Williamsburg to the 281

PAGE 298

National Trust, 1926-1949. Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia, 1981. Howett, Catherine "Integrity as a Value in Cultural Landscape Preservation Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America. Edited by Arnold R Alanen and Robert Melnick, 186-208 Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 2000. Ise, John. Our National Park Policy : A Critical History Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 1967. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. Discovering the Vernacular Landscape New Haven, Conn : Yale University Press, 1984 Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. The Necessity for Ruins, and Other Topics Amherst, Mass : University of Massachusetts Press, 1980 Jackson, John Brinckerhoff "The Need of Being Versed in Country Things." Landscape 1 (1951 ): 1-5. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. A Sense of Place, a Sense ofTime. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994. Jackson John Brinckerhoff, and Ervin H. Zube. Landscapes: Selected Writings of J B. Jackson. Amherst Mass.: University ofMassachusetts Press, 1970. Jackson Richard H and Lloyd E. Hudman. Cultural Geography: People, Places, and Environment. St. Paul, Minn. : West Pub Co., 1990 Jackson William Henry, and Howard R. Driggs The Pioneer Photographer: Rocky Mountain Adventures with a Camera. Yonkers-on-Hudson, N.Y.: World Book Company, 1929. Jessup, Karen L. "The National Park ServiceProfessionalizing the Conservation of America's Historic Landscapes." Journal of Architectural Conservation 5, no. 1 (1999): 24-42. Jokilehto Jukka. "A Century of Heritage Conservation." Journal of Architectural Conservation 5 no. 3 (1999): 14-33. Jokilehto Jukka International Trends in Historic Preservation: From Ancient Monuments to Living Cultures APT Bulletin 29 no. 3 (1998): 17-19 282

PAGE 299

Kaiser Harvey H. Landmarks in the Landscape: Historic Architecture in the National Parks ofthe West. San Francisco : Chronicle Book s, 1997. Kansas State Teachers College of Emporia. Bibliography ofWilliam Allen White, Prepared by the Kansas State Teachers College from the William Allen White Collection Emporia Kans. : Teachers College Press 1969 Keller J. Timothy and Genevieve P. Keller. How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes National Register Bulletin No 1 8 Wa s hington D C : National Register of Historic Places 1987 Kelso Gerald K. "Interdisciplinary Research in Historic Landscape Management." CRM Bulletin 14, no. 6 (1991) : 1-11. King Thomas F. Thinking About Cultural Resource Management: Essays from the Edge. Walnut Creek Calif. : AltaMira Press 2002 Lacome Becky Interpretive De v elopment Program : Profes s ional Standards for Learning and Performance National Park Service. June 2004. http : // www nps gov/idp li nterp (18 Jul y 2004). Lamb E. J Memorie s of the Past and Thoughts of the Future : Autobiography of Rev. E. J. Lamb Huntington Ind. : United Brethren Publishing House 1906 Lassus Bernard The Landscape Approach Penn Studies in Landscape Architecture Philadelphia : Uni v ersity Press 1998. Lawliss Luc y E-mail to Manish Chalana. March 2004 Lawliss Lucy. Letter to Manish Chalana. April 2004. Lawliss, Lucy. Letter to Manish Chalana December 2004. Lawrence Henry W. Historical Change in Natural Landscapes: The E x perimental View ." Environmental Re v iew 6 no. 1 (1982): 14-37 LeMaire Raymond and Herb Sto vel, eds. Nara Document on Authenticity No v ember 1994. International Council on Monuments and Sites http : // www.international.icomos or g/ naradoc eng htm (15 Janua ry 2005) Lee Antoinette J. Recognizing Cultural Heritage in the National Historic Preservation Program CRM Bulletin 16 (1993) : 7-8 283

PAGE 300

Lee Antoinette J and National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States Past Meets Future: Saving America's Historic Environments Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press 1992. Lessons from the Past. Parks & Recreation 27 no. 2 (1992) : 46-53 Lewis Peirce "Axioms for Reading the Landscape : Some Guides to the American Scene. The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes. Edited by D W. Meinig 11-32 New York : Oxford University Press 1979 Lewis Peirce. The Challenge of the Ordinary: Preservation and the Cultural Landscape ." Historic Preservation Forum 12, no 2 (1998): 18-28. Lewis, Peirce. "Learning from Looking : Geographic and Other Writing About the American Cultural Landscape. American Quarterly 35, no 3 (1983): 242-61. Lindberg Jim Using Historic Structures to Serve Park Needs: The McGraw Ranch Rocky Mountain National Park Forum Journal 16 (2002): 22-27 Lloyd lillian. 1997 "Wolves as Neighbors: Howls ofPraise and Fear." Christian Science Monitor. Feb. 13, 1997 Loewen James W Lies across America : What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong. New York: New Press 1999. Longstreth Richard. "Architectural History and the Practice of Historic Preservation in the United States." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 58, no. 3 (1999): 326-33. Lowenthal David. The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History Cambridge, U.K. : Cambridge University Press 1998. Lowenthal David. The Past Is a Foreign Country. New York: Cambridge U.K.: Uni v ersity Press 1985. Lynch Kevin. Managing the Sense of a Region. Cambridge Mass : MIT Press, 1976. Lynch Ke v in What Time Is This Place? Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press 1972 Mackintosh Barry The Historic Sites Survey and National Historic Landmarks Program: A History. Washington D C.: National Park Service History Division, 1985 284

PAGE 301

Mackintosh, Barry. Interpretation in the National Park Service : A Historical Perspective. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service History Division, 1986 Mackintosh, Barry. The National Park Service and Cultural Resources ." CRM Bulletin 22 no 4 (1999) : 41-44 Mackintosh, Barry. The National Parks: Shaping the System. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service 1991. MayneWilson, Warwick. "Understanding and Managing Cultural Landscapes." Landscape Australia 23, no 1 (2001): 10-13 McClelland Linda Flint. Building the National Parks: Historic Landscape Design and Construction. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins Univesity Press, 1998. McClelland Linda Flint. "Imagery Ideals and Social Values : The Interpretation and Documentation of Cultural Landscapes." Public Historian 13, no. 2 (1991) : 107-24. McClelland Linda Flint, J. Timothy Keller Genevieve P. Keller and Robert Z Melnick. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes. National Register Bulletin No. 30 Washington D.C. : N a tional Register of Historic Places 1999. McClelland Linda Flint and National Register of Historic Places. Presenting Nature : The Historic Landscape Design ofthe National Park Service, 1916 to 1942 Washington D.C. : National Register of Historic Places, 1993 McKnight Patrick. The Water Rights of Rocky Mountain National Park a History ." Unpublished manuscript Rocky Mountain National Park Library Estes Park Colo., 1983 McWilliams Carl. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form Multiple Resource Nomination for Rocky Mountain National Park." Unpublished manuscript Rocky Mountain National Park Library Estes Park Colo. 1987. Mehls Ste v en F Colorado Mountains Historic Context. Den v er Colo.: State Historical Society of Colorado 1984. Meinig D. W., and John Brinckerhoff Jackson The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays. New York : Oxford Universit y Press 1979 285

PAGE 302

Melnick, Robert Z Cultural Landscapes : Rural Historic Districts in the National Park System Washington D C : Park Historic Architecture Division 1984 Melnick Robert Z Landscape Thinking" CRM Bulletin 8 no 1 (1985) : 1-2. Melnick Robert Z Preserving Cultural and Historic Land s capes: De v eloping Standards." CRMBulletin3, no.1 (1980): 1-7. Melnick Robert Z "Protecting Rural Cultural Landscapes : Finding Value in the Countryside." Landscape Joumal2, no 2 (1983): 84-97. Miller, Hugh C. "The Family Tree : Looking at the Roots of Historic Land s cape Preservation." APT Bullet i n 31, no. 4 (2000) : 54-56 Miller, Hugh C Preserving Landscapes. CRM Bulletin 10, no. 6 (19 87): 1-4. Mills Enos A Adventures of a Nature Guide Garden City, N .Y.: Doubleday Page and Company 1920. Mills Enos A. Early Estes Park. Denver Colo.: Big Mountain Press 1963. Mills, Enos A. Rocky Mountain National Park Garden City, N Y.: Doubleday Page and Company. 1924 Mills Enos A. The Rocky Mountain Wonderland. Boston : Houghton Mifflin Company 1915 Mills Enos A. The Story of Estes Park and a Guide Book. Denver, Colo.: The Outdoor Life Pub Co. 1905 Mills Enos A. The Story of Estes Park Grand Lake and Rocky Mount ain National Park. Estes Park Colo.: Enos A. Mills 1917 Mills Eno s A. Your National Parks Boston : Houghton Miffl i n Company, 1917. Mills Joe A Mountain Boyhood New York : J.H Sears & Company Inc. 1926. Mitchell Don. Cultural Geography : A Critical Introduction. Malden Ma ss.: Black w ell Publishers, 2000. Mitchell Nora J. Cultural Landscapes : Concepts of Culture and Nature a s a Paradigm for Historic Pre s ervation. Ann Arbor Mich : UMI Dissertation Services 1996 286

PAGE 303

Mitchell Nora J. and Susan Buggey Protected Landscapes and Cultural Landscapes : Taking Adv antage of Di v erse Approaches ." George Wright Forum 17, no. 1 (2000) : 35-46 Moomaw, Jack C. Recollections of a Rocky Mountain Ranger. Longmont Colo. : Times-Call Publishing Co., 1963 Moynihan Elizabeth B. David Lentz James L. Wescoat Jr. John Fritz George Michell and P.B.S. Sengar. The Moonlight Garden Project: New Discoverie s at the Taj Mahal. Washington D C : Smithsonian Institution 2000 Muir John Our National Parks. Boston: Houghton Mifflin and Company, 1901. Muller Markus M. Cultural Heritage Protection : Legitimac y, Property and Functionalism ." International Journal of Cultural Property 7, no 2 (1998): 395-409 Murtagh William J. Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preserv a tion in America Pittsto w n N.J : Main Street Press 1988 Musselman Lloyd K. Rocky Mountain National Park: its First Fifty Years, 19151965 Estes Park Colo. : Rocky Mountain Nature A ss ociation 1965 Muths Thomas B. Holzwarth Ranch, Rocky Mountain National Park, Historic Structures Report, Architectural Section, vol. 1. Jackson Wyo.: AlA & A ss ociates 1979. Muths Thomas B. William Allen White Cabins Rocky Mountain National Park Historic Structures Report, Architectural Section Jackson W y o : AlA & Associates 1976 Nash, Roderick. The American Environment: Readings in the History of Conservation Reading Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub Co 1976 Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven Conn.: Yale University Press 1982 National Association for Interpretation NAI Webpage March 2004. http://www.interpnet.com (12 July 2004). National Historic Preservation Act. Title 16 U.S Code Section 470. 1966. 287

PAGE 304

National Parks Conservation Association. State of the Parks Resource Assessment: Rocky Mountain National Park. 2002. http: // www.npca.org/ across_ the_ nation/park _pulse / rocky_ mountain/rockymt. pdf ( 12 February 2003). National Park Service. Interpretive and Education. April 2004. National Park Service http :// www.nps.gov / leam (14 May 2004) National Park Service. NPS-28 : Cultural Resource Management Guideline. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1998. http: // www.cr.nps.gov/history / online books / nps28 / 28contents.htm (24 March 2004). National Park Service. Rocky Mountain National Park Interpretive Prospectus. Washington D C.: National Park Service 1973. National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory. "CLI Coordinator Review Report. McGraw Ranch." Unpublished manuscript Rocky Mountain National Park Library Estes Park, Colo., 1999 National Park Service Organic Act." Title 16 U .S. Code Sections 1-4. 1916. National Register Information System. May 2004. National Park Service. http: // www.nr.nps.gov (17 June 2004). National Register of Historic Places How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. National Register Bulletin No 16A Washington, D.C. : National Register of Historic Places, 1997 National Wilderness Preservation Act. Title 16 U.S. Code, Section 23. 1964. Noble, Bruce J., Jr. and Robert Spude. Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historic Mining Properties. National Register Bulletin No. 42 Washington D.C. : National Register of Historic Places, 1997. Norton William Cultural Geography: Themes, Concepts, Analyses. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. "The NPS Historic Landscape Initiative: Developing National Standards for the Treatment ofHistoric Landscapes." CRM Bulletin 13, no. 2 (1990): 12-13. Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation OCLP Projects March 2004. http: // www.nps.gov / frla/projects.htm (9 June 2004). 288

PAGE 305

Osterman, Tamar. "Historic Structures in National Parks Historic Preservation Forum 10, no. 4 (1996) : 6-14. Page Robert R. Cultural Landscapes Inventory Professional Procedures Guide. Washington D C : U S Department of the Interior 2001. Page Robert R., and Charles A. Birnbaum. Re v ealing the Value of Cultural Landscapes. CRM Bulletin 17, no 7 (1994) : 3-4. Page Robert R., Cathy Gilbert and Susan Dolan. A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports : Contents, Process and Techniques Washington, D C.: Park Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes Program 1997 Paige John C. The Civilian Conservation Corps and the National Park Service, 19331942: An Administrative History. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service 1985. Parker Patricia L. and Thomas F. King. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin, No 38. Washington D C.: National Register of Historic Places 1998. Photographs of pri v ately owned property in Rocky Mountain National Park [1949] with photos of the same areas taken in 1970." Unpublished manuscript Rocky Mountain National Park Library Estes Park Colo. 1970. Pierce Daniel S. The Great Smokies: From Natural Habitat to National Park. Knoxville Tenn.: University ofTennessee Press 2000 Pinchot Gifford. Primer of Forestry. Bulletin No 24. Washington D.C. : United States Division of Forestry. 1899. Potter Elisabeth Walton and Beth M Boland. Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places. National Register Bulletin No. 41. Washington, D.C. : National Register ofHistoric Places, 1992 Price, Marie and Martin Lewis. The Reinvention of Cultural Geography." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 83, no. 1 (1993): 1-17. Protection for Historic and Natural Landscapes. Landscape Design 201 (1991): 2430 289

PAGE 306

Quin, Richard Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) no. C0-73: Fall River Road. Washington D.C.: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division 1995 Quin Richard Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) no. C0-78: Rocky Mountain National Park Roads. Washington D.C : Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division 1995 Quin, Richard. Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) no. C0-31 : Rocky Trail Ridge Road. Washington D C.: Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division 1995. Ramaley, William C. Trails and Trailbuilders of the Rocky Mountain National Park. Estes Park Colo.: Rocky Mountain Nature Association, 1900. Rath Frederick L. "Reflections on Historic Preservation and the National Park Service: The Early Years CRM Bulletin 14, no. 4 (1991): 1-3. Reed Edward B. Moraine Park Boyhood Fort Collins Colo.: Edward B. Reed 1996 Rensch H. E. Historical Background for the Rocky Mountain National Park. Estes Park Colo.: Rocky Mountain Nature Association 1935. Robbins Michael. High Country Trail: Along the Continental Divide Washington, D.C. : National Geographic Society, 1981. Robbins William G. "The Cultural in Natural Landscapes: North America and the Pacific Northwest." Journal ofthe West 38, no. 4 (1999): 8-14. Robins, Anthony W. Historic Preservation and Planning: The Limits of Prediction. Journal of the American Planning Association 61, no 1 (1995): 95-98. Rockwell Wilson The Utes : A Forgotten People Denver Colo.: Sage Books 1956. Rocky Mountain National Park National Register Properties as of 11/17/1998 Washington D C.: National Park Service Cultural Resources Division 1998 Rogers Jerry L. "Fulfilling Its Mandate : The National Park Service and Historic Preservation. Public Historian 9 no 2 (1987): 143-46 Rubenstein James M The Cultural Landscape: An Introduction to Human Geography. Upper Saddle River N.J.: Prentice Hall 2002. 290

PAGE 307

Runte, Alfred. National Parks : The American Experience. Lincoln Nebr.: University of Nebraska Press 1997 Russell J A. Valuing Cultural Landscapes in the USA, Britain, and Australia: A Review ofthe Literature and Comment on the De velopment ofTheory and Conservation Practices. Hobart, Tasm.: Board of Environmental Studies University of Tasmania 1988 Sage Rufus B. Rocky Mountain Life, or Startling Scenes and Perilous Adventures in the Far West, during an Expedition ofThree Years 1857. Lincoln Nebr.: Universi t y of Nebraska Press 1982 Sage Rufus B. Rufus B Sage: His Letters and Papers, 1836-1847 Glendale, Calif.: Arthur H. Clark Company 1956. Sauer Carl Ortwin Land and Life: A Selection from the Writings of Carl Ortwin Sauer Edited by John Leighly vi, 435 Berkeley Calif.: University of California Press 1963. Sauer Carl Ortwin. The Morphology of Landscape. Berkeley, Calif.: Universi ty of California Press 1925 Sax, Joseph L. Mountains without Handrails: Reflections on the National Parks. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1980 Scarpino Philip V. "Planning for Preservation : A Look at the Federal-State Historic Preservation Program 1966-1986 Public Historian 14 no. 2 (1992): 49-66 Schein Richard H The Place of Landscape: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting an American Scene Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87 no. 4 (1997): 660-80 Schwarzer Mitchell. Myths of Permanence and Transience in the Discourse on Historic Preservation in the United States ." Journal of Architectural Education 48 no. I (1994): 2-11. Seifert, Donna J., Barbara Little Beth L. Savage and John H Sprinkle Jr Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties (with Appendix, Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archeological Properties). National Register Bulletin No 21. Washington D C.: National Register of Historic Places 1997. 291

PAGE 308

Sellars Richard West. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History. New Haven Conn : Yale University Press 1997. Shapins Associates McGraw Ranch, Rocky Mountain National Park: NPS Cultural Landscapes Inventory 1999. Boulder Colo. : Shapins Associates Landscape Architects and Planners, 1991. Smith Duane. Rocky Mountain Mining Camps: The Urban Frontier. Bloomington, Ind. : Indiana University Press 1967 Solot, Michael. "Carl Sauer and Cultural Evolution." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 76 no. 4 (1986) : 508-20. Spence Mark David. Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making ofthe National Parks. New York: Oxford University Press 1999. Spirn Anne. Constructing Nature: The Legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted." Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature Edited by William Cronon 91-113. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 1995. Sprague Abner E. My Pioneer Life: The Memoirs of Abner E. Sprague. Estes Park Colo. : Rocky Mountain Nature Association 1999 Stilgoe John R Common Landscape of America, 1580 to 1845 New Ha v en Conn : Yale University Press 1982. Stilgoe John R. Outside Lies Magic: Regaining History and Awareness in Everyday Places New York Conn.: Walker and Co 1998. Stille Alexander. The Future of the Past. New York, Conn : Farrar Straus and Giroux, 2002. Stipe Robert E. and Antoinette J Lee eds. The American Mosaic: Preserving a Nation's Heritage Washington, D C : U S Committee International Council on Monuments and Sites 1988. Stokes Samuel N., A. Elizabeth Watson and Shelley Smith Mastran Saving America's Countryside: A Guide to Rural Conservation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni v ersity Press 1997. Tilden Freeman Interpreting Our Heritage Chapel Hill N C : University ofNorth Carolina Press 1977 292

PAGE 309

Tishler William H The Landscape: An Emerging Historic Preservation Resource. APT Bulletin 11, no. 4 (1979): 9-25. UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention Paris : UNESCO 1996 United States Conference of Mayors Special Committee on Historic Pr e servation. With Heritage So Rich; a Report New York: Random House 1966. Unrau Harlan D., and G. Frank Williss. To Preserve the Nation's Past: The Growth of Historic Preservation in the National Park Service During th e 1930's ." Public Historian 9 no 2 (1987) : 19-49 U.S. Geological Survey. Aliens Park Colorado [ orthophotomap]. 1 : 24 000 7.5 Minute Seres (Topographic) Reston Va. : USGS 1984 U.S. Geological Surve y Chambers Lake Colorado [orthophotomap) 1:2 4 000 7 5 Minute Seres (Topographic) Reston Va.:USGS l985 U.S. Geological Survey. Comanche Peak Colorado [orthophotomap]. 1:2 4 000. 7.5 Minute Seres (Topographic) Reston Va :USGS 1969. U.S. Geological Survey Estes Park Colorado [orthophotomap]. 1:24 000. 7 5 Minute Seres (Topographic). Reston Va.: USGS 1978. U.S. Geological Survey Fall Riv er Pass, Colorado [orthophotomap]. 1:24 000 7 5 Minute Seres (Topographic) Reston Va : USGS 1983 U.S. Geological Survey. Grand Lake Colorado [orthophotomap]. 1:24 000. 7.5 Minute Seres (Topographic) Reston Va.: USGS 1984. U.S Geological Survey Isolation Peak Colorado [orthophotomap]. 1:24 000. 7.5 Minute Sere s (Topographic) Reston Va : USGS 1984 U S Geological Surve y Longs Peak Colorado [orthophotomap]. 1 : 24 000 7.5 Minute Ser e s ( Topographic). Reston Va.: USGS 1978 U.S Geological Survey. McHenry s Peak Colorado [orthophotomap) 1:2 4 000 7 5 Minute Seres (Topographic) Reston Va.: USGS 1992 U.S. Geological Survey. Mount Richtofen Colorado [orthophotomap]. 1:24 000. 7.5 Minute Seres (Topographic). Reston Va.: USGS 1988 293

PAGE 310

U.S. Geological Survey. Pingree Park, Colorado [orthophotomap]. I :24 000. 7.5 Minute Seres (Topographic) Reston Va.: USGS, 1987 U.S. Geological Survey. Rocky Mountain National Park Colorado [orthophotomap]. 1 : 500 000 Reston Va : USGS 1987 U.S. Geological Survey. Shadow Mountain Colorado [orthophotomap]. 1 : 24,000. 7.5 Minute Seres (Topographic). Reston Va : USGS 1978. U.S. Geological Survey. Trial Ridge Colorado [orthophotomap]. 1:24 000. 7 5 Minute Seres (Topographic). Reston Va.: USGS 1986. Wallace Mike Mickey Mouse History and Other Essays on American Memory Critical Perspectives on the Past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press 1996. Watts May Theilgaard Reading the Landscape of America Rochester N Y. : Nature Study Guild Publishers 1999 Webb, Melody. Cultural Landscapes in the National Park Service." Public Historian 9 no 2 (1987): 77-89 Weeks Kay D and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties : with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings Washington D C.: National Park Service Heritage Preservation Services 1995 White Richard. American Environmental History: The Development of a New Historical Field. Pacific Historical Review 54 no. 3 (1985) : 297-335. White Richard. Environmental History: Watching a Historical Field Mature." Pacific Historical Review 70 no. 1 (2001): 103-11. Williams Jack R. U te Culture Trees: Living History. Florissant Colo. : Colorado Outdoor Education Center 2001. Williams Michael. The Relations of Environmental History and Historical Geography Journal of Historical Geography 20, no. 1 (1994) : 3-21. Wills, Charles A Historical Album of Colorado. Brookfield Conn. : The Millbrook Press 1996 294

PAGE 311

Wolkomir Richard Joyce Wolkomir and Richard Schultz. Reading the Messages in Everyday Things. Smithsonian 31, no. 1 (2000): 74-80. Yamin Rebecca and Karen Bescherer Metheny. Landscape Archaeology : Reading and Interpreting the American Historical Landscape. Knoxville Tenn.: University of Tennessee Press 1996. Yelm Betty and Dr. Ralph L. Beals. Indians of the Park Region Estes Park Colo. : Rocky Mountain Nature Association 1934 Yost Cheri E-mail to Manish Chalana 25 May 2005 Yost Cheri. E-mail to Manish Ch a lana 3 June 2005. Zelinsky Wilbur. The Cultural Geography of the United States Englewood N.J : Prentice Hall. 1973. Zelinsky Wilbur. Exploring the Belo v ed Country: Geographic Forays into American Society and Culture. The American Land and Life Series. Iowa City Iowa: Uni v ersity of Iowa Press 1994 295