Citation

Material Information

Title:
Designing for recreation in the natural environment : the Mueller Ranch as a case study in the conflict between perpetuation and use
Creator:
Barry, Gail
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of landscape architecture)
Degree Grantor:
Degree Divisions:
College of Architecture and Planning, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Landscape architecture

Record Information

Source Institution:
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright Gail Barry. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Full Text
* .
u\. ..\ONMENTAi 0
AURARIA LIBRARY
DESIGNING FOR RECREATION IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: THE MUELLER RANCH AS A CASE STUDY IN THE CONFLICT BETWEEN PERPETUATION AND USE
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
AURARIA LIBRARY
M
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AURARIA LIBRARY
; GAIL BARRY
Thesis Candidate Department-of Landscape Architecture School of Environmental Design University of Colorado at Denver Denver, Colorado
February 5, 1979

'

C
Thesis Topic (1), Definition of Terms (2), General Assumptions (2),
Intent of the Paper (3)
HISTORY (4)
National Park and Forest Services (4)
Original Goals and Policies (4), History and Development (5), Current Goals and Policies (9) Colorado Division of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation (12)
History (13), Definitions (15), Goals and Policies (15)
History (17), Current Policy (19), Goals (19)
Mueller Ranch (20)
History (20), Current Use and Development (21)
RECENT APPROACHES TO DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL AREAS (24)
Carrying Capacity-(24), Management and Use Zones (27), Location of Facilities and Access (31), Aesthetic Values (32), Education of the Public (34)
DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESIS (36)
Statement of Hypothesis (36), Bias (37), Issues and Factors (37), Methodology (39)
THE TEST CASE - MUELLER RANCH (40)
Location (40),.Size (40), Description (40), Unique Features (42), Site Specific Problems (42), Goals and Objectives (44), Scope of Work (45)

V
APPENDIX (46)
Form for Organizing Specific Recreation Activities (46) Regional Map (47)
Location Map (48)
Critical Path Diagram (49)
Thesis Committee (50)
FOOTNOTES (51)
BIBLIOGRAPHY (55)
Books, Periodicals, Documents, Reports (55) 'Methodologies (57)
Interviews (57)
Maps (58)
-- â€¢ ' â– ' * 0 â€˜ ' â€¢ â– â€™
â€¢ i i i

introduction

V
C * -
With the disappearance of the last American geographic frontiers (Alaska is THESIS TOPIC
a possible exception), the remaining natural environment has become more precious.
Where else can we go to appreciate what the world might have been like before we came? How else can we escape from increased urbanizing pressures into natural
z>~
solitude and beauty if we do not take steps to preserve the natural environment?
Recreation in these remaining natural areas must be carefully planned with a view toward future generations.
For nearly a. century various agencies in the United States have been faced with the problem of integrating recreation and the natural environment. Atten-tiori to the increasing demands for recreation has often led to the despoilation of natural areas. On the other hand, total devotion to preservation of natural areas results in a decrease in the quality of recreation, or in no recreation at all. Is it possible for the natural environment to be open to public recreation and yet remain unspoiled? Are the separate goals of preservation and recreation compatible?
Clearly any human activity in a natural area causes a certain amount of alteration of the natural state. Most natural environments possess some tolerance for disturbance before they are irreparably damaged. The ideal is to permit recreation without approaching the level of irreparable damage. However, the
1

type, kind, and amount of recreation activity which can be permitted without damage is the proper subject of considerable research.
Designing for recreation in the natural environment involves two separate subjects: recreation and natural environment. In its broadest sense recreation can be any activity which offers a change from man's normal or day-to-day pursuits. In this paper, recreation is limited to outdoor activities but will encompass both active (hiking, skiing, etc.) and passive (sitting, viewing, picnicking, etc.) types. The natural environment as used in this paper means any area where man's interference has not been so great as to destroy or seriously impair the natural integrity or character of the environment. Such areas might range from the completely untouched to those where man has dominated a portion of the site but has not seriously impaired the major area.
For the purposes of this thesis it will be assumed that any site being considered will: _â€¢
Â© be of interest to the public;
â€¢ be in demand for both its aesthetic and recreation potentials;
â€¢ be subject to some damage through use; and
o have valued environmental properties that need protection from use.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
GENERAL
ASSUMPTION

This paper examines past and current trends and philosophies regarding recreation in the natural environment. It also attempts to determine an acceptable approach to design that will enable preservation of natural areas while accommodating quality recreation activity. Particular attention will be given to the lands presently being acquired by Colorado for a combined State Park and Wildlife Area--the Mueller Ranch. The concept framework developed in this paper will be applied to that site specific case.
INTENT OF THE PAPER

history

Though man has always been influenced by the natural environment, it was
not until the latter 1800s that the United States began to consider the public
value of preserving and enhancing the natural environment for the future.
In 1864, Yosemite (in California) was established as the first state park.
1871 saw the establishment of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and by the
1880s each state had created some sort of legal protection for wildlife. In
1872, Yellowstone (in Wyoming) was created as the first national park. By the
turn of.the century precedent had been set for the creation of two major federal
agencies which would have far-reaching effects on the preservation, conservation
andâ€™recreational use of natural environments.
The National Forest Service (under the Department of Agriculture) was
created in 1905, during Teddy Roosevelt's administration. The objective,
according to Roosevelt, was not to "lock up" the forests but to "consider how
best to combine use with preservation."^ The Forest Service began with the idea
of preserving forest lands primarily as wilderness--to manage and maintain them
2
indefinitely for their unusual and unique values.
In 1916, the National Park Service was created under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, the expressed policy was one of protection. "Every duty of the service was to be subordinate to preserving the parks for
NATIONAL PARK AND FOREST SERVICES
Original Goals and Policies

V'
3
posterity in essentially their natural state." This concept was beset with problems from its very beginning. With increased mechanization, the national public had more leisure time and the means (the car and train) to get to areas previously in "the wilds." Public recreation needs demanded to be fulfilled. As a result, policies were issued establishing the public's right to enjoy parks in a manner to suit "individual taste." Parks were to be made "accessible by any means practicable," and accommodations and entertainment were to be afforded. The whole of
this was to be promoted by such groups as the Chamber of Commerce, various tour-
4
ist bureaus and organizations.
Two conflicting policies--preservation and recreation--had thus been established for the National Park Service. In addition to the problems caused by conflicting policies, the NPS was beset with a lack of financial and political backing. The NPS had to find some means of creating income and establishing public and political support. The obvious route was the establishment of facilities that would cater to public demands for recreation.
As a result of the NPS policies on recreation, the National Forest History and
Development
Service realized they would have to develop means for public recreation on their lands in order to maintain control over prime areas. (These prime lands were coveted by the Department of the Interior for inclusion in the national
5

park system.) Public hunting and fishing, as well as campgrounds, homesites, trails and the like were created in response to this need. There followed decades of political maneuvering between the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture
for control of recreation lands. Anything the National Forest Service could do
â€¢ â€˜ Â» # *
to demonstrate its potential for recreation, compatible with its more economic
uses, would help it to maintain control over prime lands coveted by the Park
c.5 .
Service.
During the early part of the 20th century another development occurred that had an effect of recreation activity in natural areas. The National Park Service concluded that the public was not as interested in wonderful scenery as it was in intensive recreation opportunity. Since the NPS had never intended to provide all the recreation demanded by the public, another agency was needed to develop further recreation opportunities. In 1921, the states convened for the first National Conference on State Parks. The NPS officials thought that the state parks could absorb, some of the pressure for intensive recreation, leaving the NPS more free to pursue their original goal of preserving the scenic wonders of the nation for the purpose of "rest, inspiration, knowledge, and enjoyment through contact with nature."^ A period of rapid growth of state parks followed this first conference.

With the advent of the great depression, in the 1930s, and the need to create jobs, for the masses of unemployed, a brief period of experimentation in design and development of natural areas took place. The sheer volume of work by groups such as the Civilian Conservation Corps, created advances in all levels of park development. During this brief period plans had to be approved by engineers, landscape architects, and biologists. This was the only period of time, unti1â€¢recently, that an environmental approach (using physical/biological criteria to determine, in part, the use of an area) gained recognition. Otherwise the environmental approach to planning was largely resisted.
" The end of World War II brought new waves of visitors with more modern standards of comfort and more sophisticated ways of amusing themselves. Park and recreation areas were replanned and facilities expanded in an attempt to accommodate increasing needs and numbers of people. The plans lacked proper consideration for ecology as well as contingency measures for dealing with visitor saturation of areas/'* It began to appear that the volume of people who wanted ta participate in all the varying types of outdoor recreation could not be accommodated by the existing system. Pressures were increasing while the natural environment was being depleted.
During this long period of recreation development, there were concerned

individuals who wrote about the problems inherent in developing wholesale recre-
â€¢*' * â€¢ * ' *â€¢ â€¢ â€˜ â€¢ ation in the natural environment. Men such as John Muir (originator of the
Sierra Club, 1892), George Wright, Robert Marshall, and, perhaps most notable,
Aldo Leopold (who pioneered the roadless wilderness preservation system) expressed
their concern for the directions being taken by natural resources agencies. In
1934, Leopold wrote that "The salient geographic character of outdoor recreation,
to my mind, is that recreational use is self-destructive. The more people are
concentrated on a given area, the less is the chance of their finding what they 8 '
seek." Unfortunately, the influence of these individuals would not be felt unttl later in the century.
By the end of the 1950s the National Park Service, as well as other public agencies responsible for recreation in the natural environment, were gradually seeing a disintegration of the very features they had originally intended to preserve and enhance. Yellowstone, Glacier and Rocky Mountain National Parks were suffering varying states of stress caused by too much recreation and not enough concern for the environment. By the 1960s, the dimensions of the problem became readily apparent. Because of too many people, too much recreation, and too little environmental planning, natural environments were being subject to "irreparable damage while undergoing rapid and fundamental changes in both

V
9
ecology and perpetual character."
Two groups were emerging to strongly question the environmental policies of public agencies with regard to recreation. The first group, the scientists, had watched their areas of investigation (the ecological units), gradually being disrupted by converging numbers of people. The second group was made up of those people who valued natural environments for the wilderness experience they afforded. "National Parks" and other natural environments "were becoming urbanized like everything else and would no longer offer a retreat from urban environments that increasingly placed more restrictions on the individual and his freedom 6f movement and activity."^ Pressure was applied to legislatures and public recreation agencies. Evaluation of past trends in recreation planning resulted in new policies and goals.
In 1964 and 1966 two separate policy statements were written relating to Current Goals
and Policies
National Park Service's future attitude toward recreation in the natural environment. Though these are specifically aimed toward the NPS, they could well apply to other public agencies who deal with recreation in the natural environment.
The national parks are primarily, and should remain, natural areas for the enjoyment of men and other ani-mals, and should be managed with this purpose in mind..
Han, the visitor, must be looked upon as an introduced
9

species in the ecosystem of parks, capable of interfering with natural processes. Visitors must be accommodated and developments planned in such a way that overall management of the parks will result in preservation of the unique natural features and . habitat. . . .^
In 1966, the NPS staff prepared the following statement on policy:
The key to our planning is implicit in the foregoing distinctions. Though parklands are of many types, our attitude toward them stems largely from one point of view: these lands attract people because of values which derive from the lands themselves.
It is these values which we use. It follows that the nature of the land normally should dictate the use. In natural . . . areas, this use is a Simple viewing of the land qualities they evoke. In recre-'â€¢ ational areas, the use is an activity appropriate
with the environmentJ^
In 1964, the National Wilderness Preservation System was created stating that the National Forests were to remain forever natural except for special provisions allowing certain restricted commercial uses. The Forest Service continues with a multi-use system regarding the five resources under its jurisdiction (water, timber, forage, wildlife, and recreation) with a concept that these resources will be managed at a level of supply as high as can be sustained without harming the lands ability to produce. Overlying these two concepts is one of dominant use. Whichever resource is most appropriate to a given area will

be the dominant one. Concentrated areas of developed recreation will continue to be maintained, but increased emphasis is being placed on dispersing .recreation throughout the forest and rangelands. This recreation is oriented toward
13
a wildland experience. One proceeds along relatively rough trails, experiencing nature in as natural a setting as possible. Though there are restrictions upon uses within the forest, these restrictions are less in evidence than in the National Parks. In addition, hunting, fishing, and wood-gathering are allowed, within certain limits.
The National Forest Service is presently the largest employer of landscape architects. Their emphasis on a visual management program means that most of their operations are determined, at least in part, by the aesthetic values now placed upon them.
The Forest Service has a certain advantage over other organizations that deal with recreation in natural areas. This is the sheer size and magnitude of its lands. Dispersion of recreation use without harmful effect on the environment is more easily accomplished on millions of acres in one block than it is on thousands or hundreds of acres assuming there is access. Management of these lands is, of course, more difficult.

The National Forest and Park Services have had to deal with the conflict between perpetuation and use of the environment longer than any other agencies. Constant public and political pressures have caused them to develop recreation to such a degree that irreparable damage has occurred on some of their lands. Recent policies have turned the direction of these agencies toward one more compatible with perpetuation of the environment. The conflict between use and perpetuation of the environment still exists, and the dilemma ultimately remains unsolved.
Colorado, being a particularly scenic state, has had problems to face in dealing with recreation in the natural environment. Nearly 36 percent of Colorado's land area is federally owned. The bulk of this land is managed by the National Forest and Park Services. Most of this land was acquired and developed early in the 20th century. In addition to the federal land holdings, several municipalities had highly developed park systems by the 1930s.- Denver and Boulder also had a system of mountain parks, adding to the recreational opportunities in the natural environment. With such a large portion of the land area in the hands of federal agencies and the development of good municipal park systems, Colorado did not feel the need to create a state park system until the 1950s, years behind such developments-in other states. â€¢ .â€¢
COLORADO DIVISION OF STATE PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION

V
Though some attempts had been made to set up a State Park and Recreation
â–  â€¢. â€¢â€¢ * â€¢ Â». â€¢ â€¢
Board earlier in the century, it was not until 1957 that a board actually succeeded in becoming a permanent state agency. Among its other goals the park and
â™¦
recreation board was to find ways to make Colorado "Tops in the Nation for Outdoor 14
Recreati on."
From the outset the State Park and Recreation Board had trouble acquiring lands from private sources. As long as it was a matter of transferring property, already in the public domain, to a park or recreation use the State Legislature would approve. (Cherry Creek, Antero and Vega State Recreation Areas were all acquired in this way.) When it came to expending public funds to acquire private lands and add them to the public land rolls, the Legislature and the general public protested.
It was not until June 1960 that the first tract of land was actually purchased by the state for park purposes. This 200-acre tract,.called "The Ranch,"
15
became the nucleus for the present 9000-acre Golden Gate State Park. This park became the first area planned with the intention of preserving the natural envi ronment.
In 1963, .the parks operation was merged with the Colorado Game and Fish Department.' Problems with this merger were evident from the outset. While the
History

basic orientation of the two departments was rather different* the primary difficulty was money. '
Members of the hunting and fishing contingency maintained that monies from the "game cash fund" were supporting some of the park activities. This was expressly forbidden under state and federal lawJÂ® In 1972, the two departments were separated, establishing what are now called the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Colorado Division of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation. The Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation was given the responsibi1ity for 25 "State Recreation Areas" including three state parks. It is important to note that the Division of Parfrs and Outdoor Recreation intends recreation areas to be primarily developed for recreation (as their designation would indicate) while parks would be oriented toward scenic and environmental preservation. In some cases the Legislature has designated as a state park, an area that is by function a recreation area. The Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation was charged with managing "the public use of state parks and recreation areas to ensure high quality outdoor recreational experiences and public safety with minimal adverse affect on the environment. 11 ^ It was also responsible for planning and development of a state park and recreation system that would "preserve and interpret scenic natural environments unique to or representative of Colorado and to develop outdoor recreation

V
1 o
lands, waters, trails and facilities." These charges represent conflicting goals very similar to those that have beset the National Park Service. Thus the dilemma regarding use vs. perpetuation of the natural environment arises again.
According to the 1975-80 Plan for Colorado State Parks, a state .park is Definitions
a large, state-owned, area "having outstanding scenic and natural qualities, and often containing significant archaelogical, ecological, geological and other scientific values" that require "preservation of the area for the enjoyment, education,
19
and inspiration of residents and visitors." A state recreation area is a large
"scenically attractive land and water area offering a broad range of outdoor
20
recreation opportunities."
The long-range goal, according to the 1975-80 plan, is to develop a Goals and
Policies
balanced system of state parks that will preserve and interpret scenic and natural
areas (often of scientific value) which are either typically or uniquely repre-
21
sentative of diverse environments in Colorado. The state park system is meant
to complement, not duplicate, those scenic and natural areas already represented
O' â€¢ *
by federal ownership. Park land should either be unique in its resources or the best example of a given type of area to be found in Colorado.
The Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation sees its role with regard to parks as being quite s'imilar to that of the National Park Service. The
15

main difference is the orientation of state parks toward unique or diverse features of the Colorado environment. Another difference between NPS and the Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation is one of management philosophy. Due to the generally smaller size of the state parks, the state is more inclined to control such natural forces as fire and disease.
Recreation'activities in state parks should be "limited to those conducive
to environmental awareness and not unduly disruptive to the calm and solitude of 22
others." Use of. any area shall be determined by carrying capacity of the land.
Capacity for facilities, resources, and quality of experience are all factors in
this: determination. Both management and education are techniques that may be used
23
to disperse unwanted activity.
The current State Park and Outdoor Recreation system seems to be heavily oriented toward recreation development. The trend toward recreation development, as we have seen, was well established prior to the Division of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation's creation. In some ways the pressures for developmentâ€¢of Colorado's parks and recreation areas outweigh those on federal agencies. A number of the state park and recreation areas have been, or are being, damaged by overuse. . While steps are being taken to promote environmental awareness, .the public seems to have a hard time accepting the idea. How can the Division of

State Parks and Outdoor Recreation, a relati vely. new and small organization, ensure
the preservation of its lands while promoting recreation?
What is currently known as the Colorado Division of Wildlife has undergone
quite a metamorphosis since its early beginning. The later 1800s in Colorado
saw trainloads of visitors from the East coming to hunt the seemingly abundant
numbers of geese, ducks, deer, antelope, mountain lions and buffalo. One news
report, from 1861, reported that a party of seven hunters had killed 92 antelope
24
and four mountain lions in one week. Other reports tell of fisherman "jerking
out trout faster than they could throw in their lines," sometimes harvesting more
25
thai*i' a thousand in a week. Many of these fish weighed two pounds or more. The
common menu for hunting parties was elk steak for breakfast, roast venison for
26
dinner, and mountain trout for supper. The depletion of the fisheries was the concern of the first fish and game commissioner. Laws were enacted to protect the fisheries from such refinements in fishing technique as dynamiting. Shortly thereafter it was realized that wholesale slaughter of game was fast depleting this important resource as well. By 1893, forestry had been added to the game and fish department, but in 1899 forestry was removed and the emphasis altered to management of game and fish and enforcement of the laws that had been created to protect them. In 1903, the elk season was closed in an effort to protect this
DIVISION
OF
WILDLIFE
Hi story

important game species. The major problem facing the agency was that of poaching and more attention was directed toward enforcement of the laws. It is important to note that the major emphasis of the Game and Fish Department was on "sport" game and fish species. Little or no attention was given to nongame species.
By the mid-1900s the idea that habitat protection was key to management of wildlife began to take hold. While protection of wildlife was important, it was not a substitute for habitat. In the mid-1960s it was realized that much of the prime habitat areas were disappearing in the wake of development and new agricultural practices. Changes in land use caused great disturbance to wildlife, particularly because of loss of critical winter range. While some land acquisition for habitat had taken place prior to this time, such acquisitions took on a new importance in the eyes of the Division of Wildlife.
Following the separation of the Division of Wildlife from the State Parks Department, in 1972, a new section was added to the division--the nongame section Whether pressures from conservation agencies such as the Audubon Society, caused this addition or it had been in the offing for some time, the addition of the nongame section indicates that there may be a change in emphasis from the total . commitment to "sport" game and fish.

Current policy states that public lands under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Division of Wildlife must be open to the public for their use and enjoyment. There is no provision for wildlife refuges, as are maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. One of the major reasons for this policy is that funding for the Division of Wildlife is derived from licensing fees. Funds for the nongame section are derived from a program where citizens may contribute a portion of their state income tax rebate by checking the box on the state income tax form.
While this program has shown tremendous success, the amount is minimal compared to
27
the licensing fees.
The fact that major funding for the Division of Wildlife comes from fishing
and hunting licenses places a tremendous burden on the division to provide for
this type of recreation wherever possible. In some cases important habitat areas
have been damaged by hunting and fishing. The division is able to control use of
its lands in two ways. It may limit the number of people allowed in a given area
through the requirement of special use permits. Secondly, the location of access
28
and facilities can be designed so as to deter the use of an area.
The acquisition of prime habitat and the management of these habitats for food and reproduction of wildlife are goals of the Division of Wildlife. Clearly, heavy use of a wildlife area will severely damage the habitat. The extent of use
Current
Policy
Goals

that can be allowed without damaging the habitat, and without driving off the wildlife is a matter of educated guesswork in many cases.
Mueller Ranch is located on the west flank of Pikes Peak, in the approximate middle of Teller County. (See Regional and Location Maps in the Appendix.) Teller County contains numerous federal land holdings (close to 50 percent of the county's land), the bulk being Pike National Forest land.
The history of usage of this area is quite diverse. As part of the Ute Indian homelands, the area was probably the site of hunting activity from the earliest times, Ute pass, a few miles away, was the source of contention between the
UteS' and their Cheyenne, Arapahoe, and Kiowa neighbors, because it offered the only
29
route to the salt beds in nearby South Park. Numerous arrowheads have been found on the site indicating possible heavy Indian use. In the 1800s beaver trappers wandered the area. Along with some of the early surveyors, they are probably responsible for the names of some of the landmarks in the area, including Dome Rock and Sheep's Nose (both found on Mueller Ranch). With the Homesteading Act of 1862, the removal of the Utes in 1879, and the discovery of gold in Cripple Creek (four miles south of Mueller) in 1891, the area began to attract homesteaders, ranchers, and miners of every description. The population of Teller County increased from a handful to over 40,000 during.the peak mining era. Mueller Ranch contained
MUELLER
RANCH
H i s to ry

14 different mining claims (both lodes and placers) covering 1,700 acres. Though
it is doubtful if these claims produced a great deal of gold, evidence of mining
activity has altered portions of the environment on the ranch. The homesteaders
and ranchers who occupied the property are the target of a number of interesting
tales concerning illegal whiskey production, horse thieves, fueding and killing.
Theodore Roosevelt is known to have visited Jack Rabbit Lodge, on the banks of
Fourmile Creek, in the southern portion of the property, several times in the early 30
1900s. In the 1930s and 40s, the northeastern portion of the ranch was heavily farmed for potatoes and iceberg lettuce.
By 1952, when Wyman E. Mueller began assembling the present 11,961-plus acres which represent the Quarter Circle M Ranch, the area had been rather heavily used by miners, hunters, ranchers and farmers. Still the area retained considerable beauty and uniqueness. From the time Mr. Mueller obtained the property he initiated a program to enhance and upgrade his property. Development has been kept to a minimum and improved by reseeding and fertilizing, together with a policy of strictly controlled use. Since 1969, when Mr. Mueller took the No. 2 world trophy elk (according to Boone and Crockett Club criteria), there has been no hunting allowed on the property. As a result of these and other conservation practices, the Mueller Ranch has become an important wildlife
Current Use and
Development

. V r
... c
â€¢< O
resource. For the past 10 years, Mr. Mueller has allowed the Division of Wildlife to assist in the wildlife management of the property, particularly on-the south porti on.
In 1977, partly due to the failing health of Mrs. Mueller, Mr. Mueller decided to put hiâ€™s property up for sale. The possibility of the property going to developers was abhorent to him, so the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Nature Conservancy moved quickly to negotiate purchase of the property for use as a State Park and Wildlife area.
The National Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Colorado Divi- CONCLUSION
siori' of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife all have lands that have suffered from overuse by the recreating public to a greater or lesser degree. The aim of these agencies is to provide for enjoyment of the natural environment, not to provide an avenue for destruction of the environment.
The conflict between perpetuation and use of the natural environment is an ongoing one. .There is no compete answer to the dilemma. The final judgment depends-upon the values of the individuals involved in the planning, administration, and management of the site as well as upon the public at large. The Mueller Ranch presents an opportunity to solve many of the problems that are inherent in
22

the dilemma between perpetuation and use of the natural environment. The site offers diverse and unique scenery, wildlife, and historic opportunities that will be under intense pressure by the public to be developed and used as a recreation resource. .

recent approaches to design and management
of natural areas

How does one determine what kind of activity and how much of that activity
can be allowed before the environment or the visitor experience suffers?. How
does one design and manage an area to both preserve and use the environment?
The answer to the first question lies with the discovery of tolerance
levels or carrying capacity of both the physical/biological environment and the
social/recreational environment. In terms of recreation planning the quality
experience of the user is the desired end product. The concern for quality
experience implies the protection and maintenance of the resource baseâ€”the
31
natural environment. To further examine the importance of carrying capacity
it is necessary to define physical and social carrying capacity.
Physical carrying capacity is the level of human impact which may be tol-
32
erated without causing damage so great that the land cannot regenerate itself. Some sources add that any condition is considered irreparable if it is not economically, socially, politically or aesthetically feasible to return the area
to its original situation within a relatively short time even though it might
33
technically be possible to do so eventually. Social carrying capacity is the level of human impact which, if exceeded, would result in a deterioration of the qua!ity of the recreation experience.
CARRYING
CAPACITY

Both of these carrying capacities are based upon the value of the resource
base--the natural environment. Any level of use produces some loss,and any level
of use is likely to produce some satisfaction. The determination of the optimum
34
level of use is primarily a value question. Whose values are the ones to be accepted in determining the carrying capacity of an area--the scientists? The administrators and managers? The planners? The general public? What happens to the portion of the NPS act which says its purpose is ". . . to conserve the scenery and the natural historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for
the enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them
35
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations"? Doesn't unimpaired mean untouched or undamaged? Parks and other natural areas cannot continue to serve large numbers of people without some detrimental effect on their natural resources. The amount of damage to be allowed can only be a value judgment based on adequate data and a consideration of the tradeoffs between benefits and losses. In this case the benfits of admitting visitors or users to an area or permitting more intensive use of an established area will be offset with losses associated with this use either in quality of experience or in impairment of the environment. It is important to note that carrying capacity will.vary from area to area, from point to point within one area, and even between two similar areas providing similar

36 *
services within one area. Carrying capacity will change for specific recreational areas if change occurs in either management objectives or in- the physical
system.
Knowledge of physical carrying capacity is not as extensive as it is for social carrying capacity. Environmental variables are much greater for physical carrying capacity, and the time required to conduct the studies is much longer (five years or more). It is unlikely that a new area will be able to acquire specific physical carrying capacity data prior to its development. One must hope that the available environmental data is sufficient to gain a fairly knowledgeable basis upon which to make judgments as to use.
Once one has researched the basic environmental data for a given site and determined, to the extent that such knowledge is available, the carrying capacities for the site, one can proceed to analyze the site for potential uses. In some cases activities and values may conflict with one another. Examination of compatible and conflicting activities, amount of space and/or time required for each, and the type of environment desirable for the activity may resolve the conflict.
One form for organizing and analyzing specific recreation activities in terms of value to users, ability of natural areas to support them, and the relative compatibility of each is contained in the appendix. This form is only a guide and must

be tailored for each site.
Any park environment that attempts to accommodate a variety of uses without separation will be open to conflicts that will cause impairment of either physical or social values. Dividing a park area into zones with different uses and management techniques will lessen the tension between perpetuation and use of the area.
Zones should be determined by such considerations as location, size, type and quality of the resources. Special zones could be set up to meet local needs and
conditions, i.e., buffer zones or zones or nodes for interpretive facilities,
37
administration and service facilities. The idea is to place facilities and/or access as far away from delicate areas as possible so that the average visitor would not be inclined to go there.
There are several basic types of zone organization that could be considered in planning an area. Those basic types are illustrated below:
CONCENTRIC RING ZONES
^Xe-reation ccroa^ uoLtb more.
Lvrtevvovoe u tot tom
_ NlcuLu rot (xrejou ux-t-h v^fcVriote^L acceee -to protect habitat om
MANAGEMENT AND USE ZONES

THREE-RING ZONES
NODE AND LINKAGE ZONES (used for very large areas where facilities must be located internally)

Zone management will be very important to the maintenance of zone areas. Decisions must be made as to which ecological communities need complete protection and which are to be managed to preserve a certain stage of succession or a certain species in the biotic conmunity. In the case of preserving important wildlife (particularly applicable on the Mueller Ranch) the maintenance of the natural habitats for these species is essential. The National Park Service has determined as their primary goal for wildlife management, that biotic associations within each
park be maintained or recreated to resemble, as nearly as possible, the conditions
â€¢ 38
that prevailed when the area was first visited by the white man. Some of the
guidelines they prescribe are . . .
39
â€¢ Only plants and animals native to the site should be allowed.
Â© Observable artificiality should be minimized and obscured in every
... 40
possible way.
â€¢ Access (particularly roads) should be rigidly prescribed (one should ration the tourist rather than increase the roads).^
â€¢ Control of public hunting is awkward at best; buffer zones where hunting would be allowed could be established around the critical habitat area (public hunting outside the boundaries of the area often adequately control the herd).

â€¢ Migratory traditions and critical range must be preserved. .
Most parks are not of a size to be self-regulating, but instead contain "ecological islands" needing some interference by qualified managers to ensure perpetuation. The use of zones to provide different types of use and preservation is essential. Efforts must be made to explain to the visitor the importance of these zones from an ecological standpoint and the restrictions on their use. Not only must the public be educated to respect the aims of various zones, but also the planning must be such as to make the division between zones immediately apparent to the visitor. The use of signs may be necessary, particularly for interpretive use, but the design should indicate the use without signs wherever possible. This is more easily accomplished on large areas where buffer areas between zones can be allowed that will gradually introduce the visitor to the change in emphasis between zones.
"A major consideration in zoning is to provide an adequate range of alternative recreation possibilities in areas that will divert unwanted pressures from
42
the most valued park resources." Such diversions should not be accomplished through the use of signs and fences but should instead be done through design of the area. An area where concentrations of visitors is both desirable and admis-sable should be made so attractive that the visitor is reluctant to leave it for

an area less accessible and more delicate. Protection of these areas will still
be necessary (particularly soils and vegetation), but careful design of the area
and arrangement of facilities could result in one portion being occupied and the
43
remainder set aside for viewing from the place of occupation. Control of access
to delicate areas is of utmost importance. A system of decreasing access to internal,
protected areas should be carefully designed. Some areas may need no roads at all
and only limited trail access. The most acceptable arrangement might be to allow
loop or ring roads in outer zones of the site to allow leisurely viewing of the
area. Dead-end spurs could penetrate toward, but not necessarily into, the more
protected areas where road access is deemed absolutely necessary.
All improvements or development for implementing perpetuation and use
objectives should be located so as to minimize conflicts between activities and to
prevent ecological damage. As a general rule, more intensive activities should be
restricted to sites with higher physical carrying capacities and less vulnerable 44
to wear and tear. Q
Location of facilities should be based on ready access and high absorptive potential in terms of physical carrying capacity. The location may be, in an area of lesser grandeur in order to fulfill these requirements.
LOCATION
OF
FACILITIES
AND
ACCESS

Provision of very minimal facilities such as water spigot or chemical'toilet in primitive areas is the source of some contention. On the one hand, such provsion might encourage further use of an area where such use should be discouraged. On the other hand, damage of some of the natural resources of the site might result from the lack of this provision. A rather extreme example, but one which has often occurred, is the case of the backpacker who takes his bar of soap to the nearby stream to bathe after a strenuous day of backpacking to a campsite far removed from the normal facilities offered in the high-use zone. Certainly provisions of this type would be nearly impossible to provide even if it were desired. How can a designer or manager possibly know where any given backpacker might choose to set up camp? It does make one realize that minimal provisions of certain basic facilities, in areas where it is likely that campers might be found (not a designated campground area) would be preferable to harm that might result from lack of such facilities. It is probably better to give up a small
portion of a natural area to such facilities in order for the remaining area to be
â–  . 45
better protected.
Control and education of the walking visitor may be necessary to the ultimate health
of an environment. The creation of trails in the natural environment is considered neces-
â€¢ * â€¢ . â€¢ . * * * â€¢ â€¢* r *
sary to the useof the area. Trails have certain benefits and losses associated them. Concentrated use of trails causes soil compaction and a certain level of destruction of the area immediately surrounding the trail. If an area is large enough and impact is not

V
anticipated to be high, dispersal of visitors without the use of trails may be more suitable. Such conditions are very difficult to predict and require a lot of control. According to the most recent research on areas in Rocky Mountain National Park, the best protection of the environment is a trail placed to go where people want it to, well marked, with measures taken to ensure its use. (This is especially important in areas that are moist and have small plants.) Prescribed trails do not appeal to many people, but if the trail does go where people want to go, it will be used. The use of trails and other facilities to promote nature interpretation are considered essential for the park purpose. Other developments can only be allowed with extreme caution and
constant monitoring.
Â»Â«â–
Perhaps the only way of avoiding pressures for recreation development on sensitive environments is to accommodate unwanted facilities outside the boundaries of the site.
If the surrounding area has adequate zoning and building controls and is able and willing to accommodate such facilities, this would be the most desirable route. If private enterprise would take over the responsibility for the development and operation.of these.faci1i-ties, it would benefit the economy. Some facilities that might be accommodated in this way would be recreational vehicle campgrounds, lodges or motels, and eating facilities.
One aspect of design and management of recreation in the natural environment that has been disregarded in most sources is the aesthetic value of a given area.
It is extremely doubtful that the average, sheep, bird, or bear is concerned with aesthetic values. As long as the various species have a safe, well-balanced
AESTHETIC
VALUES

environment in which they can raise their young, find shelter and food, they may not be greatly concerned with what is going on outside this environment. In fact, the introduction of a road, if it is not used heavily or with great frequency, may be adopted as a migratory route by such animals as elk and deer. Who wouldn't prefer to travel an open road rather than "bushwack" through the woods, when possessed with a huge set of antlers? It is the human who prefers an attractive setting. However, aesthetic and environmental values are closely related. The introduction of a road could cause an unsightly scar in an otherwise natural environment. That same road, if heavily and frequently used, could cause a barrier to a migratory route or, at the very least, cause a disturbance of the surrounding land. Scenic lookouts and other areas or facilities that would draw people must be designed in such a way that aesthetic as well as environmental
considerations will be enhanced. "We must look at every acre of land ... as an
46
aesthetic problem as well as a biological and economic problem."
One method for determining aesthetic values for an area is the National Forest Service's "Visual Management Program." This program deals with visual harmony or disharmony of all parts of the landscape â€”landforms, vegetation, structures, air and water. The concept is based on three factors involved with man's reaction

to his environment: (1) characteristics of the landscape; (2) variety in the landscape; and (3) deviations or degree of contrast in the landscape. Certain variables are considered when determining scenic value--motion, light, atmospheric
conditions, season, distance, observer position, scale, and time. These variables
47
affect how the dominant elements of form, line, color, and texture are seen. It must be remembered that this method for determining aesthetic value of the landscape is only a tool. If it is combined with good field work (good environmental data) it can be very effective.
The importance of educating the public in ecological principles and their application to the environment cannot be underestimated. Interpretive centers and trails on a given site as well as illustrated talks to schools and public interest groups will help give the public a sense of values in regard to the natural environment. It is essential that the general public learn to preserve and protect the environment they enjoy. "No group of professional conservationists, no matter how skillful or dedicated, can implement wise conservation unless a substantial
intellectual minority of the public understands the basic ecological principles and
â€¢ 48 â€¢' â€¢ â€¢
has a sense of stewardship for land and resources: a land ethic."
As an area is developed and pressures for recreation facilities increase,
EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC

how does one determine when to stop the development of the site? Initially facility improvements may not cause great harm to the environment. As visitors increase and development pressures mount, valued environments could gradually disappear. The problem involves politics, economics, society, and environment. The normal justification for a natural environment's existence in the public roles is visitor use of the area. Legislators are more willing to expend public funds on acquisition of natural environments if the general public shows evidence of their approval through visitor use. Legislators tend to think often mistakenly, that the greater the use of an area, the greater the public satisfaction. It is hard to persuade most legislators that recreation should not be developed beyond the capacity of the land to tolerate development, if he is being lobbied for development by the public. The farseeing administrator can do much to minimize the conflict between perpetuation and use of the environment through imaginative educational programs and carefully planned visitor deployment. The ultimate solution
â€¢ 49
is to accommodate unwanted activities outside the site boundaries.

development of hypothesis

History has shown that increasing use of natural environments for recreation has resulted in tremendous deterioration of that natural environment. Any use, no matter how little, will change the ecological balance of a given area. While knowledge of our environment is ever-increasing, it is doubtful if anyone can predict the ultimate effects man will have on the remaining natural areas. Great strides have been made in the last few years to introduce both biological and aesthetic criteria into the design and management processes. Some of the newer approaches to design and management of a natural areaâ€”such as carrying capacity, zones of controlled use and access, and location of facilities--are discussed in the previous section. With increasing pressures from both recreation and preservation factions, a median should be found that is both biologically and aesthetically satisfactory while accommodating most of the recreation demands.
Through careful design and management of a natural area a certain level of recreation use can be integrated compatibly with the natural environment while retaining the long-term, healthy and productive biological; physic^l, and aesthetic attributes of the site. It will be of utmost importance to identify and resolve
conflicts arising between the desirability environment in order to serve both goals.
of human use and perpetuation of the If an acceptable level of compromise
STATEMENT
OF
HYPOTHESIS

?
0 â€¢ *
cannot be reached the control must be with the environment. There will always be more people, but the environment may be destroyed if people continue to use it without thought for the values they are enjoying.
The landscape architect is unlikely to be an expert in all aspects that BIAS
need to be considered before proper use and design can be planned for a natural area.
His role is twofold. As a synthesizer, the landscape architect is able to gather all data from the specialists, compile and analize it, note patterns of conflict and compatibility, and draw conclusions on which to base a plan. In addition, the landscape architect adds an unquantifiable though necessary side to the total process--
the aesthetic evaluation.
The major issue, as well as the subject for discussion in this paper, is the conflict between perpetuation and use of the natural environment. Stemming from
this central issue are several questions that need to be answered.
cW Â°ir
1. What is the allowable range and amount of use on the site in regard to both social and physical carrying capacity?
2. What are the most unique and/or delicate areas on the site that need to be protected?
3. How unique is the site in relationship to the region?
ISSUES
AND
FACTORS
37

4.
What is the anticipated demand for use on the site?
5. How will development of the site affect the surrounding area? How will the surrounding area affect the site?
6. What is the ability of the surrounding area to accommodate unwanted facilities and activities?
7. What'are the particular site issues?
The following is a list of factors that should be analyzed for any site. Together with consideration of the previous list of questions, they will comprise the data upon which to base evaluations and decisions.
Natural factors
Wildlife - inventory, migration patterns, habitat, uniqueness, condition
Topography - slopes, exposure
Climate - sun, wind, rain, snow, temperature
Soils - type, uniqueness, moisture, constraints
Water - ground water, surface water, quality, rights existing and to be acquired, availability
Geology - type, formations, mineral availability and rights, constraints Vegetation - inventory, communities, uniqueness, condition Visual - views, enclosed/exposed, uniqueness, major/minor

Manmade factors, both on site and in the surrounding region
Land use - past and present .
Historical and cultural resources
On-site facilities and access - roads, trails, utilities, structures Regional access and facilities - major routes, nearby camping, activity centers, etc.
The selection of a method for organizing and analyzing data is an essential step in the design process. A number of different methods could be appropriate for any one project. The selection will depend upon the size and scope of the project. Inevitably an adaptation of one or more developed methodologies will be necessary in order to accommodate the specific site conditions involved in a given project.
A list of the more important methodologies is contained in the bibliography.
For the test case, Mueller Ranch, it seemed most appropriate to select a corribination of methodologies that could be adapted to the specific site conditions. The base data will be mapped separately. Through the use of overlays and charts or matrixes a composite map or maps will be generated showing the potentials and constraints on the site. From this point the site will be further evaluated according
to potential zones of use. Essentially this is a combination of McHarg and Carhart
* * . â€¢ â€¢ *
methodologies.
V r
METHODOLOGY
39

the test case-mueller ranch

The Mueller Ranch is located on the west flank of Pikes Peak, 17 miles west
of Colorado Springs in the approximate middle of Teller County. Divide, Colorado,
is one mile to the north, and Cripple Creek, Colorado, is approximately four miles
to the south of the property along Highway 67 (see regional and location maps in
appendix). Pike National Forest and Highway 67 bound the northeastern portion of
the property. Woodrock development, the old Cripple Creek road, and BLM land border
the southeastern half of the property. The three remaining sides of the site are
bounded by subdivisions and ranches. Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument is
two miles away, as the crow flies, or approximately ten miles by road. Woodland
Park, approximately eight miles away, is the fastest-growing and most highly
50
developed population center in Teller County.
The total property occupies 11,961.419 acres (19.14 square miles) which, for purchasing purposes, has been divided into three contiguous parcels. In addition, the north ranch has 400 acres of leased in holdings making the total package
â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ . â€¢ v
51
12,361.419 acres. The property occupies approximately half of Townships 13 and 14 South, Range 70 West.
The north ranch, occupying 6,339 acres of land plus the 400 acres of leased in holdings, is made up of steep terrain, gentler rolling hillsides, and open meadows. Some magnificent views are available from various portions of the
LOCATION
SIZE
DESCRIPTION

property. It also contains four sites with habitable structures, barns and corrals, as well as 14 stock ponds and 11 developed springs. The head waters of Hay Creek are found in the center of this portion of the ranch as well as tributaries of Rule and Twin Creeks. The highest point on the property is also found on the north ranch--the top of Grouse Mountain, 9,843 feet. The north ranch is to be purchased in 1979 by the State of Colorado for use as a state park.
The south ranch is much more rugged in terrain, breaking into granite outcrops and steep forested canyon walls that were formed by Fourmile Creek and its tributaries. Several dramatic overlooks are available on this portion of the property.
The 4,982-acre parcel is a prime habitat for such animals as big horn sheep, elk, black bear, and deer, to name just a few. This portion of the property has recently been purchased by Colorado as a state wildlife area.
The 640-acre parcel which includes Dome Rock makes up the third portion of the project site.. It is inmediately adjacent to the south ranch on the west. The lowest point (8200') on the property is found in this section, where Fourmile Creek leaves the boundaries of the site. Dome Rock itself rises abruptly to an elevation of 9,044 feet above thecreek valley. This abrupt rise plus the rosy hue of its barren top make Dome Rock stand out against the higher surrounding forest lands. Dome Rock is considered to be the pivot point around which a four-square-mile area stretches

52 â€¢
to make up the key big horn sheep management area. This area is presently being acquired through the Nature Conservancy. It will be turned over to the Division of Wildlife (probably in 1981 or 1982) after certain management restrictions have been placed on the deed.
The Mueller Ranch is unique to the surrounding area. Dome Rock is a monument known for miles around. The good condition of the property also makes it unique. It represents a large piece of land which has, hopefully, been kept out of the hands of developers. Perhaps the most notable feature of the site is the presence of numbers of different wildlife species. Since use has been controlled for
r.
a number of years, the site tends to function as an escape from outside recreation
and development activities as well as from severe early storms on Pikes Peak. Some
of the wildlife species such as blue grouse, do not exist, in the numbers to be
53
found on the property, anywhere else around.
environment represented by Mueller Ranch. A preliminary review of current soil data reveals that most of the property will be quite delicate. The open meadows
â€¢ â€¢Â«â€œ â€¢ #* " * â€¢ * gQ ' . # *
will be particularly susceptible to damage, especially the wet areas. The extreme steepness of much of the property will make access and maintenance difficult, though perhaps this is a desirable feature.
UNIQUE
FEATURES
SITE
SPECIFIC
PROBLEMS

Encroachment of subdivisions on three sides of the property has already caused some problems. Problems from trespassing, poaching, and harassment of animals by wandering dogs is minimal at present but could grow larger as development increases.
The possible presence of uranium on the Dome Rock section could also cause some problems. These mineral rights are in the hands of the State Land Board.
The land board is legally obligated to develop such rights for the monetary gain of the state. The Nature Conservancy is trying to find a way of effecting a trade of mineral rights on the Dome Rock section, but the question has not yet been resfilved.^
One item that could cause major repercussions is the lack of any adjudicated water rights on the property. It will be important to obtain minimum stream flow adjudication, particularly on Fourmile Creek,^ to ensure the preservation of the riparian habitat.
Whether or not hunting will be allowed on the property is a particularly controversial issue. There are strong advocates on both sides of the issue, and the Division of Wi.ldlife tends to be caught in the middle. On the one hand, the division is heavily funded by licensing fees. On the other hand, its prime aim is the protection and production of wildlife and their habitats.

One issue which has not been mentioned before is the problem of combining a state park with a state wildlife area. For the purposes of the first part of this study, the property is being regarded as one entity. The boundary that exists between the north and south ranches, which will be the jurisdictional boundary between the state park and the state wildlife areas, is an artificial one. No one is going to tell an elk, or indeed a visitor, that he can't cross this boundary.
The somewhat stormy history of relations between the two state divisions would indicate that there may be some problems in managing the two areas jointly. Somehow a spirit of cooperation must be fostered or the success of the two areas may be in jeopardy.
The goals for the Mueller Ranch project are to: (1) find a concept or con- GOALS
AND
cepts for future planning of Mueller Ranch--a kind of "plan for a plan"; and (2) select OBJECTIVES and design, in detail, one or more smaller portions of Mueller Ranch to reflect the parameters set forth in the hypothesis. , .
' The objectives for this goal are: â€˜ ' â€˜ ' '
1. Gathering and documenting (graphically or otherwise) all available base data (region and site specific).
2. Analyzing the base data.

3. Identifying opportunities and constraints according to the parameters set forth by the thesis hypothesis.
4. Producing master concept or concepts.
5. Selecting site for detailed design that would most nearly reflect thesis project parameters.
6. Analyzing data and producing concepts and design for the detailed site.
7. Working drawings, where necessary, and sketches illustrating the design concept for the detailed site.
The product will be an 8^-inch by 11-inch, or 8^-inch by 14-inch document including all the relevant data, designs and conclusions generated by this project.
In addition, presentation size graphics will be assembled for the use of the Division of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation and the Division of Wildlife, if they so desire.
Data will be mapped and analyzed, opportunities and constraints identified, and a master concept generated by the end of March. Selection and design of a detailed site will be finished and the total packaged by either the end of May or, if sufficient data is not available, by September. (See Critical Path Diagram in the appendix.) â–  ' â€¢
SCOPE
OF
WORK

appendix

â– ReXcc-Vioe cxoailxb* W-k^ of similar Â£.XpejriÂ«nee. eVeevob-ero
Activatm "Pro pordi on cr? Ui&Uront, desiri r>c\ cxc-H oitc\ tAmi muMrv. Land area nee^oi red per user- i?elaiiue qt;ali-lc| of e. x perieÂ»\ c.e area. Tqpe, decree- 4-seriocftme-^s. of U ser i m pox-f EX+eA'c. or com pa-Vibi 1 i o r CO r\f i i of VJ i W 04+16.0 LÂ»^es . â– pr'u=>r\$f<4 +o be a.e-s.vqned . -fco cxefioiVu^
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
O XW\ p>i n<^ .Tr'od i-er on Caw^en
- Bolo'c-CoovyVt'^ â€™Pi.cunic.V rp H'lPlnOj K-onsc Sex ok. â– Ri dLi nc^ - â€¢
K UaVore â€¢
Qui d-ed. N ecdo rc. LOaA ks \l)k5Wobilc Â£ i ^Kfstel ncj < â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ .*â€¢ . â€¢ - - .
'46Te: \ nd.ic.ccVe-tV\t~ee Veoe\s of use - Scpd, rned'comx4_ Yieoasc^- and.-sÂ»V\oo\.d. Se ded ir>ed.-Â£or eccc-K eccdtoid^.
AnalqsAeborrn -for tWe- soaAocx-Hon of specific necre-aVion oloHol La
â– terms o-f drViexr Ocxloe. -bo os^er-s., -bWe. oOioblV^ o

LEGEND
GIONAL MAP

General Committee: . â€¢
Duane Blossom - L.A., Director of the landscape architecture program, UCD
Dan Young - L.A. and Architect, Professor of landscape architecture, UCD
Tom Haldeman - L.A. , part-time instructor in landscape architecture, UCD, and practicing L.A.
Dave Hill - planner, professor in the planning department, UCD, member of the Land Use Commission
Jane Ries - practicing L.A., board member of the Nature Conservancy
Bob Carlson - L.A., head of park planning for the Division of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Cathy Craig - former state park ranger, presently District Wildlife Manager
(responsible for developing the management plan for Mueller south ranch)
%
c <
THESIS
COMMITTEE
*
Working Committee:
Duane Blossom Dan Young Bob Carlson
Cathy Craig - for first phase if logistics work out?
50

footnotes

1. National Forest Service, Search for Solitude: Our Wilderness Heritage (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973), p. 3. â€”
2. Ibid., p. 4.
3. Richard R. Forster, Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks: Reconciling Perpetuation and Use (Switzerland"! IUCN, 1973), p. IT.
4. Ibid. ^
5. Susan L. Falder, "Thinking Like a Mountain: A Biographical Study of Aldo Leopold," Forest History, Vol. 17, No. 1 (April, 1973), p. 19.
â€¢ i
6. Forster, Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks, p. 19.
7. Ibid., pp. 18-19.
8. Aldo Leopold, "Conservation Economics," Journal of Forestry, Vol. XXXII, No. 5, quoted in Ben H. Thompson, "A Wilderness Use Technique," Fauna of the National Parks of the United States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1935), p. 39.
9. Forster, Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks, p. 19.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., p. 8.
12. Ibid., p. 70.
13. Steve Dietemeyer, National Forest Service, Pikes Peak Region, January 22, 1979. Interview.
14. Colorado Division of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation, The Evolution of the Colorado State Parks System (Denver: typed, 1974 or 1975), p. 1.
15. Ibid., p. 2.
16. Ibid., p. 3.
51

V
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Colorado Division of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Colorado State Parks--A Plan for 1975-1980 (Denver: Xerox, 1975), p. 3.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid., p, 12.
22. Ibid., p. 13.
23. Ibid., p. 10.
24. LeRoy R. Hafen, Ann W. Hafen, Colorado: A Story of the State and Its People (Denver, Colo.: Old West Publishing Co., 1952), p. 306.
25. Ibid., p. 307.
26. Ibid.
October 13, 1978. Interview.
28. Ibid.
29. Laura T. Mecum, Pikes Peak: Yesterday and Today (Colorado: Gowdy Printing and Engraving Co., 1926), p. 39.
30. Sidney Shafroth, David Sumner, The Mueller Ranch: A Proposal from the Nature Conservancy (Denver: The Nature Conservancy, Summer 1978).
31. Perry J. Brown, Beverly L. Driver, George H. Stankey, "Human Behavioral Science and Recreation Management" (XVI IUFRO World Conference, June, 1976), p. 54.
32. Forster, Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks, p. 40.
52

33. R. Burnell Held, Stanley Brickler, Arthur T. Wilcox, A Study to Develop Practical Techniques for Determining Carrying Capacity of Natural Areas in the National Park Service (Estes Park, Colo.: CSU and The Center for Research and Education, November, 1969), p. 4.
34. Ibid., p. a.
35. Ibid., p. 5.
36. Ibid. , p. 7.
37. Forster, Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks, p. 49.
38. Wildlife Management in the National Parks, by A. Starker Leopold, Chairman, Advisory Board on Wildlife Management (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, March, 1963), p. 94.
39. Ibid., p. 8.
40. Ibid.
41. " Ibid., p. 9.
42. Forster, Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks, p. 58.
43. Ibid., p. 61.
44. Ibid., p. 40.
45. Burnell, et al., Determining Carrying Capacity, p. 11.
46. William L. Webb, "Public Use of Forest Wildlife: Quantity and Quality Consideration,"
Journal of Forestry, Vol. 66, No. 2 (February, 1968), p. 108.
47. National Forest Service, National Forest Landscape Management, Vol. I (summary of total).
48. Webb, "Public Use of Forest Wildlife," p. 110.
49. Forster, Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks, p. 41.

V
50. Ge11er County OEDF Committee, Overall Economic Development Program, Teller County, Co.,
Vol. I (December, 1977), pp. 9 and 10.
51. Department of Natural Resources, Mueller Ranch files, unnamed documents showing surface lots and mineral interests for Quarter Circle M Ranch.
52. Frank Colley, retired manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Springs, Colorado, January 27, 1979. Taped interview.
53. Ibid.
54. Betty Willard, professor, Colorado School of Mines, advisor to Mueller Ranch Inventory Committee, Golden, Colorado, January, 1979. Phone interview.
55. Sidney Shafroth, Director, Regional Office, Nature Conservancy (Denver: January, 1979).
56. Jill Croft, David Harrison, "Water Rights Associated With and in the Vicinity of the Mueller Ranch" (Boulder, Colo.: Memo from law offices of Moses, Wittenmyer, Harris and Woodruff,
" P.C., November 21 , 1977).
57. Burnell, et al., Determining Carrying Capacity, p. 43.
54

o
bibliography

BOOKS, PERIODICALS, DOCUMENTS, REPORTS
Brown, Perry J.; Driver, Beverly L.; Stankey, George H. "Human Behavioral Science and Recreation Management," p. 953-63, XVI IUFRO World Conference, June, 1976.
Carhart, Arthur J. America's Wildlands. Harrisburg, Pa.: Telegraph Press, 1961.
Colorado Department of Natural Resources Files, Description of Surface Lots and Mineral Interests for Quarter Circle M Ranch.
Colorado Division of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation. Colorado State Parks--A Plan for 1975-1980. Denver, Co.: Xerox copy, 1975.
__________. The Evolution of the Colorado State Parks System. Denver, Co.: Xeroxed, 1974 or 1975.
Colorado Geological Survey. "Summary Report of the Geology and Mineral Potential of the Quarter Circle M Ranch." Denver, Co.: Typewritten, March 29, 1978.
Croft, Jill; Harrison, David. "Water Rights Associated With and in the Vicinity of the Mueller Ranch." Boulder, Co.: Typed memo from law offices of Moses, Wittemyer, Harris and Woodruff, P.C., November 21, 1977.
Flader, Susan L. "Thinking Like a Mountain: A Biographical Study of Aldo Leopold." Forest History, Vol. 17, No. 1 (April 1973), 15-28.
Forster, Richard R. Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks: Reconciling Perpetuation and Use. Morges, Switzerland: IUCN, 1973.
"Guidelines for Inventory and Designation of Colorado Natural Areas." Denver, Co.: Typed draft, April 13, 1978.
Hafen, LeRoy R.; Hafen, Ann W. Colorado: A Story of the State and Its People. Denver, Co.:
Old West Publishing Co., 1952T
Held, R. Burnell; Brickler, Stanley; Wilcox, Arthur T. A Study to Develop Practical Techniques for Determining Carrying Capacity of Natural Areas in the National Park Service. Estes Park, Co.: CSU and The Center for Research and Education, November 15, 1969.

Mecum, Laura T. Pikes Peak: Yesterday and Today. Colorado: Gowdy Printing and Engraving Co.,
1926.
Mueller, Eva; Gurin, Gerald. QRRRC Study Report.20, Participation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors
Affecting Demand Among American Adults. Washington,'D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962.
National Forest Service. The Forest Service Roles in Outdoor Recreation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, January, 1978.
__________. Search for Solitude: Our Wilderness Heritage. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, June, 1974.
National Park Service. Final Master Plan for Rocky Mountain National Park. Denver, Co.: NPS, 1976.
__________. "Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument Statement for Management." Florissant,
Co.: Typewritten, 1976.
Newton, Norman T. "100 Years of Landscape Architecture." Landscape Architecture, July 1965.
Prieviews, Inc. (realtors). Mueller Ranch. 1978 (a sales brochure).
Shafroth, Sidney; Sumner, David. The Mueller Ranch: A Proposal from the Nature Conservancy.
Denver, Co.: The Nature Conservancy, Summer, 1978.
Teller County O.E.D.P. Committee. Overall Economic Development Program, Teller County Co.
Vol. I. December, 1977.
Thompson, Ben H. "A Wilderness Use Technique." Fauna of the National Parks of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1935, 39-46.
United States Soil Conservation Service, Colorado Range Site Descriptors #222 and 241, August, 1975.
Webb, William L. "Public Use of Forest Wildlife: Quantity and Quality Considerations." Journal of Forestry, Vol. 66, No. 2. February, 1968, 106-110.
Wildland Research Center. QRRRC Study Report 3; Wilderness and Recreation--A Report on Resources, Values, and Problems. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962.

V
Wildlife Management in the National Parks, by A. Starker Leopold, Chairman, Advisory Board on Wildlife Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 4, 1963.
Wolfe, Donald H. Wildlife for Tomorrow. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, January, 1972.
Wright, George M. "Men and Mammals in Joint Occupation of National Parks." Fauna of the
National Park Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1935, 13-38.
METHODOLOGIES
C
Paulson, Merlyn J. "Visual Information System for Low Cost Terrain Analysis." Landscape Architecture Louisville, Kentucky: ASLA, May, 1978, pp. 233-235 (a computer technique).
Carhart, Arthur H. Planning for America's Wildlands. Harrisburg, Pa.: The Telegraph Press, 1961.
p.
Three Approaches to Environmental Resource Analysis. By Landscape Architecture Research Office,
Harvard University (Boston, Mass.: November, 1967). (Describes and summarizes the methodologies of G. Angus Hills, Phillip H. Lewis, and Ian L. McHarg.)
Ian L. McHarg. Design With Nature. Garden City, N.Y.: The Natural History Press, 1969.
National Forest Service. National Forest Landscape Management. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973-1977 (a series of volumes).
American Society of Landscape Architecture. Landscape Architecture Technical Information Series,
Vol. I, No. 2. Washington, D.C.: ASLA,^0une 1978. (Information and References for "Visual Resource Management.")
INTERVIEWS
Caudill, Sam. Director, Board of Colorado Division of Wildlife, Aspen, Colorado, phone interview, 19 January 1979.
57

Colley, Frank. Retired District Wildlife Manaqer, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Springs, Colorado, taped interview, 27 January 1979.
Craig, Cathy. District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Cripple Creek, Colorado,
27 January 1979.
Dietemeyer, Steve. District Ranger, Pikes Peak Region National Forest Service, Colorado Springs, Colorado, phone interview, 22 January, 1979.
Ellett, Larry. Foreman, Mueller Ranch, Divide, Colorado, interview and guided tour, October, 1978.
19 January 1979.
Prenslow, Ed. Regional Director, Division of Wildlife, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 13 October 1978.
SanBorn, Roger. Director, Colorado Outdoor Education Center, Florissant, Colorado, 16 November 1978.
Shafroth, Sidney. Director, Regional Office of the Nature Conservancy, Denver, Colorado, interview, 17 October 1978 and January, 1979.
Willard, Betty. Professor, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, Advisor to Mueller Ranch Inventory Committee, phone interview, January, 1979.
Winternitz, Barbara. Professor, Colorado College, Colorado Springs, Colorado (in charge of Mueller Ranch inventory for the Nature Conservancy), many interviews from October through January,
1978 and 1979. ^
MAPS
Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments. "Constraints to Growth - Teller County" Map. January, 1973.

.
\
...."â–  \ ......
Teller County SUv,-.v
U.S. Geological Survey
Wobus, Epis & Scott. Gt,
Divide, Colorado Cripple Creek North Cripple Creek South Florissant Pikes Peak
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Land Use Map - Teller County, January ) 73.
Â«, General Soil Map - Teller County, January 1972 U.S. Forest Service
Pike National Forest, 1970.
Travel Map, Pike National Forest, 1970.

Full Text

PAGE 1

. . ' . . A+P LD 1190 A77 1979 838 . . . ' i ..... . . . . -'Or\JMENTAI r . . .d C. I '10 < â€¢ I\ AURARIA LIBRARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AURARIA LIBRARY . ENVIRONMENTAL .. . LIBRARY . GAIL BARRY Thesis Candidate Department of Landscape Architecture School :of Environmental Design Uniyersity of Colorado at Denver : . Denver, Colorado February 5, 1979 '

PAGE 2

---TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION (1) Thesis Topic (l); Definition of Tenns (2), General Assumptions (2), Intent of _ Paper ( 3) . HISTORY (4) National Park and Forest Services (4) Original Goals and Policies (4), History and Development (5), Current Goals and Policies (9) Colorado D)vision of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation (12) History (13), Definitions (15), Goals and Policies (15) Colorado Division of Wildlife (17) History (17), Current Policy (19), Goals (19) . Mueller Ranch (20) History (20), Current Use and Development (21) RECENT APPROACHES TO DESIGN A N D MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL AREA S (24). Carrying Capacity (24), Man&'gement and Use Zones (27), Location ofFacilities and Access (31), Aesthetic Values (32),Education of the Public (34) DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESIS (36) Statement of Hypothesis (36), Bias (37), Issues."and Factors (37)7 Methodology (39) THE TEST C ASE RANCH ( 40) . Location (40)", .Size ( 40), Description (40), Unique Features (42), Site Specific Problems (42), Goals and Objectives (44), Scope of Work. (45) 0 i;

PAGE 3

APPENDIX (46) . _Form for Organizing .Speci.fic Recreation Activities (46) Regional Map (47) Location Map (48) . . Path Diagram (49) Thesis Committee (50) fOOTNOTES (51 ) BIBLIOGRAPHY (55) ... ' Books, Peri odi ca 1 s, Documents, Reports (55) ' ' Meth odo 1 o g _ i es ( 5 7) Interviews (57) Maps (58) -... ... . ' .. -. . . . iii

PAGE 4

.. . . . . I ' 0 â€¢ â€¢â€¢ . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... .. . . . . . . : . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . â€¢ 4 â€¢â€¢ . . . . . . . . . -. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ : â€¢â€¢ â€¢-:., â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ I â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ . .. . .... . . . " . . . .; . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . i ntrOductiori . . . . . . ..â€¢.. G.

PAGE 5

With the disappearance of the last American geographic frontiers (Alaska is a the remaining natural environment has become more precious. Where else can we go to appreciate what the world might have been like before we came? How else can we escape increased urbanizing pressures into natural solitude and beauty if we 'do not take steps to preserve the natural environment? Recreation in these remaining natural areas must be carefully planned . with a view toward future generation ' s . . For nearly a . century various agencies in the United Stat'es havl:! been faced with the problem of integrating recreation and the natural environment. Atten to the increasing demands for. recreation has often led to the despoilation . . . . of natural areas. On the other hand, 'total devotion to preservation of natural areas results in a decrease . in the quality of recreation, or in no. recreation at all. Is it possible for the natural environment to be open to public recreation and yet remain unspoi'led? Are. the separate goals of preservatio. n and recreation CC?mpa ti b 1 e . ? Clearly any human in a natural area causes a certain amount of alteration of the natural state. Most natural environments possess some tolerance fo.r disturbance before they are i rrepa rab ly damaged. The idea 1 is to permit recreation without approaching the level of irreparable damage. However, the THESIS TOPIC 1 .

PAGE 6

type, kind, and aniount of recreation activity which can be permit .ted without . . is the proper subject of considerable research . .. : Designing for recreation in the natural environment 1nvolves two sepa\ate subjects: recreation and natura 1 environment. I o its brQades t sense : recreation .. can be any actiyity which offers a ctiange from man.'s normal or day-to-day pursuits . . In this paper, re creation is limited to outdoor activities but will. encompass both active etc.) passive (sitting, viewin .g,' P . i .cnicking, etcJ types. The na.tural environment as used in this paper means any area where man's interference has not been.so great as to destroy or seriously impair the natural integrity or character of the environment. Such areas might range from the com. . pletely untouched to those where man has dominated a portion of thesite but has not seriously impaired the major a rea. For the of this thesis it will be assumed that any site being con s ide red w i 11 : . â€¢ be of interest to the public; 1 be in.demand for: both its aesthetic and r.ecreation potentials; 1 be subject to some damage thr:ough use . ; and 1 have valued environmental properties that neen protection from use. â€¢.. ,. DE FIN IT ION OF TERMS GENERAL ASSUMPTION { â€¢ 2.

PAGE 7

This paper examines past and.current trends and philosophies regarqing recreation in the natural environment. It also attempts to determine an acceptable approach to design that will enable preservation of natural areas while accommodatJng quality recreation activity. Particular attention will be given to the lands presently being acquired by Colorado for a combined State Park and Wildlife Area--the Mueller Ranch. The concept framework developed in this paper will applied to that site specific case. ') INTENT OF THE PAPER ' r 3 -

PAGE 8

. r . â€¢. . . . . . . . history . . .

PAGE 9

Though man has always been influenced by the natural it was not until the latter 1800s that the United States began to consider the public value of preserving and enhancing the natural environment for the .future. In 1864, Yosemite (in California) was established as the first state park. 1871 saw the establishment' of. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, arid oy the 1880s each state had .create. d sorre sort of legal protection forwildlife. In 1872, Yellowstone (in l lyoming) was created as the first national park. By the turn of.the century precedent had been set for the of two major federal agencies which would have far-reaching effects on the preservation, conservation and ' 'recreation a 1 use of natura 1 en vi ronrnents. The National Forest Service (under the Department of Agriculture) was created in 1905, Teddy Roosevel .t's administration. The objective, according to Roosevelt, was not to "lock up" the forests but to "consider how .best to corri>ine use with preservation."1 The Forest began with the idea of preserving forest lands primarily as wilderness--to manage and maintain them indefinitely for their unusual and unique values. 2 In 1916, the National Park Service was created under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. -ihe e .xpressed policy was orie of protection. "Every duty of the.service was to be subordinate to preserving the parks for . NATIONAL PARK AND FOREST SERVICES 0 ri gin a 1 Goals and Policies . ( 4

PAGE 10

posteri.ty in essentially their state."3 This concept was beset .. with prob from its very beginning. \{ith increased mechanization, the national public had more leisure time and the means (the car and train) to get tb areas previously in "the Public recreation needs demanded to be fulfilled. As a result, . . . policies were issued establishing the public's right to enjoy parks in a manner to suit "individual taste." Parks were to be made "accessible by any rreans prac-ticable," and accomroodations and entertainment were tq be afforded . . The whole of this was to be promoted by such groups as the Chamber of Commerce, various tour-. t b d . tâ€¢ 4 1s ureaus an organ1za 1ons . . , Two conflicting policies--preservation and recreation--had thus been estab)ished for the National Park Service. In addition to the problems caused by conflicting policies, the NPS was beset with a lack of financial and political backing. The NPS had to find some means of creating income and establishing public and political support. The obvious route was the . establishment of facilities that would cater to public demands for recreation. As a result of the NPS policies on recreation, the National Forest Seryice realized they would have to develop means for pubJic recreation on th_eir lands in order to maintain control over _prime areas. (These prime lands were coveted by the Department of the Interior for inclusion in the national His tory and . e.. 5

PAGE 11

park system.) Public hunting and fishing, as well as campgrounds, homesites, .. trails and the like were created in response to this need. T .here .followed decades of political maneuvering between the Departments of the Interior Agriculture for control of recreation lands. Anything the National Forest Service could do. ' to demonstrate its potential for recreation, compatible with its economic uses, would help it to maintain control over prime lands coveted by the Park Service.5 During the early part of the 20th century another development that had an effect of recreation activity in natural areas. The National Park Service conc 'luded that the public was not as interested in wonderful scenery as it was in intensive recreation opportunity. Since the NPS had never intended to provide all the recreation demanded by the public, another agency was needed . to develop further recreation opportunities. In 1921, the states. convened for the first National Conference on State Parks. The NPS officials thought the state parks could absorb some of the pressure for intensive recreation, leaving:-ythe NPS more free to.pursue their original gear of preserving the scenic wonders 'of:the nation for the purpose of "rest, inspiration, knowledge, and enjoyment through contact with nature.'! 6 A period of rapid growth of state parks followed this ffrst conference. 6

PAGE 12

. With the advent of the great depression, in the 1930s, and the need t . o create jobs . f?r the masses of unemployed, a brief period of experimentation .. in design . and development of natural areas took place. The sheer volume of workby groups such as the Civilian Conservation Corps, created advances in all levels of park develop ment. During this. brief period plans had to be approved by engineers, landscape architects; and biologists. This was the only period of time, until .recently, that environmental approach (using physical/biological criteria to : determine, in part, the use of an area) gained recognition. Otherwise the environmental approach to planning was largely resisted. ': The end of World War II brought T)ew waves of visitors wi th more modern standards of comfort and more sophisticated ways of amusin' g thenis.elves. Park and . . recreation areas were replanned and facilities expanded in an attempt to accommodate . . increasing needs and numbers of people. The plans lacked proper consideration for ecology as well as contingency measures for dealing with visitor saturation of .. 7 areas. " It to appear that the volume of people who wanted t . in all the varying types of outdoor recreation could not be -by the existing syste.m. Pressures were increasing while the na.tural environment was being depleted. During this long period of recreation development, there were concerned t,.. . . . \ ... ..... _ 7

PAGE 13

individuals whb wrote about the prbblems inherept in developing recre-. . ... . . ation in the . natural : e . nvironment. Men such as John t 1uir (originator of the . Sierra Club, George Wright, Robert Marshall, and, perhaps most. notable, Leopold pioneered the roadless wilderness preservation system) expressed their concern for the directions being taken by natural resources In 1934, Leopold wrote that "The salient geographic character of outdoor recreation, . . my mind, is that recreationaluse is self-destructive. The more people are concentrated on a given area, the less is the chance of their finding they seek " ." 8 the influence of these individuals would not be felt unti-l later in the century. :sy the end of the 1950s the National "Park Service, as well . as other public agencies responsible for recreation in the natural environment, were gradually seeing a disintegration of the very features they had originally intended to preserve and enhance. Yellowstone, Glacier and Rocky Mountain National Parks were suffering varying states .of stress caused by too muGh recreation and not enough concern for the en"virqnrnent. By the " 1960s, the dimensions of the problem became readily apparent. . . . Because of too many _ people, too much recreat1on, and too little environmental Rlanning, natural environments were being subject to "irreparable dama.ge while undergoing rapid and f11ndarnental changes in both ( .<;) 8

PAGE 14

' 9 ecology and perpetual character." Two groups were emerging to strongly question the en vi ronmenta 1 policies of public agencies with regard to recreation. The first group, the 'scientists, had watched their areas of investigation (the ecological units), gradually being disrupted by converging numbers of people. The second group was made up of those people who valued natural environments for the wilderness afforded. " Nat. ional Parks" and other natural environments "were becoming urbanized like everything else and would no longer offer a retreat from urban environm ents that increasingly placed more restrictions on the individual and his freedom bf movem ent and Pressure was applied to legislatures and public recreation agencies. Evaluation of past trends in recreation planning resulted in new policies and goals. In 1964 and 1966 two separate policy statements were written relating to National Park Service's future attitude toward recreation in the natural environment. Though these are specifically aimed toward the NPS, they well to agencies who deal with in the natural envirQnment. The. national parks are primarily, and should remain, natural areas for enjoyment of men and other animals, and should be managed with purpose in mind . . Man, the visitor, must be looked upon as an introduced . . Current Goals and Policies 9

PAGE 15

. , species in the ecosystem of parks, capable of fering with natural processes. Visitors must be accommodated and developments planned in such a way that overall management of the parks will result in preservation of the unique natural features and habitat.. . 11 In 1966, the NPS staff prepared the following statement on policy: The key to our planning is implicit in the foregoing Though parklands are of many types, our attitude toward them stems largely from one poinf of view: . . these lands attract people because of values which derive from the lands themselves . . It is these values which we use. It follows that the nature of the land normally should dictate the use. In natural ... areas, this use is a simple viewi"ng of the land qualities. they evoke. In recreational areas, the use is an activity appropriate with the environment. 12 ' r In 1964, the National Hilderness Preservation System was created stating .. that the National Forests were to remain forever natura1 except for special pro visions allowing certain restricted commercial uses. The Forest Service continues with a multi-use system regarding the five resources under its tion timber, forage, wildlife, and recreation) concept that these resoJrces will be managed at a of supply as high as be with out harming the lands ability to produce. Oyerlying these two concepts is cine of dominant use. Whichever resource is most appropriate to a area will ( . Go. . . \ 10

PAGE 16

. be the dominant one. Concentrated areas of developed recreation' will continue to be maintained, but increased emphas-is is bein g p laced on dispersing .recreation throughout the forest and rangelands. This recreation is oriented toward a wildland experience.13 One proceeds along r elatively rough trails, enci .ng nature in as natural a setting as possible. Though the ' re . are restrictions upon uses within the forest, these restrictions are less in evidence than . in the . . Natio"nal Parks. In hunting, fishing, and wood-gather1 .ng are allowed, within certain limits. The National Forest Service is presently the largest employer of. land_ scape architects. Their emphasis on a . visual management program means that most of their operations are determined ; at least in part, by the aesthetic. values now placed upon them. The Forest Service has a certain advantage over other organizations that dea l with recreation in natural areas. This is th e sheer size and m?gnitude of its lands . Qispersion of use wit h9ut har m u l effect on the environment is more easily accomplished 'o"n mi}lions of acres in one block than it ;-s on thousands or hundreds of acres assuming the r e is access . . Management of these lands is, of course, more difficult. . . (l -11

PAGE 17

. . The National Forest and Park Services have had to deal with the conflict . . .. .. between perpetuation and use of the environment longer than a .ny other agencies. Constant public and political pressures have caused them to develop recreation to such a degree that irreparable damage has occurred on some of their lands. Recent policies have turned the direction of these agencies toward one more com-patible with perpetuation of the environment. The conflict between use and perpetuation of the environment still exists, and the dilemma ultimately remains unsolved. Colorado, being a particularly scenic state, has had problems to face in dealing with recreation in the natural environment. Nearly 36 percent Colorado's land area is federally owned. The bulk of this land is managed by the National Forest and Park Services. Most of this land was acquired and developed early in the 20th century. In addition to the federa . l land holdings, several municipalities h .ad highly developed park systems by the : 1930s. Denver a .nd Boulder also had a : system of mountain parks, addh g to the recreational opportunities in the natural environment. With such a large portion of the land . . . area in the hands of federal agencies and the development of good park systems, Colorado did not feel the need to create a state system until the 1950s, years behind such developments .in other states. .... COLORADO DIVISION OF STATE PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION .' \) 12

PAGE 18

Though some. attempts had been made to set up a State Park and Recreation ... Board earlier in the century, it was not until 1957 that_'a board actually suc-ceeded in becoming a permanent state agency. Among i"ts ?ther goals the park and recreation board was t . o find ways to make Colorado "Tops in the Nation for Outdoor Recreation."14 From the outset the State Park and Recreation Board had trouble acquiring lands from private sources. As long as it was a matte . r of trarsferring property, already in the public dormin, to a park or recreation use the State Le'gislatur:e would approve. (Cherry Creek, Antero and Vega State Recreation Areas were all acqUired in this way.) When it came to expending public funds to acquire private lands and add them to the public land rolls, the Legislature and the general public prates ted. It was not until June 1960 that the first tract of land was pur chased by the state for park purposes. This 200-acre tract,. called "The Ranch," became the n _uc_leus for the present 9000-acre Golden ) Gate _ State Park ;15 This park became the first area planned with the intention of preserving the natural en vi ronmen t. In parks operation-was merged with the and Fish Department. Problems with this _ merger were evident from the outset . . While the 0 His tory . 13

PAGE 19

basic orientation of the two departrrents was rather dif-ferent, the primary di ffi-.. . . ' . . ... .. culty was money. Members of the hunting and fishing contingency maintained that rronies from the ' _ 'garre cash fund" were supporting some of the park activitie-s. This was . 16 . . expressly forb'idden _ under state and federal law. In 1972, the two departments were separated, establishing wha t are now called the Colorado D'ivision.'of.Wildlife and Colorado D1vision of State Parks ana Outdoor Recreation. The. Division of Parks and Outdoor Re-creation the-responsibility for 25 "State Recreation Areas" including three state parks. It is impo\tant to note that the Division of and Outdoor Recreation intends recreation areas to. be primarily developed for recreation (as their designation would indicate) while parks would be oriented toward scenic and environrrental preservation. In sorre cases the Legjslature has designated as a state park, an area that is by function a recreation area. The Division of Parks and Outdoor Rec-reation was charged with manQging "the public use of_ state anq recreation areas to ensL, e qu?l i.ty outdoor recre:. ational public safe_ty-with minimal advers e .cHfecton theerivironrrent. ,l? It was aho responsible for planning and development of a state park :.and recreation system that would 11pre.serve and in.terpre:t scenic natura) environ-. ' unique to or of Colorado and to develop outdoor recreation 14

PAGE 20

lands, waters, trails and facilities."18 These charges represent.conf1icting goals very to those that have beset the National Park Service. Thus the dilemma regarding use vs. perpetuation of the natural environment arises again. to the 1975-80 Plan :for Colorado State Parks,. a state !.park is . . . a large,state-' owned, area "having outstanding scenic an. d natural qua .lities, and often significant archaelogical, ecological, geological and sci-. . . enti fi c . va l ues" that requi.re preservation of the area for the enjoyment; .education, and inspfration of residents and visitors>19 A state recreation are a is a large "scenically attractive land and water area offering a broad range of outdoor recr'ation opportunities."20 The long-range goal, according to the 1975-80 plan, is to develop a balanced system of state parks will preserve and interpret scenic natural areas (often of scientific value) which are either typically or uniquely representative of diverse environments in Colorado.21 The state park system is meant . . to complement, not duplicate, those scenic:\ and natural areas already represented â€¢ 1_.1 â€¢ â€¢ by federal ownership. Park land should. either be unique in its resol,lrces or the bes.t exa . mple of a given type of area to be found in Colorado. The Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation sees its role with regard to as being quite s imil ar to .that of the Nati'ona 1 Park Service. The Definitjons Goals and Policies 0 15

PAGE 21

main difference is the orientation state parks toward unique diverse fea-.. . . . tures of the Co 1 ora do en vi ronrnent. . Another difference between NPS and the Col ora do Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation is one of management philosophy. Due to the generally smaller size of the state parks, the state is more to con-. . trol such natural forces as fire and disease. Recreation activities state parks should be "limited to th.ose conducive to' environmental . and not.unduly disruptive to the calm and solitude of others."22 . . Use of. any area shall be determined by capacity of the land. Capa .ci(y for faci,.ities, resources, and quality of are all .factors in determination. Both management and education are techniques that may be used t d . t d t. . t 23 o 1sperse unwan e ac 1v1 y. The current State Pa rk and Outdoor Recreation system seems to be heavily oriented toward recreation development. The trend toward recreation development, as we have seen, was well established prior to the Division of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation: s creation. In some J ways the f?r Colorad01S parks an . d .recreation areas those Of'! federal agencies. Anumber of the state park and recreation areas have been, or are being, damaged by overuse . . . While steps are being taken to promote environmental awaren _ess, .the public seems to have a hard time accepting the idea. How can the Division of . 16

PAGE 22

State Parks and Outdoor Recreation, a relatively. new and small organization, ensure the preservation of its iancfs while promoting . recreat ion? . What is currently known as the Colorado Division .of Wildlife has undergone quite a metamorphosis since its early begjnning. The later 1800s in Colorado saw trainloads of visitors from the East coming to hunt the seemingly abundant nurrbers of geese, ducks, deer, antelope, mountain lions and buffalo.: One news .report, from . 1861, repo_rted that a party of seven hunters had killed 92 antelope ' . 24 and four mountain 1 ions in one week. Other reports te 11 of fi shennan "jerkl ng out trout faster than they co. uld throw in their lines," sometimes harvesting more 25 thaff a thousand in a week. Many of these fish weighed two pounds or. more. The common menu for hunting parties was elk steak for breakfast, roast venison for dinner, and mountain trout for supper.26 The depletion of the fisheries was the concern of the first fish and game commissioner. Laws were enacted to. protect the fisheries. from such 'refinements in fishing as dynamiting. Shortly: thereafter it was real.ized that who. l ale slaughter of game was fast depleting resource as well. By 1893, forestry been added tp the gaine and fish department, but in 1899 forestry was removed and the' emphasTs altered to management of game and fish and enforcement of the laws that had been created to protect them. In 1903, the elk season closed in an effort to protect this . . COLORADO DIVISION OF WI LOLl FE History .... 17

PAGE 23

; important game species . . The. major problem facing the agency was that of poaching, . . and more attention was directed toward ' enforcement of the laws. It is important to note that the major emphasis of the Game and Fis . h Department was on"sport" game : and fish species. Little or no attention was given to s pecies. . . By the mi. d-1900s the ide a that hab1 tat protection was key to management of .. wildlife began to take hold. While protection of wild1ife was important, .it was not a substitute for habitat. In . the mid-1960s it was realized:thatmuch of the prime habitat areas were disappearing. in the wake of development and new agrfcultural practices. Changes in land use caused great disturbance to wildlife, par ticUlarly because of loss of critical winter While some land acquisition for habitat had taken place prior to this time, such acquisitions took on a new importance in the eyes of the Division of Wildlife . . Following the separation of the Division of Wildlife from the State Parks in 1972, a new section was added to the nongame section. Whether pressures from conserva on agencies . such as the .Audubon Socie -tY; caused this addition or it had been in the offing for some time, the addition of the . . nongame section indicates that there may be a change in emphasis from the total . coiTillitment to "sport" game and fish. . . 18

PAGE 24

Current policy states that.public lands under the jurisdic.tion of the. . Colorado"Division of Wildlife be open to the pub .lic for thei. r use and enjoyment. There is no for wildlife refuges, as are maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. One of the major for this is tha. t funding for the Division of Wildlife is derived from licensing fees. Funds for the nongarre section are derived froin a program where citizens may a portion of state" fncdrre tax.rebate by checking the box on the state income While thi.s program has shown tremendous success, the aroount is minimal compared to h 1 . . . f 27 t e 1cens1ng . , The fact that major funding for the of Wildlife comes from fishing and hunt{ng licenses places . a trerrendous burden on the division to provide for this type of recreation wherever possible. In some cases important habitat areas have been damaged by hunting and fishing. The division is able to control use of its lands in two ways. _ a : may limit the number of people allowed in a given area . throu9hthe requirerrent use pe_rmits. Secondly,. the location of a .ccess . . . and can be designed so as _ t o deter the use of an area. 28 . The acquisition of.prime habitat and managerrent of these habitats for food and reproduction of wildlife are goals .of the Division of Wildli.fe. Clearly, heavy use of a wildlife area will severely damage the habitat . The extentof use . . Current Policy Goals 'Y r. r . 19

PAGE 25

that can be allowed without damag. ing . the habitat, and without the wild-. .. . life is a mat.ter of educate. d guesswork in many cases. Mueller R anch is located on the west flank of Pikes Peak, in the approxi-mate middle of Teller County. (See Regional and Location Maps in the Appendix.) Teller County contains numerous federal land holdings (close to 50 of the courrty's land), the bulk being Pike National Forest land. The history usage of this area is quite diverse. As part ofthe Ute Indian homelands, the area was probably the site of hunting activity from the ear-liest Ute pass, a few miles away, was the source of contention between the Utes ' and their Cheyenne, Arapahoe, and Kiowa neighbors, because it offered the only 29 .. route to the salt beds in nearby South Park. Numerous arrowheads have been found on the site indicating possible heavy Indian use. In the 1800 s beaver trappers wandered the area. Along with some of the early surveyors, they areprobably responsible for the names of some of the landmarks in the area, including Dome Rock and Sheep ' s Nos e (both found on 1 Ranch). With the Hol'll:s teadi ng Act of 1862, the removal of the Utes _ i _ n 1879, and the discovery of gold in CrJpple Creek (four -miles south of Mueller) in 1891, the area to attract homesteaders, ranchers, miners of every. description. rhe population of Teller County increas. ed fr'C?m a handful to 40,000 during:the peak mining era. Mueller Ranch contained MUELLER RANCH His tory 20 â€¢ c 0 ..

PAGE 26

14 different mining claims (both lodes and placers) covering 1,700 ac_res . . Though it is doubtfu l if these cla. ims produced a great deaY ot"gold, evidence of". mining . . . . .. activity has altered portions of the environment on the ranch. The homesteaders and ranchers who occupied the property are the target of a riumber tales concerning whiskey production, horse thieves, killing. Theodore Roosevelt is.known to have visited Jack Rabbit Lodge, on the banks of Fourmile Creek, in the southern portion of the property, several times . in the early l;GOs. 30 In the l930s and 40s, the northeastern portion of the ranch was heavily farm .ed for potatoes a _nd iceberg lettuce. . . By 1952, when l.Jyman E. Mueller began assembling the present 11,961-plus acres which represent the Quarter Circle M Ranch, the area had been rather heavily used by miners, hunters, ranchers and farmers. Sti 11 the area retained considerable beauty and uniqueness. From the time Mr. Mueller obtained the property he i nitiated a program to enhance and upgrade his property. Develop ment has been kept to a minimum and improved by reseeding and ferti 1 i zing, 0 together with a policy of str.ictly_controlled Since when Mr. Mueller . . . too k the No. 2 world ' trophy el'k (according to s oo11e and Crockett . . . .. . . ... . . there has been .no allowed on the property. As a result of these and other conse rvation practices, the Mueller Ra.nch 'has be.come an wil ali fe Current Use and Deve 1 opment 21

PAGE 27

. â€¢. resource. For the past 10 years, Mr. Mueller has allowed the of Wildlife to assist in the wfldlife management of the property, particularly"o n the south portion. In 1977, partly due to the failing health of Mrs. Mueller, Mr. Mueller decided to put hfs property up for sale: 'The possibil.ity of the property going to developers was abhorent to him, so the Colorado Department of Natural Resou' rces and the Natu' re-.Conservancy mo.ved quickly to negotiate purchase of the property for use as 9 State Park and Wildlife area. The National Forest Service, the National Park Service1 the Colorado Division of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation, and the Color.ado Division of Wildlife . . all have lands that have suffered from overuse by the recreating public to a greater or lesser degree. The aim of these agencies is . to provide for enjoyment of the natural environment, not to provide an avenue for destruction of the environment. The conflict between perpetuation and use of the natural environment is an ongoing one . . The. re is no com p .te answer . to the dilemma. The final judgment the values of the involved in the planning, administra-. . tion, and management of the site as well as upon the public at large. The Mueller Ranch presents an opportunity to solve many .e'f the pr:oblems that are inherent iri . t CONCLUSION 22

PAGE 28

, ... the dilemma between perpetuation use of the The s i .te _offers diverse and _ unique scenery, wi_ldlife, and historic opr.or .tunities._that will be under intense pressure by the public to be developed used as a recreation resource . . , .... . . ... . .

PAGE 29

' . . . , . . .... ...... \ ': . . . . . . <;) c â€¢ . . . . ( (I . . .. .. . . . . . . . . ... . . ' . . ' . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . . . re cent approaches _ to . design :and management . .. :_pf_ natural areas . ' . . . . . . . . . ,. ' .. . ' . . . . . .. ..

PAGE 30

. . . How does one determine what kind of activity-and how much. of that activity .. .. .. can be allowed before the environment or the visitor experience suffer.s? . How .. does one design and manage an to both preserve and use. the environment? The answer to the first question lies with the discovery of tolerance . . levels or carrying capac .ity of both the physical/biological environment and the social/recreational environment. I _ n .terms of recreation planiling the quality experience of th. e user is the desired end product. The. concern for quality. experience ifl'Jt)lies the protection and maintenance of the resource base--the: natural environment. 31 To further examine the importance of carrying capacity it i's necessary to define physical and social carrying capacity. ' Physical carrying capacity is the level of human impact which may be tolerated without causing damage so great that the land cannot itself. 32 Some sources add that any condition is considered irreparable if it is not economically, socially, politically or aesthetically feasible to the area . to its original sitt 'Jtion within a relatively short tirre even though -it might technically be possible to do so eventually. 33 Social carrying _ capacity is the level of'human impact which, if exceeded; would result in a deierioration of the gua 1 i ty of the recreation expe 'ri ence. . . CARRYING CAPACITY c (l 24

PAGE 31

Both of these carrying capacities are based. upon the value of the resource . . . . . base--the "Any level of use. produces sorre any level . . of use is likely to produce some satisfaction. The determination of the optimum level of use fs primarily a value question. 34 Whose values are the ones 'to be accepted in determining the carrying capacity of an The ad ministrators and managers? The planners?. The general public? What happens to the portion of the NPS act which says its purpose is ". : . to conserve the seen-ery and the natural historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the sarre in such a manner and by such means as will 1 eave them . 35 uni rffpa ired for the enjoyment of future generati ens"? Doesn â€¢ t unimpaired mean untouched or undamaged? Parks and other natural areas cannot continue to serve large numbers of pe9ple without some detrimental effect on their natural resources. The amount of damage to be allowed can only be a value judgment based on adequate data and a c;onsideration of the tradeoffs between benefits and losses . In this case th.e benfits o or users to an area or permitting more . . intensive use of an area will be offset with losses with this use either in quaU(y of experience or in impairment of the environment. It . . is .important to note carryirg capacity from area to area, from point to point.within one area, and even betWeen two similar areas providing similar , . 25

PAGE 32

36 services within one a rea. Carrying capac.ity wi-ll change for speci f1 c recre;;. ...... . ational areas if change occurs in either managemer:t objEctives or in the physfcal. system. Knowledge of physical carrying capacity is not as exte_nsive as it i . s for .social carrying capacity. Environmental variables are much greater for ph.ysical carrying capacity, and the time required to conduct the studies is much longer (five years or more). It is unlikely that a new area willbe able to acquire-specific physical carrying capacity data prior to its 9evelopment. One must hope that the. available environmental data is sufficient to gain a fairly. knowledgeable basis upon which to make judgments as to use. Once one has researched the basic environmental data for a given site and determined, to the extent that such knowledge is available, the carrying capacities for the site, one can proceed to analyze the site for potential uses. In some c ases activities and values m ay conflict with one another. Examination of com-... patible and lictin g activities, amount of space.and/or time required for. each, and .the type of enâ€¢ /ironment desirable for the activity may resolve the conflict. One form for organizing and analyzing specific recrea.t"i on activities in terms of . value to users, ability of natural areas to support them, and the relative compat-. . ibility of each is contained in the appendix. This fOY'fT! is only a guide and must r â€¢ 26

PAGE 33

be tailored for each site . â€¢â€¢ â€¢ 0 . Any park environment that attempts to accommodate a variety of uses without . separation will be open to conflicts that will cause impairment of e -ither physical or social values. Dividing a park area into zones with different uses and-management techniques wi 11 lessen the tension between perpetuation and use o . f the area. Zones should be determined by such considerations as location, size, _ type and quality of the resource?. Special zones could be set up to meet local needs and conditions, i.e., buffer zones or zones or nodes for interpretive facilities, administration and service facilities. 37 The idea is to place facilities and/or . . access as far away from delicate areas as possible so that the average visitor would not be inclined to go there. There are several basic types of zone organization that could be considered in planning an area. Those basic types are illustrated below: CONCENTRIC RING ZONES MANAGEMENT AND USE ZONES 27 op; -

PAGE 34

THREE-RING ZONES ., NODE AND LINKAGE ZONES (used for very large areas where facilities must be located internally) . ; . 'f\od.e. s -----. .. c .. .s : . . _ __,__':) t .:s'c't-or se 10 t c..e s fi;_/O'r a.u:..om mod.o.. :bon:s . . . . . . . 28

PAGE 35

. .. Zone manag ement will be very important to the niai.ntenanc e of zone areas . . ' ..... . . . . ' oecisions must be made as to which ecological communities need co'mplete protection .. and which are to be managed to preserve a certain stage of a certain species in the biotic community. In the case of preserving important wildlife (particularly applicable on the Mueller Ranch) maintenance the habitats for these species is essential. The National Park Service has determined as their primary goal for wildlife management, that biotic associations wi.thin each park be maintained or recreated to as nearly as possible, the conditions 38 that prevailed ""hen the area was first visited by the white man. Some of the guHfe lines they prescribe are . . â€¢ Only plants and animals native to the site should be allowed.39 1 Observable artificiality should be minimized and obscured in every 'bl 40 poss 1 e t Access roads) should be ri.gidly prescribed (one shouJd : . . 41 0 ration the tourist than increase the roads). â€¢ Control of public hunting is awkward at best; buffer zones where . . hunting would be allowed could be established around the critical 'habitat area (public hunting outside the boundaries of the area often adequately control the herd). . ( 29 c . .

PAGE 36

â€¢ Mi gra' tory traditions and. criti ca 1 range must be preserved ... Most' parks are not -of a size to be but instead contain . "ecological islands" needing some interference by qualified manager' s to ensure perpetuation. The use of zones t o provide different types of use and preservation is essential. Efforts must be to explain to the visitor the importance of these zones from an ecological standpoint and the restrictions on their use. Not only must the public be educated to respect the aims of various zones, but also the planning must be such as to mak e the division between zones immediately apparent to the visitor. The use of signs may be necessary, particularly for use, but the design should indicate the use without signs wherever possible. This is m ore easily accomp_ lished on large areas where buffer areas between zones can be allowed that will gradually introduce the visitor to the change in emphasis between zones. major consideration in zoning is to provide an adequate range of alter nati . V.) recreation possibilities in areas that will divert unwanted pressure s f rom 42 the most valued park resources." Such diversions should not be accomplished through the use'of signs and fences but should j nstead be done through design of t h e area. An area where concentrations of visitors is both desirable and admissable should be made so attractive that the visitor is reluctant to leave it for ( 30

PAGE 37

. . an area less accessible and more delicate. Protection of th ese areas will still be necessary (particularly soils and vegetation), but careful design of the area and arrangement of facilities could result in one portion being occupied and the remainder set aside for viewing from the place of occupation.43 Control of access . . to delicate areas is of utmost importance. A system of decreasing. access to internal, protected areas should be carefully designed. Some area? may needno roads at all and only limited trail access. The most acceptable arrangement might be to allow loop or ring roads in outer zones of the site to allow leisurely viewing of the area. Dead-end spurs could penetrate toward, but not necessarily into, the more protected areas where road access is deemed absolutely necessary. . . All improvements or development for implementing perpetuation and use objectives should be located so as to minimize conflicts between activities and to prevent ecological damage. As a general rule, more intensive activities should be restricted to sites with higher physical carrying capacities and less vulnerable to wear and tear.44 Location of facilities should be based on ready access high absorptive potential in terms of physical carrying capacity. The location may be. in an area of lesser .in order to fulfill these requir::errents. r LOCATION OF FACILITIES AND .... 31

PAGE 38

Prqvision of very minimal facilities such 'as water spigot or chemical toilet in primitive areas is the source of some contention. On the one ha. nd, such . provsion might encourage use .of an area where such use should be discouraged. On the other hand, of some of the natural resources of the site might result from the lack of this provision. A rath .er ex'treme example, but one which has often occurr _ ed, is the case of. the backpacker 'who takes his bar of soap to the nearoy str.eam to . bathe after a str.enuous day of backpacking to a campsite far removed-from the normal facilities offered in the high-use zone: Certainly provisions of this type be nearly impos-sible to provide even if it were desired. How can a designer or manager possibly know any given backpacker might choose to set up camp? It does make one realize that minimal provis.ions of certain basic faci .lities. in areas where it is likely that campers might be found (not a designated campground area) would be preferable to harm that might result from lack of such facilities. It is probably better to give up a small portion of a natural area to such facilities in order for the remaining area to be .. better 45 \) Control and education of the visitor may be necessary to the ultimate health . of an environment. The creation of trails in the natural . environment Js ' considered neces-. . . sary to the use.of the area. Trails have certain. 'bene.fits and losses assoCiated them. 'Con. . . centrated use of trails causes son compaction and a certajn .. level .of destruction of . the area surrounding the trail. If an area is enough and impact is not . 32

PAGE 39

anticipated to be high, dispersal of visitors without the ."use of trails may be more. suitable. Such conditions are v ery difficult to predict -lot of control . . . .. According to " the recent on in Rocky Mountain Natirinal the best protection of the environment is a trail placed to go where . people want it to, well marked, with measures taken to ensure its use. (This is especially important in areas that are moist and have small . Prescribed trails do not to many people, but if the trail does go where people want to go, it will be The use of trailsand 6ther facilities to promote nature interpretation are onsidered essential for :the park purpose. Other developments can only be allowed with extreme caution and constant monitoring. ": Perhaps the only way of avoiding . pressures f9r recr eation .deve,.opment.on sensitive . . environments is to accommodate unwanted facilities outside the boundaries of the site. If the surrounding area has adequate zoning and building controls and is able and wil1ing to accommodate such facilities, this would be the most desirable route. If private enter-. . : pr . i .. d .. over . the iti.i 1 ity. for the deve l"opment a.nd ope.rati on. of .. facil i ties, it would benefit the economy. Some facilities that might be accommodated in this way would be recreational vehicle campgrounds, lodges or motels, and eating facjlities. One aspect o ( . design and management of recreation in the natural environment that has been disregarded in most sources is the aesthetic value of a given area. It is extremely doubtful that ' the average, sheep, bird, or bear is concerned with aesthetic values. As long as the various species have a safe, well-balanced AESTHETIC VALUES 32a: .

PAGE 40

. . .... . environme "nt in which they can raise theiryoung;findshelter and food, thej" may . . . .... . . : .. " . . . . not be greatly concerned. with what is going on outsi.de this environment. In fact, the introduction of a road' if it. is not used heav{ly or with great frequency' may be adopted as a migratory route by animals as elk and deer. Who wouldn't prefer to travel an open road rather than "bushwack" " through the woods; . when . . . . . . possessed with a huge set of antlers? It is the human who prefers an attractive setting. HC1tiever,.aesthetic environll'X?ntal values are closely related. The introduction of a road could cause an unsightly scar' in an otherwise natural environll'X?nt. That sall'X? road, if heavily . and frequently used, could cause a bar riet to a migratory route or, at the very reast, cause a _disturbance of the sur-. . rounding 1 arid. Scenic 1 ookout"s and other areas or faci .llti e . s that would . draw people must be designed in such a way that aesthetic as well as environmental considerations will be enhanced. "We must look at every .acre of land . as an . . : aesthetjc.".problerri as wel. l as a.biolo_gical and problem."46 â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ ,. ' â€¢ â€¢â€¢ ... â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ ... â€¢ â€¢â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢â€¢â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ 0 â€¢ â€¢ .. â€¢ â€¢ : â€¢ . . . One met.hod for. determirling aesthetic _values for. an area is the National F.orest Service's " Visual Managell'X?nt Program." This program deals with visual har-. or disharmony of a 11 parts of the 1 a!Jdscape--landfonns, on, structures, air and water. The concept is based on three .factors . invol'{ed with reaction r . â€¢â€¢ . (l 33

PAGE 41

to 11is environment: . (1) _characterist.ics' o'f the .landscape . ; . (2) variety in the land-. . . . â€¢ . .. 0. â€¢ and (3) deviations or degree of contrait in the vciriables are considered when determining scenic value--motion, }ight, atmospheric conditions, season, distance, observer position, scale, and time. Thes _ e variables affect how the dominant elements of form, line, color, and texture are seen:47 It must be remembered that this method for determining aesthetic value of the lands _ cape is only a tool. If it is combined with good field work (good environmental data) it can be very effective. The importance of educating the public in ecological principles and their ' : app 1 i cation to the environment cannot be underestimated. Interpretive centers and trails on a given site as well as illustrated talks to scho'ols and publi.c interest groups will help give the public a sense of values in regard to the natural environment. It .is that the general public learn to preserve and protect the environment they enjoy. "No group of professional conservationists, no matter . . ... . . â€¢. . . : . . . .. . . . how skillfu l or dedicated, can implement wise unless a substantial intellectual minority of the public understands the basic ecological princ}ples and . . . . 48 ... has a sense: of stewardship for land and resources: a . land ethic." As an area is qeveloped and pressures .for recreatiol} facilities increase, EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC .34 . c

PAGE 42

how does one determine when to .stop the development of.the site? Initi. a .lly ... . faci)ity . . may no.t cause .great harm to. the environrne nt. As .visitors increase and development pressures mount, valued environments gradually disappear. The problerry _involves politics, economics, society, and environment. The nonnal justification for a natural environment's existence in .the-public roles is visitor. use of the area. Legislators are more wilHng to expend publicfunds on acqui_sition of natural environments if the general public sno.vs evidence of their approva) use. Legislators tend to think often mistakenly, that the greater the use of an area, the greater the public satisfaction. It is hard to most legislators that recreation should not be developed beyond the capacity of the land to tolerate development, if he is being lobbied for develop-ment public. The farseeing ad ministrator can do m uch to minimize the con-flict between perpetuation and use of the environment through imaginative educa-' ti ona 1 program s and carefully plan ned vi sitar deployment. The ultimate sol uti on is-to acconmodate unwanted activities outside the site ( ( 35

PAGE 43

.. . . . . .. . . . . â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ .. â€¢ â€¢ 0 â€¢â€¢ . \ . . ... . . . : . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ ... â€¢ 0 : â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ 0 â€¢ â€¢ 0 I , V .. . . â€¢ â€¢ .. 0 â€¢ . , . . . . . . . â€¢' .. . . â€¢ â€¢ C' â€¢ ' . . . . . . . â€¢ : L â€¢ ( . . -: . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . develop ment .. :. of hypOthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

PAGE 44

History has shown that increas_ing use of natural environments for ... recreation has .resulted in ' tremendous deterioration of that natural environment. .Any . use, no matter how little, will change the ecological balance of a given area. WhiJe knowledge of our environrrent ever-increasing, it is doubtful if. anyone cao predict the ultimate effects man will have on the remaining natural areas. Great strides have been made in the last few years to introduce both biological and aesthetic criteria into the design and management processes. Some of the newer appr . oach ' es to design and management of a natural area--such as carrying capacity, zones of controlled use and access, and location of facilities-.-are discussed in . . the previous section. With increasing pressures from both recreation and preserva-tion factions, a rredian should be found that is both biologically and aesthetically satisfactory while accommodating most of the recreation demands. Through careful design and management of a natural area a certain level of recreation use can be integrated compatibly with the natural environment while retaining the healthy and productive biological; physic 1 , and aesthetic . site. It will be of utmost importance to identify and resolve setween the desirability of human use and perpetuation of the ' t k environrrent in order to serve both goals. If a n level compromise STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS 36

PAGE 45

-? cannot be reached the control must be with the environment. There will always be more people, but the environment.may be destroyed if people continue to use it without thought for the values they are enjoying. The landscape architect is unlikel y to be an expert in all aspects that need to be considered before proper use and design can be planned for a natural area. His role is twofold. As a s ynthesizer, the landscape architect is able to gather all data from the specialists, compile and analize it, note patterns of conflict and compatibility, and draw conclusions on which to base a plan. In addition, the landscape architect adds an unquantifiable though necessary side to the total process-,, the aesthetic evaluation. The major issue, as well as the subject for discussion in this paper, is the conflict between perpetuation and use of the natural environment. Stemming from this central issue are several questions that need to be answered. c04 ' 'Y'I "+'' 1. What is the allow a ble range and amount of use -o-the site'\in regard to 0 both social and physical carrying capacity? 2. What are the most unique and/or delicate areas on the site that need to be protected? 3. How unique is the site in relationship to the _ region? BIAS ISSUES AND FACTORS 37

PAGE 46

4. What :is the .anticip. ated demand for use oh the site? 5. How will development of the site affect the . surroun9ing area? How .wi 11 the surro u nding area affect the site? 6. 1-Jhat is the abi 1 i ty of the surrounding area to accommodate unwanted facilities and activities? 7. what are the particular site issues? followirg is a list of factors that should be analyzed for any site. Together with 'con_sideration of the previous list of they will comprise the data upon which to base evaluations and decisions . . , Natura 1 factors Wildlife inventory, migration patterns, habitat, uniqueness, condition Topography -slopes, exposure Climatesun, wind, rain, snow, temperature Soils type, moisture, constraints Water-ground water, surface water, quality, rights existing and to be acquired, availability Geologytype, formations, mineral availability and rights, constraints Vegetation inventory, communities, uniqueness, condition Visual -views, major/minor r .,. 38 ' . .

PAGE 47

. Manmade factors, both oh site and in the surrounding region Land use past and present . Historical and cultural resources On-site facilities and access roads, trails, utilities, structures Regional access and facilities-major routes, nearby camping, activity centers, etc. The selection of a method for organizing and analyzing data is ap essential step in the design process. A number of different methods could be appropriate for any one project. The selection will depend upon the size and scope of the project . . , Inevitably an adaptation of one or more developed will be in order to accommodate the specific site conditions involved in a given project. A list of the more important methodologies is contained in the bibliography. For the test case, Mueller Ranch, it seemed most appropriate to select a methodologies that could be adapted to the specific site conditions. The base data will be mapped separately. Through the use of overlays and charts or a composite map maps will be generated showing the potentials and constraints on the site. From this point the site will be further evaluated according to potential zones of use. f:sse .nti ally this is .a combi nati.on of McHarg and Carhart methodologies. METHODOLOGY 39

PAGE 48

. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ,,' . . . . . . 'â€¢ . . â€¢ ... â€¢ .II â€¢ â€¢ . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . "" . . . . . . . """... . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . " . ... . . . . . . : _ . .the. test case mu _eller. -. . . . . . . . . .. c ' . . .: c . â€¢ ,

PAGE 49

c â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ )0 . . â€¢ l Jl \ J ; } I -. --::::/ ' feb ' I . -' , . 7 / :, / r 1 , .

PAGE 50

The Mueller Ranch is located on the west flank of Pikes Peak; 17 miles west of Colorado . Springs in the approximate middle of Teller County. Di_vide. Colorado,is one mile to the north, and Cripple Creek, Colorado, is approximately four miles to the south of the property along Highway 67 (see regional and location maps in appendfx). Pike N ational Forest and Highway 67 bound the northeastern portion of the property. Woodrock development, the old Cripple Creek road, and BLM land border the southeastern half of the property. The three remaining sides of the site are bounded by subdivisions and ranches. Florissant Fossi"l Beds National Monument is two miles away, as the crow. flies, or approximately ten miles by road. Woodland .. . Par k, approximately eight miles away, is the fastest-growing and most highly developed population center in. Teller County. 5 The total property occupies 11,961.419 acres (19. 14 square miles) which, for purchasing purposes, has been divided into trree contiguous parcels. In addition, the north ranch has 400 acres of leased in holdings making the total package 51 12,361.419 acres. The property occupies approximately half of Townships 13 and 14 South, Range 7 0 West. The north occupying 6,339 acres of land plus the 400 'of leasea in holdings, is made up of steep terrain, gentler rolling hil}sides, and open meadows. Some m a gnificent views are available from various portions of the .. LOCATION . â€¢ SIZE DESCRIPTION 40

PAGE 51

It also contains four ?ites with habitable structures, b arns a _nd .corrals, . as well as 14 ponds a nd 11 developed .springs. The head waters of Hay Creek are in the center of this portion of the ranch as well as tributaries of Rule and Twin Creeks. The highest point on the property is also found .on the north ranch--the top of Grouse Mountain, 9,843 feet. The north ranch is to be pur-chased in 1979 by the State of Colorado for use as a state park. The south ranch is much more rugged in terrain, breaking into granite outcrops and steep forested canyon that were formed by Fourmile Creek and its tributaries. Several dramatic overlooks are available on this portion of the property. The ''4,982-acre parcel is a prime habitat for .such animals as big horn sheep, elk. black bear, and deer, to name just a few. This portion of the property has recently been purchased by Colorado as a state wildlife area. The 640-acre parcel which includes Dome Rock makes up the third portion of the projec. t site . . It is ilT11lediately adjacent to the south ranch on thewest. The â€¢ ... â€¢ â€¢ 1. -it . .. : â€¢ ., ' â€¢â€¢â€¢.. â€¢ , 0 â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢' â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢ ' â€¢â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ , .. â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ .. â€¢ "' .. â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ .: ... t â€¢ â€¢â€¢ â€¢ â€¢. :.. â€¢ . â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ . â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢. lowest point (82QO') on the--property is found in this section, where Fourmile Creek leaves the boundaries of the site. Dome Rock itself rises abruptly to an elevation of .. .. # â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ .. â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ 0 0 9,044 above the. creek vaHey. This abrupt rise ' plus the rosy hue of its barren top make Dome Rock stand out against the higher surround1ng forest lands. Dome Rock is cons,i de red to be the p ; vet point around which a four-square-mile area stretches .......... 41

PAGE 52

-. .... :"' ..... to make up the key big horn ' sheep ' management ar:-e' a.52 :Th'js a 'r:ea 1s 'presently' being . . , â€¢ . acqufred through the Na tu re Conservancy. It wi 11 be turned over to ."ttie Division of Wildlife {probably in 1981 or. l982) after certain management restrictions have been placed on the deed. The Mueller Ranch is unique to the surrounding area. Dome Rock is a monu-ment known for miles around. The good condition of the property also makes it unique. It represents a large piece of . iand which has, hopefully, been kept out of the of developers. Perhaps the most notable feature of site is the presence of numbers of different wildlife species. Since use has been controlled for ,.. . a number the site tends 'to function as an escape fromoutside re 'creation and development activities as well as from severe early storms on Pikes Peak. Some of the wildlife specie s such as blue grouse, do not exist, in the numbers to be found on the property, anywhere else around.53 . . . ..... . } } .. . . . . . ,mi!.Y< . . .us.e. 9f e nvironment repres. erited by Ml.ieller.Ranch: A pre1imi'nary review .. of c ' ur.rent so11 data revea 1 s that most of the property be quite de,li cate. The open meadows will be to especia.ily steepness of much of the property will make access and maintenance difficult, though perhaps this'is a desirable feature. UNIQUE FEATURES SITE . ' sP:Ec'f F .i(. PROBLEMS ' . . (l 42

PAGE 53

.... .. .. Encroachment o.f subdivisions on three side?.O.f. the PJ:'Oper.ty, has. . . already . caused solll? problems. Problems from trespassing, poaching, harassment ,of animals by wandering dogs is minimal at present but could grow larger as development increases. The possible presence of urahium on the Dome Rock section could also cause some problems. These mineral rights are in the hands of the State Land Board. The land board is legally obligated to develop such rights for. the monetary gain of the state. The Nature Conservancy is trying to find a way of a trade of mineral rig hts on the Dome Rock section, but the question has not yet been 55 resl:ll ved. One item that could cause major repercussions is the lack of any adjudicated water rights on the pro perty. It will be important to obtain minimum stream flow adjudication, particularly on Fourmile Creek,56 to ensure the preservation of the . r.iparian habitat. â€¢ ., â€¢ "' -;..â€¢.-.... c .. â€¢â€¢ "" .. _ ... â€¢â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢â€¢ ,:.. .... â€¢ ... â€¢ â€¢ <# â€¢â€¢â€¢ â€¢â€¢ ..... .. â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ ... â€¢ "0 â€¢ ..... : . â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ \ 1 â€¢ â€¢ : â€¢â€¢â€¢ â€¢ ...... -: â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ ... â€¢ â€¢ .. â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ .. .,.. â€¢â€¢ Whethe.r.. o . r not hunting will. be a . llowed on is a : .. controversial issue. There are strong advocates on both sides of the issue, and the Division of WiJdlife tends to be' caught in therJiddle. On theone hand, the division is heavily funded by licensing fees. On the other hand, its aim is. the protection and production of wildlife and their habitats. (' â€¢ â€¢â€¢â€¢ â€¢
PAGE 54

.. one ;ssue which has " not been mentioned before is the problem of.i:onibining a state park with a Sta . te wildlife area . .the purposes of the drst part of this study, the property is being regarded as one entity. The boundary that exists between the north and south ranches, which will be the jurisdictional boundary between the state park and the state wildlife areas, is an qne. No one is going to tell an elk, or indeed a visitor, that he can't cross this boundary. The somewhat storm y history of relations between the two state divisions would indicate that there may be some problems in managing the two areas jointly. Somehow a spirit of cooperation must be fostered or the success of the two areas may be in .. jeopardy. The goals for the Mueller Ranch project are to: (l) find a concept or con cepts for future planning of Mueller Ranch--a kind of "plan for a plan"; and (2) select and design, in detail, one or more smaller portions of Mueller Ranch to reflect the parameters set forth in th . e hypothesis . . â€¢â€¢ â€¢â€¢ -. â€¢ 0 â€¢ â€¢ ; ... : â€¢ * .. .â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ ,., â€¢ 0 â€¢â€¢â€¢ 0 .. , 0 â€¢â€¢ â€¢â€¢â€¢ â€¢â€¢ â€¢ 0. â€¢ â€¢ â€¢â€¢â€¢ â€¢â€¢ : â€¢ 0 â€¢ â€¢ , ............ â€¢ â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢ . .. . . . . rhe ob'5ettivesfcYt this goal' .. â€¢ 'â€¢ II â€¢ ,â€¢ â€¢â€¢ . â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ 1. Gathering and documenting (graphically or' ot. herwiseY :all available . base data (region and site specific). 2. the base data. .... GOALS AND OBJECTIVES . ... "" 44 () .

PAGE 55

... 3. Identifying opportunit.ies and . constraints acc .ording .. to . the pa. r . ameters set by the thesis hypothesis. 4. Producing master concept or concepts. 5. Selecting site for detailed design that would most nearly reflect thesis project parameters. 6. Analyzing data and producing concepts and design for the detailed site. 7. Working drawings, where necessary, and sketches illustrating the design concept for the detailed site. The product will be an by 11-inch, or by 14-inch document incl\Jding all the-relevant data, designs and conclusJons generated by this project. In addition, presentation size graphics will be assembled for.the use of the Division of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation and the Division. of Wildlife, if they so desire. Data will be mapped and analyzed, opportunities and constraints identified, and a master generated by the end of March. Selection and design of a , . . ... deta " i-led site. will be . finished and -the total pac k aged .by either the end -of May -or,'.. . . . . if sufficient: .data is not available, September. (See Critical Path Diagram in the appendix. ) . .. SCOPE OF WORK . 45

PAGE 56

. . . . . . â€¢ â€¢â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ 0. â€¢ â€¢ .. â€¢ .. â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢â€¢ â€¢ .. 0 . . , ,. 0 â€¢ ; â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ .. . . . . . . . . . : -. . . . . . . -. .. t â€¢ . â€¢ . , . . . . . . . . ... ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ._ â€¢ â€¢' â€¢ â€¢ r â€¢ â€¢ . . . . . ... . .. . "' . . . . : . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . â€¢. . '. . . . . . . . : . appendix . . . . . . .. . . . ... '

PAGE 57

.. -ACflV\\\{ Co..vvq:>i nq â€¢ \roJ. \-er-o\"' c...o..xv-. -e.V\. -t â€¢ Pi.<:...V\ic..\ leo... "R.l d..\ . . . . .. N.a.tl.)r Na...tvre. \..t..)Q.\ \:.s . . . . \ U-K:>N"\o 'o i ( e i t-sc.e\. f\q "Re \o. .. +e '1\ t. of "Pro porl:-i on tv'\inimum. K'ela..tiue. qua.l T 4 pe. 1 d e.q re.e:-4-o..va.i. \abl \i-k.\ co VY"I -po.. -t-a;, 1 i t-1..\ "Pr\or?+u, +o clr La.nd. o.rt.A of e:"-of ot s\mi.ta.\"' or c...onJIic...+-be. ned desi.r\nq req_0ir-ed ru,xU Lo.. 'ole.. 0-..-t <:?1-her -to. o,.c-1-i 0i h-\ ac.+i uitl..\ "P?" t!s.er . -1:-h i "S. o..-re..o-.â€¢ .. \ 'Se U) .. . . .. . . . . . . .1 z .3 .1. z .3 1. 2 . . I I I s. I . . I . . -. . -A 0a.L 4 s\s f.orrn +or t'ne. e..A.:Aluo..-Hon 6pe..c.:v\\
PAGE 58

. u 'I :( ::.__ R00:J. 0::---C..Oul\ L; 1 foreor knd. I â€¢ . . . . 0 â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ --> . . â€¢ 0 â€¢â€¢ . , ' ; ...1 --<( z . . 0 . (.!) w cc

PAGE 59

14 u r 0 n )> -1 0 s: )>

PAGE 60

General Committee: . . ' . . Duane BlossomL.A., Director of the landscape architecture program, UCD Dan YoungL .A. and Architect, Professor of landscape architecture, UCD Tom Haldeman L.A., part-time instructor in landscape architecture, UCD, and practicing L.A. Dave Hill planner, professor in the planning department, UCD, member of the Land Use Commission Jane Ries -practicing L.A., board member of the Nature Conservancy Bob Carlson L.A., head of park planning for the Division of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation Cathy Craig former state park ranger, presently District Wildlife Manager (responsible for developing t h e management plan for Mueller south ranch) W orking Committee: Duane Blossom Dan Young Bob Carlson Cathy Craigfor first phase if logistics work out? THESIS COMMITTEE 50 (

PAGE 61

........ ' 'â€¢ a â€¢ â€¢ 0 0 â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ o â€¢ â€¢ â€¢ . .. ... footnoteS . ... '

PAGE 62

1. National Forest Service, Search for Solitude: Our Wilderness Heritage (Washington, D.C.: u : s. Governrrent Printing Office, 1973), p. 3. 2. Ibid . . , p. 4. 3. 4. Ibid. 5. Susan L. Falder, "Thinking Like a Mountain: A Biographical Study of Aldo Leopold," Forest History, Vol. 17, No. l (April, 1973), p. 19. 6. Forster, Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks, p. 19. 7. Ibid., pp. 18-19. 8. Aldo Leopold, "Conservation Economics, " Journal of Forestry, Vol. XXXII, No. 5, quoted in â€¢ . Ben H. Thompson, "A Wilderness Use Technique,11 Fauna of the National Parks of the United States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1935), p. 39. . . . 9. Forster, Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks, p. 19. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid., p. 8. 12. :Ibid. , p. 70. 13. _ Steve Dieterneyer, National Forest Service, Pikes Peak Region, January 22, 1979. Interview. 14. Colorado Division of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation, The Evolution ofthe Colorado State Parks System (Denver: typed, 1974 or 1975), p. 1. 15. Ibi.d., p. 2. 16. Ibid., p. 3. 51

PAGE 63

17. 'Ibid: 18. Ibid. 19. Colorado Division of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Colorado State Parks--A Plan for 1975-1980 (Denver: Xerox, 1975), p . 3. 20. Ibid. 21. Ibid.,p.l2. 22. Ibid., p. 13. 23. Ibid., p. 10. 24. LeRoy R. Hafen, Ann W. Hafen, Colorado: A Story of the State and Its People (Denver, Colo.: Old West Publishing Co., 1952), p. 306. , , 25. Ibid., p. 307. 26. Ibid. 27. Ed Preuslow, Regional Director, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Springs, Colorado, October 13, 1978. Interview. 28. Ibid. 29. Laura T. Mecum, Pikes Peak: ' Yesterday and Today (Colorado: Gowdy Printing and Engraving Co., 1926), p. 39. 30. Sidney Shafroth, David Sumner, The Mueller Ranch: A Proposal from 'the Nature Conservancy (Denver: The Nature Conservancy, sunmer 1978). 31. Perry J. Brown, Beverly l.Driver, George H. Stankey, ,.Human Behavioral Scien ce and Recreation Managerrent" (XVI IUFRO Horl d Conference, June, 1976), p. 54. 32. Forster, Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks, p. 40. 52

PAGE 64

34. Ibid., p. a. 35. Ibid., p. 5. 36. Ibid. , p. 7. 37. Forster, Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks, p. 49. 38. Wildlife Management in the National Parks, by A. Starker Leopold, Chairman, Advisory Board on Management (Washington, D . C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, March, 1963), p. 94. 39. Ibid., p. 8. 40. Ibid. 'â€¢ 41. Ibid., p. 9. 42. Forster, Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks, p. 58. 43. Ibid., p. 61. 44. Ibid., p. 40. 45. Burnell, et al., Determining Carrying Capacity, p. 11. 46. William L. Webb, 11Public Use of Forest Wildlife: Quantity and Quality Journal of Forestry, Vol. 66, No. 2 (February, 1968), p. 108. 47. National Forest Service, National Forest Landscape Management, Vol. I (surranary of total). 48. Webb, "Public Use of Forest Wildlife," p. 110. 49. Forster, Planning for Man and Nature in. National parks, p. 41. â€¢ 53

PAGE 65

50. Geller County OEDF Committee, Overall Economic Development . Program, Teller County, Co., Vol. I (December, 1977), pp. 9 and 10. 51. Department of Natural Resources, Mueller Ranch files, unnamed documents showing surface lots and mineral interests for Quarter Circle M Ranch. 52. Frank Colley, retired manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Springs, Colorado, January 27, 1979. Taped interview. 53. Ibid. 54. Betty Willard, professor, Colorado School of Mines, advisor to Mueller Ranch Inventory Committee, Golden, Colorado, January, 1979. Phone interview. 55. Sidney Shafroth, Director, Regional Office, Nature Conservancy (Denver: January, 1979). 56. Jill Croft, David Harrison, "Water Rights Associated With and in the Vicinity of the Mueller Ranch" (Boulder, Colo.: Memo from law offices of Moses, Wittenmyer, Harris and Woodruff, â€¢ P.C . , November 21, 1977). 57. Burnell, et al., Determining Carrying Capacity, p. 43. -54

PAGE 66

. . . â€¢ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . ... . .. . . . . . . bibliography. ... .. . 0

PAGE 67

BOOKS, PERIODICALS, DOCUMENTS, REPORTS Brown, Perry J.; Driver, Beverly L.; Stankey, George H. "Human Behavioral Science and Recreation Management," p. 953-63, XVI IUFRO World Conference, June, 1976. Carhart, Arthur J. America's Wildlands. Harrisburg, Pa.: Telegraph Press, 1961. Colorado Department of Natural Resources Files, Description of Surface Lots and Mineral Interests for Quarter Circle M Ranch. Colorado Division of State Parks and Outdoor Recreation. Colorado State Parks--A Plan for 19751980. Denver, Co.: Xerox copy, 1975. The Evolution of the Colorado State Parks System. Denver, Co.: Xeroxed, 1974 or 1975. Colorado Geological Survey. "Summary Report of the Geology and Mineral Potential of the Quarter Circle M Ranch." Denver, Co.: Typewritten, March 29, 1978. Croft, Jill; Harrison, David. "Water Rights Associated With and in the Vicinity of the Mueller Ranch." Boulder, Co.: Typed merro from law offices of Moses, Wittemyer, Harris and Woodruff, P.C., November 21, 1977. Flader, Susan L. "Thinking Like a Mountain: A Biographical Study of Aldo Leopold." Forest History, Vol. 17, No. 1 {April 1973), 15-28. Forster, Richard R. Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks: Reconciling Perpetuation and Use. Merges, Switzerland: IUCN, 1973. ""Guidelines for Inventory and Designation of Colorado Na.tural Areas." Denver, Co.: Typed draft, April 13, 1978. Hafen, LeRoy R.; Hafen, Ann W . . Colorado: A Story of the State and Its. People. Denver, Co.: Old West Publishing Co., 1952. Held, R. Burnell; Brickler, Stanley; Wilcox, ArthurT. A Study . to Develop Practical Techniques for Detennining Carrfing Capacity of Natural Areas in.the National Park Service. Estes Park, Co.: CSU and he Center for Research and Equcation, November 15, 1969. 55

PAGE 68

Mecum, Laura T. Pikes . Peak: Yesterday and Today. Colorado: Gowdy Printing and Engraving Co., 1926. Mueller, Eva; Gurin, Gerald. ORRRC Stud Re ort_ 20, Participation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting Demand Among Amer1can Wash1ngton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962. National Forest Service. The Forest Service Roles in Outdoor Recreation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, January, 1978. Search for Solitude: Our Wilderness Heritage. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, June, 1974. National Park Service. Final Master Plan for Rocky Mountain National Park. Denver, Co.: NPS, 1976 . .. Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument Statement for Management... Florissant, Co.: Typewritten, 1976. Newton, Norman T. "1 00 Years of Landscape Architecture." Landscape Architecture, July 1965 . .. Prieviews, Inc. (realtors). Mueller Ranch. 1978 (a sales brochure). Shafroth, Sidney; Sumner, David. The Mueller Ranch: A Proposal from the Nature Conservancy. Denver, Co.: The Nature Conservancy, Summer, 1978. Teller County O.E.D.P. Committee. Overall Economic Development Program, Teller County Co. Vo 1 . I. De ce nbe r, 19 77. Thompson, Ben H. "A Wilderness Use Technique ... Fauna of the National Parks of the United States. Washin gton, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office, 39-46. _ United States Soil Conservation Service , Colorado Range Site Descriptors #222 and 241, August, 1975. Webb, William L. .. Public Use of Forest Wildlife: Quantity and Quality Considerations. " Journal of Forestry, Vol. 66, No.2 . . February, 1968, 106-110. Wildland Research Center. Values, and Problems. ORRRC Study Report 3; Wilderness and Recreation--A Report on Resources, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962. 56

PAGE 69

Wildlife Management in the National Parks, by A. Starker Leopold, Chairman, Advisory Board on Wildlife Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 4, 1963. Donald H. Wildlife for Tomorrow. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, January, 1972. Wright, George M. "Men and Marrmals in Joint Occupation of National Parks." Fauna of the National Park Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1935, 13-38. METHODOLOGIES Paulson, Merlyn J. "Visual Information System for Low Cost Terrain Analysis." Landscape Architecture Louisville, Kentucky: ASLA, May, 1978, pp. 233-235 (a computer technique). Carhart, Arthur H. Planning for America's Wildlands. Harrisburg, Pa.: The Telegraph Press, 1961. Environmental Resource Anal sis. By Landscape Architecture Research Office, Harvar Un1vers1ty Boston, Mass.: Nove er, 1967}. (Describes and summarizes the methodologies of G. Angus Hills, Phillip H. Lewis, and Ian L. McHarg.) Ian L. McHarg. Design With Nature. Garden City, N.Y.: The Natural History Press, 1969. National Forest Service. National Forest Landsca e Mana ement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973-197 American Society of Landscape Architecture. Landsca e Architecture Technical Information Series, Vol. I, No.2. Washington, D.C.: ASLA, une 978. Information and References for "Visual Resource Management.") INTERVIEWS Caudill, Sam. Director, Board of Colorado Division of Wildlife, Aspen, Colorado, phone interview, 19 January 1979. 57

PAGE 70

PAGE 71

\ I \ \ Teller County U.S. Geological Survey ' '..._, Wobus, Epis & Scott. ' '\ ' Minute Quadrang le Sheets, ' , Divide, Colorado Cripple Creek North Cripple Creek Florissant Pikes Peak U.S. Soil Conservation Service Land Use Map -Teller County, January I ' 73. a; General Soil Map -Teller County, January 1972. -U.S. Forest Service Pike National Forest, 1970 . . Travel Map, Pike National Forest, 1970. ' . ' ,rea, Colorado. 1976. . . r C\ -' , .

ERROR CAUGHT WHILE SAVING NEW DIGITAL RESOURCE TO SOLR INDEXES
5/13/2019 5:34:10 PM

Unable to connect to the remote server
at SolrNet.Impl.SolrConnection.PostStream(String relativeUrl, String contentType, Stream content, IEnumerable1 parameters) in d:\BuildAgent-01\work\e4797f8bddc217f4\SolrNet\Impl\SolrConnection.cs:line 119
at SolrNet.Impl.SolrConnection.Post(String relativeUrl, String s) in d:\BuildAgent-01\work\e4797f8bddc217f4\SolrNet\Impl\SolrConnection.cs:line 84
at SolrNet.Impl.SolrBasicServer1.SendAndParseHeader(ISolrCommand cmd) in d:\BuildAgent-01\work\e4797f8bddc217f4\SolrNet\Impl\SolrBasicServer.cs:line 112
at SobekCM.Engine_Library.Solr.v5.v5_Solr_Controller.Update_Index(String SolrDocumentUrl, String SolrPageUrl, SobekCM_Item Resource, Boolean Include_Text) in C:\GitRepository\SobekCM-Web-Application\SobekCM_Engine_Library\Solr\v5\v5_Solr_Controller.cs:line 59
at SobekCM.Engine_Library.Solr.Solr_Controller.Update_Index(String SolrDocumentUrl, String SolrPageUrl, SobekCM_Item Resource, Boolean Include_Text) in C:\GitRepository\SobekCM-Web-Application\SobekCM_Engine_Library\Solr\Solr_Controller.cs:line 33
at SobekCM.Library.MySobekViewer.New_Group_And_Item_MySobekViewer.complete_item_submission(SobekCM_Item Item_To_Complete, Custom_Tracer Tracer) in C:\GitRepository\SobekCM-Web-Application\SobekCM_Library\MySobekViewer\New_Group_And_Item_MySobekViewer.cs:line 857