A Multimedia Exploration of Conservation, Connectivity, and Landscape Architecture

By Mary Catherine Miller and Joseph M. Watson
Supported in part by the Harvard GSD Penny White Project Fund

THIS IS THE FUTURE according to Kim Stanley Robinson. The events documented in fig. P-1 mark a major turning point in his space opera 2312 (Orbit, 2012). Although it occurs three centuries into our future, during the novel’s titular year, Robinson’s “reanimation” is informed by present efforts to create large-scale networks of protected wildlands that would ensure the free movement of wide-ranging or migratory megafauna. The following chapters investigate these contemporary projects with a twofold purpose.

First, we focus on the multifarious connections between lands occupied by humans and those designated “wild.” Easily overlooked in plans that span a continent, these sites are crucial for understanding how “wild interfaces” are not determined by the boundaries that we construct around or across the land. Instead, they represent ever changing thresholds within and between hybrid landscapes. Second, we attempt to identify a role for design—and, specifically, for landscape architecture—in a discourse that has been driven primarily by conservation biologists, policy makers, and other environmental advocates. This condition has, in turn, resulted in an almost singular focus on keystone species to the exclusion of the landscapes that these creatures inhabit and the changing cultural values that define them. Accordingly, while we address issues that have been central to these debates for decades, especially the parts played by public policy and wildlife management, we also focus on design competitions and National Park Service visitor centers as perhaps unexpected venues in which to encounter “wild interfaces.”

During May 2015, we traveled from southeastern Arizona to northwestern Wyoming to visually document these “wild interfaces.” A grant from the Harvard University Graduate School of Design’s Penny White Project Fund supported the travel portion of our project. As we drove through the American West and interviewed individuals involved with a variety of conservation projects, we became increasingly confident that landscape architects had something vital to contribute to contemporary debates about conservation and connectivity. Given their relative absence to date, we find it necessary, like Robinson’s protagonists, to advocate for a “botanical element.”

Figure P-2. The ca. 3500 mile trip from Arizona to Colorado, May 13 through June 2, 2015.

Figure P-3. Daily rituals on the road.

A number of significant transformations occurred in environmental thought during the late twentieth century. One defining characteristic of these shifts was increasing concern over the plight of endangered species and the human destruction of their habitats. The publication of Peter Matthiessin’s Wildlife in America (1958) and Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), the nearly unanimous passage of the federal Endangered Species Act by the United States Congress in 1973, or the increasing prominence of the field of conservation biology in the 1980s are often cited as origins for this newfound concern. And yet, awareness of the need to manage the interactions between humans and non-human animals, and the lands that they share, can be identified decades, if not centuries, earlier.

While first radio and then digital technologies have transformed our understanding of animal movement and issues such as climate change have added increasing urgency to calls for habitat protection and ecosystem restoration, these developments and the transformations they entail exist within a longer, complex history (see table 3-1). Perhaps the most significant and fraught aspect of that history is the peculiarly American understanding of nature and the relationship of humans to it. Many environmentalists define their cause through an understanding of nature, and specifically “wilderness,” outside the influence of human culture, while numerous others insist that wilderness is a culturally produced part of human history. That discrepancy need not be resolved to realize that the transformations described above, Kim Stanley Robinson’s “reanimation,” and our own “wild interfaces” are all part of a long-running and contentious debate about the place of nature in the American cultural imaginary.

Figure P-4. Gallery window in Jackson, Wyoming.

THE FOREGOING "DEBATE" between Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First! and the Wildlands Project (now the Wildlands Network), and environmental historian William Cronon is indicative of the ongoing antagonisms among environmental advocates alluded to in the prologue. By inserting this project into that debate, we do not by any means seek to retrace all of its contours or resolve its tensions. Instead, we use it as a starting point from which to explore the potential held by those places where humans and wildlife encounter one another, the physical analogues to the rhetorical space in which Cronon’s “middle landscape” confronts Foreman’s “wilderness.” The complexities of this debate frustrate any attempt to locate a precise point of origin. Rather than try to identify one, we asked two of our subjects to recount the conservation movement’s history in order to better gauge their understandings of the relationship between past, present, and future efforts.

Figure 1-2. Road sign on Highway 191 in southeastern Arizona.

Figure 1-3. Boundary of the Rio Grande Nature Center State Park in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Figure 1-4. A sign warning visitors and cadets not to feed the wildlife on the grounds of the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Figure 1-5. Roadwork on Interstate 25 outside of Denver, Colorado.

Figure 1-6. Boundary of the Gila Wilderness in Gila National Forest, New Mexico.

Figure 1-7. Boundary between Bridger-Teton National Forest and private ranch land in Wyoming.

Figure 1-8. Wildlife warning at Mud Volcano, a popular destination in Yellowstone National Park.

Figure 1-9. A small group of pronghorn antelope amidst layers of transportation infrastructure at the foot of the Book Cliffs in eastern Utah.

Figure 1-10. A bison near the parking lot at Mud Volcano in Yellowstone National Park.

A CHANCE ENCOUNTER with the Wildlands Network’s map served as our entry into this world. With its envisioned network of “wildways” sweeping across the North American continent like effortless brushstrokes, it remains one of the most compelling and puzzling things that we discovered. This is in no small part due to the problem of scale that it introduces. The transcontinental linkages are its ostensible focus, but there are immense scalar shifts hidden within its visual simplicity. These different scales are not arranged successively but are instead intertwined. Biogeographic characteristics, cultural associations, political boundaries, land-use designations, agency jurisdictions, conservation easements, organizational resources, and study parameters intersect each other, resulting in numerous, overlapping composites and contradictions. As such, those involved in these projects are required to think and act at the local and global simultaneously. While large-scale planning is essential, transcontinental networks will therefore be realized through innumerable small-scale projects. Wildlife crossings have therefore become major components of these corridor plans, providing the numerous small-scale connections through which large-scale connectivity is achieved.

While the ARC Design Competition was unique for its level of publicity and for landscape architects’ prominent involvement, the construction of wildlife bridges is increasingly widespread. We visited two ensembles of overpasses and underpasses at opposite ends of the trip.

Map 2-1, Figures 2-2 to 2-6: Wildlife overpass under construction in Oro Valley, Arizona.

Map 2-1. Oro Valley, Arizona

Figure 2-2. Wildlife overpass under construction in Oro Valley, Arizona.

Figure 2-3. Boundary of the Pusch Ridge Wilderness in Oro Valley.

Figure 2-4. Development abutting the Pusch Ridge Wilderness along North Oracle Road south of the wildlife crossings.

Figure 2-5. Boundary of the Pusch Ridge Wilderness. Development along North Oracle Road is visible just below the horizon.

Figure 2-6. Rush hour traffic in front of the wildlife overpass under construction.

Map 2-2, Figures 2-7 to 2-12: Wildlife overpasses and underpasses west of Pinedale, Wyoming.

Map 2-2. Pinedale, Wyoming

Figure 2-7. Wildlife overpass on US Highway 191 travelling south toward Daniel Junction.

Figure 2-8. An underpass and overpass built by the Wyoming Department of Transportation in 2012.

Figure 2-9. View from atop one of the wildlife overpasses.

Figure 2-10. The scale and grading of the bridges and underpasses were designed for use by mule deer and pronghorn antelope.

Figure 2-11. Looking from the same underpass through a gate into adjacent ranch land northwest of Pinedale, Wyoming.

Figure 2-12. Two pronghorn antelope on a ridge in southern Wyoming.

Figure Ex-1. The gravel road to Robert Smithson's Spiral Jetty along the northern edge of the Great Salt Lake.

Figure Ex-2. Near the end of the paved road to Spiral Jetty at Promontory Summit, Utah.

ROBERT SMITHSON'S SPIRAL JETTY (1970) is located on the northern edge of the Great Salt Lake in a remote section of northern Utah. Our experience of it was otherworldly. The last leg of the drive to Smithson’s work is measured not in mile markers but in cattle guards. Standing at the center of the spiral, the horizon was shrouded in mist and rain, less a clearly defined line than an uneven gradient of blues, browns, and pinks. That experience could not have differed more from our pitstop at Promontory Summit on the way back to the interstate. The so-called “golden spike” was driven there on May 10, 1869, joining the Union and Central Pacific Railroads. The creation of the first transcontinental linkage is today memorialized with a National Park Service visitor center, replica locomotives, and reenactments of the "golden spike" ceremony.

Figure Ex-4. Replica locomotive at the Golden Spike National Historic Site.

Figure Ex-5. Diorama representing the "golden spike" ceremony in miniature.

Figure Ex-6. Visitors to the Golden Spike National Historic Site.

Figure Ex-7. Two replica locomotives meeting at the location of the first transcontinental linkage.

Figure Ex-8. A replica of the ceremonial last tie that received the "golden spike."

ONE RECURRING REFRAIN followed us from Arizona to Wyoming: the ability to introduce, revise, or otherwise influence environmental policy is understood to be the key to ensuring the long term success and viability of the conservation movement in general and large landscape connectivity in particular. The ability to legally designate lands as protected and regulate their management is an obvious focal point for environmental advocates. But, while the policy discussion strikes at the very core of conservation efforts, it also reveals the overwhelming complexity and sometimes limited efficacy of those efforts. Above all, it also reveals that “wild interfaces” are by no means always composed of physical barriers.

 Map 3-1a. Composite of variously protected lands within the project scope  Map 3-1b. State public lands  Map 3-1c. Federal Indian reservations  Map 3-1d. Federal public lands

Figure 3-1. An aerial view of the National Elk Refuge from the grounds of the National Museum of Wildlife Art in Jackson, Wyoming.

Figures 3-2 to 3-13: A catalogue of barrier structure types.

Figure 3-2. Jack-leg fence. Source: USDI Bureau of Land Management et al., "Fences," 1988.

Figure 3-3. Jack-leg fence at the Miller Ranch in the National Elk Refuge.

Figure 3-4. Road barrier: cattle guard. Source: USDA Forest Service, "Wildlife Crossings Toolkit," 2015.

Figure 3-5. Cattle guard marking the boundary between National Park Service and private ranch lands in northern Utah.

Figure 3-6. Cattle guard near an inholding within Gila National Forest, New Mexico.

Figure 3-7. Vinyl markers on wire fence. Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife, "Fencing with Wildlife in Mind," 2009.

Figure 3-8. Detail of vinyl markers on wire fence at the boundary betwen Bridger-Teton National Forest and private ranch land in Wyoming.

Figure 3-9. Lay-down fence. Source: Colorado Parks and Wildlife, "Fencing with Wildlife in Mind," 2009.

Figure 3-10. Lay-down fence along Highway 191 near Pinedale, Wyoming.

Figure 3-11. Escape structures: one-way gate and ramp. Source: USDA Forest Service, "Wildlife Crossings Toolkit," 2015.

Figure 3-12. Escape ramp at the edge of the National Elk Refuge.

Figure 3-13. Escape ramp at the edge of the National Elk Refuge.

Fences and other visible boundary markers play a key role in differentiating land uses while also inhibiting or encouraging the movement of human and non-human animals. Yet, the often invisible demarcations between unprotected private land and conserved land held by private land trusts, inholdings within public lands, or variously protected local, state, and federal lands, administered by a constellation of agencies with divergent missions, are some of the most critical focal points of connection-oriented conservation. Moreover, if the fence is just one, visible component of a vast, imperceptible mosaic of land uses, the policy documents from which they derive are part of an infinitely more expansive discursive landscape.

Table 3-1. A brief history of the texts, movements, and events that have shaped environmental thought in the United States.

Figure 3-14. Information panel adjacent to a wildlife exclusion fence at the National Elk Refuge.

OF ALL THE "WILD INTERFACES" WE ENCOUNTERED, perhaps the most intriguing and complex was the space surrounding Yellowstone’s Old Faithful geyser. A raised walkway partially encircles the geyser itself, set back approximately 100 yards, complete with rows of benches for the hundreds of spectators who flock to each regularly scheduled eruption. Large signs along the nearby paths and in the adjacent visitor center announce with relative accuracy the timing of each of Old Faithful’s “performances.” There were no wildlife present when we visited, but the fragile thermal ground that human visitors are warned against traversing was littered with a herd-sized amount of bison scat.

Figure 4-1. Visitors await the eruption of Old Faithful.

Figure 4-2. Cross section of the boardwalk at Old Faithful.

Figure 4-3. A notice posting Old Faithful's next predicted eruption, ±10 minutes.

Figure 4-4. The porte cochere of the Old Faithful Inn.

As we waited for the 11:30 eruption, we couldn’t help but consider the peculiar construction of this space in relation to the stories about bison gorings and other close encounters that made national news during the summer of 2015. In particular, we wondered whether the raised pathway, which clearly separates humans from wildlife, and the posted eruption times transform the unpredictable power of a geological force into a well-curated, seemingly controlled spectacle. And, in doing so, whether visitors were also inadvertently encouraged to perceive the wildlife that often populate the space as similarly domesticated participants in the spectacle. We therefore developed a broader interest in the history of wildlife management techniques.

Signs, posters, and visitor centers, especially in the National Parks, became a particular focus for the ways that they anticipate these encounters. We were especially interested in visitor centers not only because they are the few examples of designers’ hands being explicitly visible within otherwise apparently untouched landscapes. They also function as framing devices for relationships between human and natural history, distilling an impressive and nebulous set of ideas through a fairly consistent kit-of-curatorial-parts.

Figures 4-5 to 4-8. A brief history of human-wildlife interactions in Yellowstone National Park.

Figure 4-5. ca. 1880s to 1910s: Bears seek human food along park roads as well as in garbage behind park hotels.

Figure 4-6. ca. 1910s to 1960s: As human injuries and property damage increase the park implements new management strategies in the 1960s.

Figure 4-7. ca. 1890s to 1970: Despite a wide range of initiatives to "rewild" Yellowstone's bear population, the open air garbage dumps turned amphitheaters remained in place until 1970.

Figure 4-8. 1985: After a dozen people were gored by bison in the Park, Yellowstone begins recommending appropriate distances from which humans may view different types of wildlife.

Figure 4-10. Detail of a bulletin board at a campground at Yellowstone.

Figure 4-11. Bear-proof dumpster at a campground in Grand Teton National Park.

Figure 4-12. Notice warning hikers at a trailhead near Jenny Lake at the foot of the Tetons.

Map 4-1, Figures 4-14 to 4-22. A tour of visitor centers in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Map 4-1. Select visitor center locations in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Figure 4-14. The Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone Visitor Center, Jackson, Wyoming.

Figure 4-15. Craig Thomas Discovery and Visitor Center in Grand Teton National Park, Moose, Wyoming.

Figure 4-16. Canyon Visitor Education Center in Yellowstone, Canyon Village, Wyoming.

Figure 4-17. Albright Visitor Center in Yellowstone, Mammoth Hot Springs, Wyoming.

Figure 4-18. Path leading to Laurance S. Rockefeller Preserve Center in Grand Teton National Park.

Figure 4-19. Exhibition space in the Rockefeller Preserve Center.

Figure 4-20. Orientation space in the Rockefeller Preserve Center.

Figure 4-21. Wash station outside of the Rockefeller Preserve Center.

Figure 4-22. Typical visitor center "kit of parts."

Figure 4-23. Road sign near Old Faithful in Yellowstone.

WE PERCEIVED AN IMPASSE between what the design world could potentially contribute to the issues outlined above and the predetermined scale and scope of its interventions. Because of the sometimes subtle, sometimes not, ways that we continue to delineate spaces for humans from spaces deemed “wild,” the contributions of architects and landscape architects remain confined to visitor centers and boutique infrastructural projects. If, however, we rethink the role of “wild interfaces,” then these discrete sites could unfold into the hybrid landscapes that they in many ways already occupy. Instead of lines drawn on a map, instead of barriers where the land’s diverse user groups—human and non-human—confront one another, we envision them as spaces where a complex mixture of social, cultural, political, and economic ideas materialize. Moreover, as climate change, exurban development, concepts like the Anthropocene, and other factors challenge age-old conservation ideals, reconceptualizing “wild interfaces” becomes more challenging, but all the more urgent. We see the design disciplines as platforms from which to meet those challenges. And, so, in the end, Kim Stanley Robinson’s future comes to mind again:

Figure Ep-2. Grazing elk at Mammoth Springs, Wyoming.

THIS LIST represents the eclectic body of literature that we drew from throughout the research, travel, and development stages of this project. It is by no means exhaustive. See also the texts cited in Table 3-1.

  • Alagona, Peter. After the Grizzly: Endangered Species and the Politics of Place in California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013.
  • Aldhaus, Peter. "These Maps Reveal How The U.S. Is Failing To Protect Its Wildlife." Buzzfeed News, April 6, 2015.
  • Banham, Reyner. The Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment, Second Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
  • Beardsley, John, editor. Designing Wildlife Habitats: Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture XXXIV. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2013.
  • Benson, Etienne. “The Biopolitics of the Border.” In “The Edges of Environmental History: Honouring Jane Carruthers.” Edited by Christof Mauch and Libby Robin. RCC Perspectives 1 (2014): 81-86.
  • Benson, Etienne. Wired Wilderness: Technologies of Tracking and the Making of Modern Wildlife. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.
  • Berger, Alan. Reclaiming the American West. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002.
  • Bird, Andrew, violin. Tyler Manson, director. Echolocations: Canyon. 2015.
  • Boorujy, George. Passenger. Solo exhibition at the P.P.O.W. Gallery, New York. 2014.
  • Conan, Michael. Environmentalism in Landscape Architecture. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000.
  • Cronon, William, et al, editors. Under an Open Sky: Rethinking America’s Western Past. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1992.
  • Cronon, William, editor. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1995.
  • Czerniak, Julia, and George Hargreaves, editors. Large Parks. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007.
  • Del Tredici, Peter. “Brave New Ecology.” Landscape Architecture 96:2 (2006): 46-52.
  • Donlan, Josh. “Re-wilding North America.” Nature 436:7053 (2005): 913-914.
  • Easterling, Keller. Organization Space: Landscapes, Highways, and Houses in America. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2001.
  • Elden, Stuart. The Birth of Territory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2013.
  • Elkin, Rosetta. “Tiny Taxonomy.” Installation at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, 2013.
  • Ellis, Erle C. “Sustaining Biodiversity and People in the World’s Anthropogenic Biomes.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5:3-4 (2013): 368-72.
  • Foreman, Dave. Rewilding North America: A Vision for Conservation in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2004.
  • Foreman, Dave. “The Wildlands Project and the Rewilding of North America.” Denver University Law Review 76.2 (1999): 535-553.
  • Forman, Richard T. T. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003.
  • Goode, Erica. “A Shifting Approach to Saving Endangered Species.” The New York Times, October 5, 2015.
  • Gorman, James. “For Mule Deer, an Incredible 150-Mile Migration.” The New York Times, February 2, 2015.
  • Hands, Tatum, et al., editors. Wild, theme issue of LA+ Interdisciplinary Journal of Landscape Architecture (Spring 2015).
  • Haraway, Donna. Cyborgs, Simians, Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Routledge, 1990.
  • Haraway, Donna. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.
  • Heise, Ursula K. Sense of Planet and Sense of Place: The Environmental Imagination of the Global. London: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Herzog, Werner, director. Grizzly Man. 2005.
  • Herzog, Werner, director. La Soufrière. 1977.
  • Hylton, Wil S. “Broken Heartland: The Looming Collapse of Agriculture on the Great Plains.” Harper’s Magazine (July 2012): 25-35.
  • Jameson, Fredric. “‘If I Can Find One Good City I Will Spare the Man’: Realism and Utopia in Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars Trilogy.” In Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions, 393-416. London: Verso, 2005.
  • Jørgensen, Dolly. “Rethinking Rewilding.” Geoforum 65 (October 2015): 482-488.
  • Krauss, Clifford. “U.S. Trying to Protect Sage Grouse Without Listing it as an Endangered Species.” The New York Times, September 22, 2015.
  • Latour, Bruno. The Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.
  • Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. London: Oxford University Press, 1949.
  • Lewis, Martin. “Rewilding Pragmatism, or What an African Safari Can Teach America.” Breakthrough Journal (Summer 2015).
  • Lippard, Lucy R. Undermining: A Wild Ride through Land Use, Politics, and Art in the Changing West. New York: The New Press, 2014.
  • Lorimer, Jamie, and Clemens Driessen. “Wild Experiments at the Oostvaardersplassen: Rethinking Environmentalism in the Anthropocene.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 39:2 (2014): 169-81.
  • Macy, Christine, and Sarah Bonnemaison. Architecture and Nature: Creating the American Landscape. London: Routledge, 2003.
  • Mavier, Michelle, Peter Kareiva, and Robert Lalasz. “Conservation in the Anthropocene: Beyond Solitude and Fragility.” Breakthrough Journal (Winter 2012).
  • McHarg, Ian. Design with Nature. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press, 1969.
  • McKibben, Bill. The End of Nature. New York: Random House, 1989.
  • Merchant, Carolyn. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. New York: Harper and Row, 1980.
  • McPhee, John. Annals of the Former World. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1998.
  • Miller, Michael E. “Bison Selfies are a Bad Idea: Tourist Gored in Yellowstone as Another Photo Goes Awry.” The Washington Post, July 23, 2015.
  • Milman, Oliver. “Yellowstone Bison Marked for Death Could be Spared by Relocation Plan.” The Guardian, November 20, 2015.
  • Monbiot, George. “For More Wonder, Rewild the World.” Talk given at TEDGlobal 2013. July 2013.
  • Mostafavi, Mohsen, and Gareth Doherty, editors. Ecological Urbanism. Zurich: Lars Müller, 2010.
  • Nagourney, Adam, “A Defiant Rancher Savors the Audience That Rallied to His Side,” The New York Times, April 23, 2014.
  • Nash, Roderick Frazier. Wilderness and the American Mind, Fifth Edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014.
  • Noss, Reed F. “A Checklist for Wildlands Network Designs.” Conservation Biology 17:5 (October 2003): 1270-1275.
  • Pearce, Fred. The New Wild: Why Invasive Species Will Be Nature’s Salvation. Boston: Beacon Press, 2015.
  • Perrin, Jacques, and Jacques Cluzaud, directors. Les Saisons. 2015.
  • Wildlife Conservation Society and Nine Caribou Productions. “Path of the Pronghorn.” 2013.
  • Robinson, Kim Stanley. The Mars Trilogy. 1993-1996.
  • Robinson, Kim Stanley. 2312. New York: Orbit, 2013.
  • Schuler, Timothy A. “The Bison Begin Again.” Landscape Architecture Magazine (November 2015): 164-183.
  • Schwartz, John. “As Fires Grow, a New Landscape Appears in the West.” The New York Times, September 21, 2015.
  • Spirn, Anne Whiston. The Language of Landscape. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.
  • Tepper, Laura. “Road Ecology: Wildlife Habitat and Highway Design.” Places Journal (September 2011).
  • Wilson, Jason. “The Oregon militia revolt recipe: timber, despair and a crippling political isolation.” The Guardian, January 14, 2016.
  • Wilson, Robert. Seeking Refuge: Birds and Landscapes of the Pacific Flyway. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2010.

THIS PROJECT originated in a grant from the Harvard University Graduate School of Design’s Penny White Project Fund, which supported the initial ideas and travel portion of the project. Rosetta Elkin at Harvard and Etienne Benson at Penn were invaluable sources of academic support and intellectual encouragement before, during, and after that initial stage. We extend a special thanks to all of our interview subjects for their time and willingness to speak with us. Our project is richer because of their input. Christopher Watson and Taryn Mudge supplied the camping gear and supplies we used. Our Toyota Corolla rental ably withstood more off-road driving than its engineers could have possibly foreseen. Finally, without Claire Craven there would have been no one to narrate the future.

Thank you, friends.

MARY CATHERINE MILLER is a Master of Landscape Architecture candidate at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design. She is currently at work on a thesis project that derives from the research supported by the Penny White grant, focusing on issues of land management and human/wild interfaces in and around horse management areas in western Colorado. Trained as an architect at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Mary has also practiced as an architect in Philadelphia.

JOSEPH M. WATSON is a Ph.D. candidate in the History and Theory of Architecture at the University of Pennsylvania. His dissertation studies the urban landscapes of the early-twentieth century United States and the variety of cultural texts that informed their transformations. He received an MA in Social Ethics from Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York and also studied architecture at the University of Tennessee. He has worked as an architect in Knoxville and Manhattan.