Design With Nature in the Anthropocene: The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

Design with Nature in the Anthropocene:

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Selected Works from Graduate Architecture Studio 551 Spring | 2020 Montana State University

edited by Nicole Andersson, Aleck Gantick, Chere LeClair

School of Architecture PO Box 173760 Bozeman, MT 59717-3760 arch.montana.edu architect@montana.edu

© Copyright 2020 Montana State University School of Architecture Individual contributions are copyright their respective authors. Images are copyright their respective creators, unless otherwise noted.

Contents

01 Introduction.................................. 1

Class Narrative....................................... 2 Project Team........................................... 3

Provocation............................................ 4

02 Connection to Nature.................. 11

Zion Park Trip......................................... 12 Reflections.............................................. 20

03 Mapping........................................ 25 04 Student Projects........................... 51

Aleck Gantick......................................... 52

Tiffani Finley........................................... 98

Aidan Cohen.......................................... 82 John Sanford.......................................... 118

Nicole Andersson.................................. 130

Jimmy Brown......................................... 162

Saunders Allen....................................... 148 Eliana Delabahan & Sander Story....... 180

01

Introduction

Class Narrative

Photo by Elena Cizmaric

Bozeman, Montana has become the fastest growing city of its size in the United States. As I write this, the growth has only been exacerbated in the past few months by COVID-19 migrants, seeking wide open spaces and relishing our relatively low infection rates. The pandemic has necessitated moving workflows on-line, and many positions have morphed to function permanently remote, freeing-up telecommuters to work from anywhere. Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley are booming. A midrise materializes seemingly overnight in the urban core and simultaneously a new rural subdivision cuts its way across rich agricultural land or relatively pristine habitat. All of this is the inevitable result of progress, right?

What is at stake in this era of explosive growth? The Gallatin Valley lies at the northern extent of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) and its patchwork of public and private lands comprise the most intact ecosystem in the lower fortyeight states. This region is also a key component of the interconnected ecosystems that comprise the backbone of the Yellowstone to Yukon ecological zone. The survival and genetic diversity of migratory species, particularly large land mammals, such as moose, elk, grizzlies, etc., is dependent upon the health and viability of these interrelated ecosystems.

2

I posit that humans are the invasive species, perilously impacting the functioning of these ecosystems and the abundance of non-human life that rely upon them. Many of these human impediments are more obvious and well known. A couple examples include damming rivers and the damage inflicted to native trout spawning or the carnage wrought when migrating species experience high mortality rates in collisions with vehicles along roadways cutting across key habitats. Other impacts are less obvious such as the onslaught wrought by backcountry enthusiasts; hikers, mountain bikers, backcountry skiers, ice climbers, snowmobilers, motorcyclists, etc. as they penetrate deeper and deeper into critical habitats in perpetually increasing numbers. Development, recreation, and the overall increase of the human footprint has led to habitat degradation, loss, and fragmentation. It begs the question, “Are we loving this place to death?”

These themes provided the backdrop to the graduate studio I taught in the spring of 2020. Early in the semester, nine students and I spent an intensive week together in Zion National Park. We embarked on a profound spiritual journey, unpacking the pure magic of spending three continuous days together in the wonder of nature, exploring the value it holds for humanity. Upon our return, we began to unpack the complex and interlaced fabric of the Yellowstone Ecosystem, researching the historic, contemporary and projected uses, growth and impacts. We researched the extent of the Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative, mapping both natural and man-made conditions. Once this broader context was established, the class mapped these conditions at the scale of the GYE. Finally, either individually or in small groups, the students began to research a more intimate site of study. In the short time remaining, they created proposals to engage design thinking as a mechanism to tackle the challenges that emerged.

I would like to thank my students; Saunders Allen, Nicole Andersson, Jimmy Brown, Aidan Cohen, Eliana Delabahan, Tiffani Finley, Aleck Gantick, John Sanford, and Sander Story for their passion and tireless commitment to the studio, especially in light of interruption created by the pandemic. Many thanks also to Aleck and Nicole for their help in editing this book. Additionally, this work would not have been possible without the gracious sharing of time and expertise of Dennis Glick (Future West), Todd Wilkinson (Mountain Journal) and MSU faculty Andrew Hansen, Ralph Johnson, Bradford Watson, Cathy Whitlock, and Bill Wyckoff.

Sincerely,

Chere LeClair Teaching Professor MSU School of Architecture 3

Project Team individuals to move here. I would like to focus on design as a medium to question our occupation of this landscape and ask not what nature can offer us, but how we can co-habitate with nature and the established ecology of a place.

Nicole Andersson [Graduate Student]

Chere LeClair [Architecture Professor]

I was born and raised in Montana. At an early age, I developed a keen awareness of the natural world and the non-human beings that also occupy this landscape. My mother’s roots are ranching and my father’s are construction and development. These factors strongly influenced my decision to become an architect. For me, it is essential that students question what defines architecture and the ideas of sustainability. Does a project end at the edge of the building or the immediate site? I wanted to challenge them to discover the extent of the total site of impact, and to embrace a larger repertoire of design thinking skills beyond the traditional design studio, and deeply understand the human need to connect with nature. Also, I saw this studio as an opportunity for exploration and reflection of human impact at the scale of the ecosystem. For me, this is

a missing link in the current architectural discourse.

I would like to continue and build upon the work of this studio in subsequent coursework. We find ourselves at a tipping point, and the very survival of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is at risk.

Architects have an important voice and skill set to lend, and we can be part of the solution.

Aleck Gantick [Graduate Student]

I am originally from the rural community of Clark, located in North-Western Colorado near the Zirkel Wilderness. Much of my childhood years were spent fixing the fence lines of private ranches and recreating on public lands. Growing up with a strong connection to the outdoors, I have often found myself taking these majestic landscapes for granted.

As these places become more populated, we run the risk of destroying the desirable qualities motivating 4

I grew up in Cambridge, NY, a small rural farm town upstate where I grew an appreciatation for agrarian achitecture and pastoral landscapes. I’ve come to realize that so much of architecture education and practice is centered within cities, where the greatest impact to human life can be directly seen.

This class, however, shifted the typical architecture studio from an urban context to one within nature.

Our core focus was not humans, but rather animals and vegetation. I have never designed for nature but this studio offered an opportunity to be in reverence to animal activity and natural systems rather than human progress (anathema to our ritualistic architectural practices). This studio changed the way I view a landscape; no longer do I only see plants and animals in a landscape, but I also see also the inseparable and conflicted history of human activity woven through it. We have touched, altered, damaged, revered, and feared nature, all while attempting reconciliation. I now see architecture as an opportunity to present a new hierarchy among natural systems and human development.

Saunders Allen [Graduate Student]

I am from Alabama’s Gulf Coast and have been interested in building and design since early childhood, though my first brushes with real design came from building furniture for friends and family as a teenager. I took this studio out of passion for the enjoyment and conservation of wild natural lands and waters that came from a childhood spent

outside, paired with my growing understanding that it is the responsibility of architects and designers to consider how our role in society can positively impact the natural world. This studio helped me to understand how architects might think about how the infrastructure of our human world can be leveraged to suit more than just human needs; this is a concept that I am exploring in my ongoing Master’s Professional Project and hope to further explore in my career in architecture and conservation.

Jimmy Brown [Graduate Student]

I am from Aztec, New Mexico. I chose Architecture because I like to build things and problem-solve.

Architecture allows that while giving the freedom of creativity. I took this studio because it offered a different end result for the semester that was foreign to what we learned the previous four years. It was an opportunity to think holistically and not just site specifically. This class has allowed me to think about the surrounding environment while doing design and not just on a specific location. I am able to better envision the impact my design has in a bigger context rather than just locally or adjacent to the site.

Aidan Cohen [Graduate Student]

I am from Katonah, New York. I like to build things with my hands. I like the smell of dirt. I thought maybe by taking this studio I could go outside and smell some good dirt every now and again. This class made me reconsider my existence, why I moved to Bozeman, and what I do in my everyday life. People drive out into the most remote wilderness areas, and lounge inside of their luxurious, fortified, “adventure-vehicle” so they can update their social media, sip a local beer, read Bukowski, and pretend to be Alexander Supertramp. Maybe the best thing to do if we actually love nature, is to move to the most densely populated, energy efficient city that we can find, and feel comforted by the fact that nature is thriving

without us, and the animals that call that region home are extremely glad that we’re very far away.

Sander Story [Graduate Student]

I am from Park City, Montana. I chose to study architecture because I saw it as a way to engage with a wide variety of challenges and contribute to making the built environment more beautiful. I am very grateful to have the opportunity to study architecture here. Because I have been afforded that privilege, I believe it is important to think critically about the systems at play in this place. I’ll never look at the place I call home the same way again or any other landscape. I want to take responsibility for how our ecosystems are affected by infrastructure and the built environment in whatever work the future holds for me.

Eliana Delabahan [Graduate Student]

I grew up in Northern California with a passion for expression through various art mediums. Early exposure to basic architectural hand drafting fed into both my artistic and problem-solving interests and presented a whole new understanding of what expression is and can be in design. In the seven years I’ve lived in Bozeman, I have been exposed to a landscape and environment which has allowed me to experience life and my surroundings more intimately. I’ve learned nature should be cherished in its many forms and scales. How we as humans factor into our experiences of nature brings a level of conversation and contemplation which attracted me to this studio. I knew this studio was more than exploring a local case study, but that it represented a fractal within a larger set of issues. I wanted to not only experiment in creative explorations of the humanenvironment relationship, but, in a way, become another small piece working towards addressing these issues through the lens of design and design thinking. This class made me not only realize, but 5

greatly value the diversity of people’s experiences of the environment and regional landscapes. It is the diversity of these human-environment experiences that present opportunities for architects and designers (and young designers like myself) to express creative solutions for a more thoughtful and proactive experience of the environment.

John Sanford [Graduate Student]

I grew up in Great Falls, Montana. Growing up in Montana has afforded me many great experiences with nature and has instilled a deep reverence and appreciation for it. I chose to study architecture because I have always been fascinated with making things and with creative problem-solving. I choose to take this studio because I was interested in studying the relationship and impact that we have on the natural environment. The topics that we, as a class, have explored, has impressed on me a greater responsibility to advocate for a sustainable relationship with our surrounding natural environment.

Tiffani Finley [Graduate Student]

I am from Billings, Montana and became interested in architecture after taking drafting classes in high school. I chose architecture because it gave me the opportunity to utilize creative problem-solving to positively influence the built environment. I made the decision to take this studio because I am interested in the way that humans impact native ecological systems. I saw this studio as an opportunity to explore the connection between human influence and ecology through a unique design lens. Taking this studio has really spotlighted the significant impact humans and the built environment have on ecological systems. This studio has caused me to feel a sense of responsibility to design architecture that not only benefits humans but the surrounding ecology as well.

Provocation

Anthropocene: In the Human Epoch, human activity is directly responsible for the greatest extinction event since an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. Due to climate change, habitat loss, disease, invasive spices, over hunting and fishing, plastic pollution... ect, the extinction rate of species is up to 1000x higher than the background extinction rate*

* Welcome to the Anthropocene: Informing People about the New World Order. Population Matters. https://populationmatters.org/sites/ default/files/Population%20Matters%20Anthropocene%20briefing_2017.pdf 6

7

Photo by Chere LeClair

Provocation

“Human beings have evolved a plurality of ways of engaging spirit, nature and one another so as to enable their mutual flourishing; we need to be critically faithful to each of these ways, separately, and in interplay with each other, if we are to set our species on a just, sustainable, and spiritually fulfilling path of planetary evolution. This is the promise of the marriage of the ecological world view and the democratic ideal in our epoch.”

Engel, 2000

8

9

Photo by Chere LeClair

10

Photo by Saunders Allen

02

Connection 11

Zion National Park ‘The 3-Day Effect’

While the majority of Arch 551 studio work focused on the Yellowstone to Yukon ecosystem corridor, a trip to Zion National Park in Utah, provided a reallife ‘nature’ experience, one which was, for most, out of the ordinary and in an unfamiliar landscape.

The change in climates (from cold to warm) gave us, not only a reprieve from the Montana winter, but also a chance to witness the beauty of nature in a different state, albeit in the same national park system as Yellowstone. The trip was meant not to be data gathering, but rather for an attunement of our spiritual and psychological responses to nature.

After three days, we all felt the effect nature had on our minds, bodies and connection to one another.

The 3-Day Effect

How Nature Calms the Brain

by Florence Williams While much of the world presses on in the pursuit of progress, few stop and ask the question, are we missing a fundamental piece of the human experience? Is nature enmeshed with our health, happiness, and creativity? While often thought of as superfluous, can nature have a quantifiable impact on the human psyche and well being? The 3-day effect is a testament to the power and value of reconnecting with nature in any context.

Photo by Jimmy Brown

“It’s like standing in a beautiful piece of artwork.“ - Florence Williams, The 3-Day Effect

12

Photos by: John Sanford (left), Aleck Gantick (top right), Nicole Andersson (bottom right)

13

Zion - Day 1 Monday, January 20th

Zion - Day 2 Tuesday, January 21st

14

Photos by: Aleck Gantick

Photos by: Jimmy Brown (left), John Sanford (top right), Aleck Gantick (bottom right)

15

Zion - Day 2 Tuesday, January 21st

Zion - Day 3 Wednesday, January 22nd

16

Photos by: Jimmy Brown

Photos by: Nicole Andersson (top left/ top right), Aleck Gantick (bottom)

17

Zion - Day 3 Wednesday, January 22nd

Zion - Day 4 Thursday, January 24th

18

Photos by: Jimmy Brown

Photos by: Nicole Andersson (left), Jimmy Brown (bottom right/ top right)

19

Zion - Day 4 Thursday, January 24th

Reflections

A Personal Connection to Nature

Selected readings provided the backdrop for discussions of humanity’s relationship and connection to nature. The Zion Trip transcended academic and conceptual themes into a visceral and real-world bodily experience. Reflections on individual discoveries while submerged in nature for three days allowed the group to deeply connect to each other and the gravity of the issues to be addressed by the studio. The selected reflections illuminate the insights gleaned from both readings and field trip.

The following pages are a collection of student reflections tied to experiences in Zion.

20

opposite page: Textures of Zion National Park, Jimmy Brown Black and White Photography

21

above: Omission Commission, Aleck Gantick Photo Collage

22

above: Zion Triptych, John Sanford Watercolor

23

24

03 Mapping

25

Mapping

Yellowstone to the Yukon Mapping as our Primary Tool

Informed by our one-on-one exposure to nature, the studio set out to map areas of research within the Yellowstone to Yukon region. While the scale was variable, the maps fell into three broad categories.

Terra Firma: topography, geography, watersheds, climate, fire, communities, regions Ecosystems: dynamic relationships of organisms; flora, fauna, and habitats Human Influences: history - indigenous, white settlement, land use patterns - agriculture, industry, infrastructure, private vs. public lands, economies local/global, trading, resources extraction, tourism With these prompts, permutations of time, past, present and future were overlaid within the mappings and revealed design opportunities within historic, contemporary, and projected patterns.

26

H u m a n i m p a c t o n Te r r e s t r i a l Ecosystems in Relation to the Ye l l o w s t o n e t o Yu k o n I n i t i a t i v e Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Peace River Break Y to Y Boundary Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

More Impact

Less Impact Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network–CIESIN - Columbia University. 2005. Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP2): Global Human Inuence Index (HII) Dataset (IGHP). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H46W980H. Accessed 05 February 2020.

Key Migration Points

80 mi

credit: Aleck Gantick

27

Ye l l o w s t o n e t o Yu k o n I n i t i a t i v e Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone to Yukon - desired boundary of conservation Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

National Parks, National Forest, and Wilderness Areas

Salmon Selway Bitterroot - Includes one of the largest continuous

road-less areas in the lower 48 States. Although it contains suitable habitat for grizzly bears, there have been no grizzlies in this region since the 1940’s. The goal to have grizzly bear populations reinhabiting the SSB within 20 years. The connectivity of surrounding ecosystems is vital to achieve this goal.

High Divide - One of the most important linkage areas in the Y to

Y region, connecting the three biggest blocks of protected wildlife habitat in the lower 48 States. It is a mix of grassland and upland forests, of public land interspersed with dozens of large working ranches that date back to the homestead era. Mostly isolated and with a rural agricultural character, this region is under pressure from housing development, extractive industries, and increasingly busy

“Our mission is to connect and protect habitat from Yellowstone to

highways.

Yukon so people and nature can thrive. Y2Y’s role is to set the context for regional conservation work by providing the vision for a healthy

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem - Includes the world’s first national park, Yellowstone, as well as Grand Teton National Park. Outside

Yellowstone to Yukon landscape, and to bring partners together to

Yellowstone Park hundreds of bison who wander out of the park in

achieve as a network what none of us can accomplish alone. Together,

search of food are slaughtered by Montana state officials. Yellowstone’s

we knit together the landscape from one jurisdiction to the next.“

grizzly population is geographically isolated from the remaining bears

- Yellowstone to Yukon vision and mission.

on the continent, threatening them with inbreeding and possible decline. Wildlife-vehicle collisions and impermeable fencing also pose 80 mi

28

challenges to wandering wildlife.

credit: Aleck Gantick

Resource Extraction in GYE How does the type of land access correlate to resource extraction and energy infratructure patterns?

Yellowstone National Park sits at the north western corner of Wyoming, whose economy is built on energy production from oil, gas and coal, is the fourth highest producer of coal energy in the country. The oldest national park in the world considered a marvel for the preservation of native species, Yellowstone’s ecosystems have become threatened by the rise in temperatures due to human carbon emissions. Scientists and researchers have concluded historic shifts in termperature, snow pack and water runoff, all of which disrupt intricately balanced plant and animal ecosystems. A paradox in landuse accompanies the borders of the GYE; on one side, a semi-undistrubed landscape and a symbol of ecological conservation for the world, and on the other, a landscape rich in coal (areas in yellow) that represents the pillaging and exploitation of earth typified by extractive practices.

Petroleum and crude oil pipelines run around the north, east, and south borders of the GYE, and intersect with critical hubs of civilization and energy production. Bridger, Black Butte and Kemmerer are active mines south of GYE, and adjacent to them, coal production plants. Oil and Gas extraction (blue and brown) result in hazardous air conditions, a threat to public health (areas in pink). This extractive and emissions-emitting industry knocks at the backdoor of Yellowstone, our national treasure, prompting the question, how much more can we take? and will it ever be enough?

Yellowstone to Yukon Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone and Teton National Park, Rockefeller Parkway Threat zones of Air Pollution from Oil & Gas Facilities

https://oilandgasthreatmap.com/threat-map/

Oil and Gas Extraction

Coal Resources

petroleum pipeline

Coal Extraction

crude oil pipline

coal

petroleum

wind

solar

biomass

natural gas

hydro

map data provided by: https://www.eia.gov/state/maps.php?v=Coal

credit: Nicole Andersson

29

Residential Development Growth Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone to Yukon - desired boundary of conservation Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

National Parks, National Forest, and Wilderness Areas More Impact

Less Impact

Easements U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2018, Protected Areas Database of the

United States (PAD-US): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/

P955KPLE

Private Land Ownership

(> 1,600 acres or 25 contiguous parcels)

Large Private Land Easements Parcel and ownership data via landgrid.com

100% or more growth 50% - 100% growth Metropolitan Status Counties Areas of interest

Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network–CIESIN - Columbia University. 2005. Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP 2): Global Human Influence Index (HII) Dataset (IGHP). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic

Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H46W980H. Accessed 05 February 2020.

Areas of Interest These four areas reveal themselves as areas with key conservation potential. These areas are identified by large private land holdings, few owners and a rapid growth in housing development in the past 20 years. In the coming years these large tracts of land will become more valuable for development, creating an opportunity for conservation initiatives to intervene or to employ best development practices that promote ecological viability and sustainability.

80 mi

30

credit: Aleck Gantick

credit: John Sanford

31

32

credit: Eliana Delabahan

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Research | Migration MIGRATION ROUTES WITHIN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK

MIGRATION OVERLAY WITH VEGETATION MAP

MIGRATION OVERLAY WITH LAND OWNERSHIP IN MONTANA

credit: Jimmy Brown

33

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Research | Elk Migration ELK MIGRATION OVERLAY YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK MAP

ELK MIGRATION OVERLAY ROADLESS AREA MAP

34

credit: Jimmy Brown

Butte

Human Recreational Activity Map

Billings Bozeman

Livingston

Big Sky Red Lodge

Gardiner

Powell West Yellowstone

The Human Recreational Activity Map shows areas of high public activities within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The public recreation mapped includes mountain biking, hiking, running, water recreation, and winter recreation, such as skiing. High levels of human outdoor recreation have been recored within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, a 34,375 square mile area that contains one of the largest intact ecosystems in the world. With such high levels of human recreation within a critical ecosystem, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is at risk of long-term natural habitat disruption and environmental loss.

Data Sources: STRAVA Heatmap, USGS Streamer

Cody

Jackson

Idaho Falls

Pocatello

Lander

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Boundary

Yellowstone National Park Boundary Waterways Human Recreation Activity Scale:

10 Miles

credit: Tiffani Finley

35 Logan

Low Activity

High Activity

utte

Recreational Biking Activity Map

Billings Bozeman

Livingston

Big Sky

The Recreational Biking Activity Map shows areas of high biking activity overlaid with mountain biking trails within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The map demonstrates the intensity of biking in specific areas of the ecosystem. Mountain biking has the potential to negatively impact the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem by eroding soils, increasing storm-water runoff, and destroying local plant habitats.

Red Lodge

Gardiner

Powell

Data Sources: STRAVA Heatmap, REI Co-op MTB Project

West Yellowstone

Cody

Jackson

Idaho Falls

Pocatello

Lander

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Boundary

Yellowstone National Park Boundary Mountain Biking Trails Human Recreation Activity Scale:

10 Miles

Low Activity

36 Logan

High Activity

credit: Tiffani Finley

Butte

Billings Bozeman

Human Recreation vs Animal Migration

Livingston

Big Sky Red Lodge

Gardiner

Powell West Yellowstone

Cody

The Human Recreation vs Animal Migration Map shows the correlation between specific species’ migration patterns in relation to human activity. The human activity shown includes mountain biking, hiking, running, water recreation, and winter recreation, such as skiing. The migration routes mapped are those of pronghorns, big horn sheep, moose, elk, and mule deer. The map demonstrates that there are several areas where the migration route of these species are affected by human activity. Several of the migration routes have shifted to avoid areas of high human activity, forcing animals to find alternative routes and disrupting natural migration patterns. Migration routes appear to have shifted around areas of high human activity, such as Big Sky, MT and Jackson, WY. Data Sources: STRAVA Heatmap, Data Basin - Dawn Dress

Jackson

Idaho Falls

Pronghorn

Big Horn Sheep

Moose

Pocatello

Lander

Elk

Mule Deer

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Boundary

Yellowstone National Park Boundary Human Recreation Activity Scale:

10 Miles

credit: Tiffani Finley

37 Logan

Low Activity

High Activity

Big Sky

Soundscapes vs Animal Migration

Red Lodge

Gardiner

Canyon Village

Powell

West Yellowstone

The Soundscapes vs Animal Migration maps shows the correlation between soundscapes recorded and migration patterns of specific species. The maps demonstrate the amount of time natural and non-natural sounds were audible over the duration of the recording time. The migration routes reveal areas within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem where there is conflict between non-natural sounds and migration patterns. It can be inferred that the amount of non-natural sounds in specific areas results in the distribution of migration patterns.

Cody Old Faithful

South Entrance

utte

Data Sources: National Park Service - Yellowstone Soundscape Program, Data Basin - Dawn Dress

Oxbow Point Bozeman

Billings

Livingston Teton Village

Idaho Falls Natural Sounds vs Migration

10 Miles

Jackson

Big Sky Red Lodge

Gardiner

Pocatello

Lander Powell

Canyon Village West Yellowstone

Percent of Time Sound was Audible:

Cody

Natural Sounds

< 10%

Non-Natural Sounds

10% < 20%

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Boundary

20% < 30%

Old Faithful

30% < 40%

Yellowstone National Park Boundary

40% < 50% 50% < 60%

South Entrance

60% < 70%

Oxbow Point

70% < 80%

Logan Teton Village Jackson Idaho Falls Non-Natural Sounds vs Migration

Pronghorn

Big Horn Sheep

Moose

80% < 90%

Elk

>100%

Mule Deer

Rock Springs 10 Miles

38

credit: Tiffani Finley

Range of Grizzly Bears in GYE What are the impacts of climate change and human development on grizzly bear range?

In 1975, the Grizzly Bear was designated a threatened species and since that time, wildlife management agencies have reduced the number of bear deaths related to human contact and vehicles, along with aiding cub production. The occupied grizzly area has grown from 15,000 acres (1970) to 37,000 acres (2005), removing the the bear from the threatened species list.

Grizzly bears rely on high calorie food sources which they must consume over seven months of the year (the other five of which are spent in hibernation).

Their omnivorous diet includes insects, plants and animals available at different times throughout the year, causing seasonal shifts in habitat. In spring, grizzlies will eat the carcusses of elk, bison and early plant growth. In the summer, they primarily feed on elk, cutthroat troat and army cutworm moths. They also prefer to feed on Whitebark Pine seeds in the fall, taking from red squirel seed scavages.

The mortality of the WBP species from increased temperatures due to climate change, reduces the abundance of available fall feed, threatening the grizzly bear populations, forcing them into new feeding habitats. With a lack of fall food sources, grizzlies tend to be in more conflict with humans.

85% of adult grizzly deaths are the result of human related activity management removal due to human conflict, personal defence, mistaken identification as black bear, poaching, vehicle strikes and electrocution by downed power lines.

The threat of human development on the grizzly species becomes obvious when realizing the extent of their boundaries has been anchored by the edge of civilization. As the interactions between humans and grizzlies increases, so too does the threat to grizzlies’ ability to survive. Interactions with humans leave bears susceptible to harm, prompting the question, do grizzlies have the right to this land?

Yellowstone to Yukon Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone and Teton National Park, Rockefeller Parkway Grizzly Range 1990 - 2015

map provided by: Bjornlie, D. D., D. J. Thompson, M. A. Haroldson, C. C. Schwartz, K. A. Gunther, S. L. Cain, D. B. Tyers, K. L. Frey, and B. Aber. 2014. Methods to estimate distribution and range extent of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38:182–187.

Human Impact Scale Less Impact

Greater Impact

Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network–CIESIN - Columbia University.

2005. Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP- 2): Global Human Infl uence Index (HII) Dataset (IGHP). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H46W980H. Accessed 05 February 2020.

credit: Nicole Andersson

39

The Human Footprint in the West

Big Sky Resort

greater human impact

Stillwater Mine, Nye Jackson

Yellowstone to Yukon

Salmon Selway Bitteroot High Divide

lesser human impact

The USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center developed the map below of the human footprint for the western United States.

The map was created from an analysis of 14 landscape structure and anthropogenic features: human habitation, interstate highways, federal and state highways, secondary roads, railroads, irrigation canals, power lines, linear feature densities, agricultural land, campgrounds, highway rest stops, land fills, oil and gas development, and human induced fires. These structures and features became the input for a model to estimate the total human inlfuence on wildlife populations as a result of changes in habitat or predator densities.

Leu, M., S.E. Hanser, S.T. Knick. 2008. The human footprint in the west: a large-scale analysis of anthropogenic impacts.

Ecological Applications 18(5): 1119-1139.

Future Footprints

Greater Yellowstone Yellowstone National Park

Big Sky is projected to reach the size of Jackson, WY by 2065.

Big Sky, MT

Population projection from Mountain Journal article Unnatural Disaster: Will America’s Most Iconic Wild Ecosystem Be Lost To A Tidal Wave Of People? Todd Wilkinson

Bear Smart Big Sky. Photograph accessed on Facebook. Posted November 2019.

Stillwater Mine is projected to be depleted by 2055.

The company is planning for closure and reclamation with the intent that people won’t be able to tell there had been a mine at all. If they are successful the mine’s human footprit will remain the same.

Stillwater & East Boulder. https://www.sibanyestillwater.com/business/americas/pgm-operationsamericas/stillwater-east-boulder/

Extraction

Recreation greatest human impact

Jackson, WY

Big Sky, MT least human impact

Stillwater Mine Nye, MT

Stillwater Mine Nye, MT 5 km

40

credit: Sander Story

Can a mine be a better neighbor than a ski hill?

Revenue skiing supports

1,970

seasonal jobs for Montana Traffic

500 new parking

spaces were constructed for the 2019-2020 season

$177 million

economic contribution for the 2018/2019 season

50%

Sibanye-Stillwater directly employeed

1,626 individuals in

2018 at the Stillwater and East Boulder Mines

$500 million

annual, recurring income https://www.sibanyestillwater.com/sustainability/economic-impact/

mine employees are brought in by bus to

of Big Sky employees commute daily

reduce traffic from Billings, Big Timber, and Red Lodge

Economic Drivers

500,000+

skiers visited Big Sky during the 2017/2018 season

credit: Sander Story

Sage, Jeremy L. Economics and Charactersitics of Alpine Skiing in Montana- 2018-2019 Ski Season. Institute for Toursim and Recreation Research, University of Montana. August 2019.

80% of Big

Sky visitors are nonresidents

https://bigsky2025.com/#projects-underway

41

highest grade source

platinum group metal of

deposits in the world

PGMs are a critical component of catalytic

converters

What’s left when it stops snowing?

According to the Climate Change Indicators report from the EPA...

90% of data stations have seen a stations have seen a decline in April decline in snowfall snowpack between since 1930 across the 1955 and 2016 in United States the west with large and consistent decreases in the northern Rockies

What’s left when the metals are gone?

Good Neighbor Agreement

57% of data

Negotiated in 2000, the Good Neighbor Agreement provides for citizen oversight of mining operations in order to ensure that the area’s quality of life and agricultural land is protected.

The agreement focuses on: water quality standards above state guidelines community access to critical information about mining operations ensuring public safety and reducing mining traffic environment excellence through collaboration between local citizens, third party experts, and the mining company https://northernplains.org/issues/good-neighbor-agreement/

Photograph by Colton Stiffler. Edit by Mountain Journal.

If these places become ghost towns, what will remain?

42

credit: Sander Story

EPA Climate Change Indicators | Snow + Ice

Trends in April Snowpack from 1955-2016

Canada United States

Snowpack Trend: percent of change > 80 60 to 80 40 to 60

Yellowstone to Yukon region

20 to 40

Greater Yellowstone

0 to 20 0 to -20

Yellowstone National Park

-20 to -40

Ski Area

-40 to -60

National Forest

-60 to -80 Bridger Bowl

< -80

Big Sky

Red Lodge Mountain

Sleeping Giant Grand Targhee Kelly Canyon

Jackson Hole Snow King White Pine

In partnership with more than 40 data-contributing government agencies, academic institutions, and other organizations, the EPA reports key indicators that surround the causes and effects of climate change. Indicators include: greenhouse gases, weather and climate, oceans, snow and ice, health and society, and ecosystems.

April snowpack measured the throughout the wester United States has seen large and consistent decreases particularly in Washington, Oregon, and the norther Rockies.

Snowpack is affected by temperature and precipitation. Trends in snowpack utilize a measurement called snow water equivalent (the amount of water contained within the snowpack at a particular location). Higher temperatures in the spring can cause snow to melter earlier. More precipitation is expected to fall as rain rather than snow which reduces the depth and extent of snowpack.

Mountain snowpack is critical to western North America’s water cycle where snow is released as runoff in the spring and summer as snow melts. Millions of people in the West depend on the melting of mountain snowpack for power, irrigation, and drinking water. In most western river basins, snowpack is a larger component of water storage than human-constructed reservoirs.

Changes in mountain snowpack can affect agriculture, winter recreation, and tourism in some areas, as well as plants and wildlife.

For example, certain types of trees rely on snow for insulation from freezing temperatures, as do some animal species. In addition, fish spawning could be disrupted if changes in snowpack or snowmelt alter the timing and abundance of streamflows

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016.

Climate change indicators in the United States, 2016. Fourth edition.

EPA 430-R-16-004. www.epa.gov/climate-indicators.

credit: Sander Story

43

44

credit: Aidan Cohen

ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF TOURISM IN GATEWAY TOWNS TOURISM IN GATEWAY TOWNS OF THE GREATER OF THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM

Gateway Towns of Yellowstone National Park Gateway Towns of Yellowstone National Park 7,090 Jobs

7,090 Jobs

Gateway towns of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are Gatewaythriving towns of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem aretowns universally.

This mapping shows various thriving that universally.

This mapping shows various towns surround Yellowstone, their population, and median that surround Yellowstone, and median income.

To the righttheir are apopulation, series of charts that show the income.impacts To the right are a seriespark of charts that showsectors the of the of Yellowstone on difference impactseconomy. of Yellowstone park on difference sectors of the economy.

According to a 2006 report released by the National Acco $513 According to Conservation a 2006 report Association, released by per-capita the National Acco Parks $513 million in income and Parks Conservation Association, per-capita income andhave both million in population in the Yellowstone Gateway region Visitor population in the Gateway region have both VisitorSpending grown

by Yellowstone approximately 33% since 1990.

Additionally, grown by 33% since 1990.towns Additionally, Spending theapproximately unemployment rate in these are consistently the unemployment rate in these towns below the national average, andare theconsistently income gap below the national average, income gap between the rich andand thethe poor is narrowing.

However, the betweenpark the itself rich and the poor is narrowing.

However, the economic itsel is not experiencing the same park itself is not experiencing the same economic itsel benefits of tourism that towns in the Yellowstone benefitsGateway of tourism that towns Yellowstone region are. Asinofthe September 30th, 2019 more Gatewaythan region As of 30th, 2019 more $11are. billion in September repairs or maintenance of roads, than $11buildings, billion in utility repairs or maintenance of roads, systems and other structures throughout buildings, anddeferred other structures theutility park systems have been due to a throughout lack of budget. The the parkquantity have been deferredmaintenance due to a lackwork of budget.

The to of deferred continues quantitygof deferred maintenance work continues to to increase, $647 million row in Yellowstone as visitorship continues $647 million Yellowstone as visitorship continues increase, grow in but in Economic the maintenance budget remainstostagnent. in Economic but the maintenance budget remains stagnent.

Output Output Yellowstone has given so much economic prosperity to Yellowstone has given so much economic prosperity to it’s surrounding gateway towns. Are we giving enough it’s surrounding gateway towns.

Are we back to adequately preserve it’s giving diverseenough ecosystem? back to adequately preserve it’s diverse ecosystem?

“Yellowstone attracts people from around the country and “Yellowstone attracts fromsignificantly around the country and the world whopeople contribute to the local the world who contribute significantly to the local economies in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The economies in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.

The economic benefits our neighbors enjoy are a direct result economic benefits ourYellowstone’s neighbors enjoy are a direct result of preserving spectacular thermal features, $224 million of preserving Yellowstone’s spectacular thermal As features, abundant wildlife and dramatic scenery. we look to the$224 million in Labor abundant wildlife and dramatic scenery.

As we look to the future, preservation has to be the key value we consider as in Labor Income future, preservation has to be the key value we consider as also we address increasing visitation.

Protecting the park add Income we address increasing visitation.

Protecting the park also add protects the regional tourism economy.” protects the regional tourism economy.”

Livingston, MT Livingston, MT 7,529 Population:

Cooke City, MT Cooke City, MT 140 Population:

Population: 7,529 Median Income: $38,807 Median Income: $38,807

Population: Median140 Income:$45,625 Median Income:$45,625

Cody, WY

Gardiner, MT Gardiner, MT 875 Population:

Cody,Population: WY 9,885 Population: 9,885 Median Income: $53,597 Median Income: $53,597

Population: Median875 Income: $56,094 Median Income: $56,094

- Former Yellowstone Park Superintendent Daniel Wenk - Former Yellowstone Park Superintendent Daniel Wenk Camping Camping

Restaurants Restaurants

Gas

Retail

Gas

Groceries Groceries Hotels

Hotels

Recreation Industries Recreation Industries

Retail

$375 million $375 million in Value in Value Added Secondary Effects Added Secondary Effects Transportation Transportation

Directly Affected Sectors Directly Affected Sectors

credit: Aidan Cohen

Jackson Hole, WY Jackson Hole, WY10,532 Population:

West Yellowstone, MT West Yellowstone, Population:MT 1,365

Population: 10,532 Median Income: $75,406 Median Income: $75,406

Population: 1,365 Median Income: $32,316 Median Income: $32,316

SOURCES: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/7/3/54 SOURCES: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0145060 https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/7/3/54 https://www.nps.gov/subjects/socialscience/vse.htm https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0145060 https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/news/19019.htm https://www.nps.gov/subjects/socialscience/vse.htm https://www.codywyomingnet.com/getting_here/west_yellowstone_montana.php https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/news/19019.htm https://www.yellowstonepark.com/road-trips/livingston-montana https://www.codywyomingnet.com/getting_here/west_yellowstone_montana.php http://www.mitchellgeography.net/map-store/the-wildlands-of-greater-yellowstone https://www.yellowstonepark.com/road-trips/livingston-montana https://www.npr.org/2018/06/07/617936487/yellowstone-national-park-superintendent-i-m-no-longer-wanted http://www.mitchellgeography.net/map-store/the-wildlands-of-greater-yellowstone http://www.explorebigsky.com/economic-impact-of-yellowstone-national-park-tourism-tops-680-million https://www.npr.org/2018/06/07/617936487/yellowstone-national-park-superintendent-i-m-no-longer-wanted https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/deferred-maintenance.htm http://www.explorebigsky.com/economic-impact-of-yellowstone-national-park-tourism-tops-680-million https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/deferred-maintenance.htm

Economic Effects of Economic Effects of Visitor Spending Visitor Spending

45

46

credit: John Sanford

credit: John Sanford

47

MAPPING HUMAN VALUES IN THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE // ANTHROPOCENTRIC NORTH AMERICA

[continental impacts]

exploration settlement extraction conservation progress

1872

[yellowstone national park founded]

1519

1776

1802

1863

1889

1803 - 1804

[louisiana purchase] introduction of the horse

1899

1912

[montana’s gold rush] [montana corrupt practices act]

corps of discovery

independence [montana statehood]

[anaconda copper mining company]

48

Humans came into North America at the beginning of the Holocene Epoch some 13,000 years ago, migrating slowly eastward, then south, presumably in the pursuit of food.

Until the arrival of Europeans in the late 15th century the people who filled the New World were incredibly diverse and accomplished groups with complex and nuanced cultural histories, traditions, and beliefs. Many groups lived independently of even relatively close neighbors until the Spanish introduction of the horse to North America in 1519. This new means of transportation, paired with the introduction of Christianity, was the first of many groundbreaking value shifts in what has become our Western landscapes as it allowed for indigenous groups to become significantly more nomadic and wide-ranging than previously possible. A relatively quiet period in the West followed until the dawn of the 19th century, when the second president of the young United States, Thomas Jefferson, completed the Louisiana Purchase and sent Lewis and Clark’s Corps of Discovery west to begin the survey and exploration of the lands that have since become the grounds for the expansion of America’s Manifest Destiny, our Heartland, and our playground. This land was parceled out in 40 to 160 acre plots to be sold site-unseen; value projected with ideas unknown. This system is perhaps the most impactful projection on the landscape and its impacts are all but invisible from the ground.

The rapid impacts to the Yellowstone Ecosystem did not really begin until the second half of the 19th century with the first wave of emigration to Montana that came with 1863’s Gold Rush, focused on mine cities of Virginia City and Bannock bringing with them the idea of landscape as the focus of extractive industries for the first time in Montana. As able-bodied men came to the region to both explore and expand their own wealth, the nation’s nature-loving Romantics became aware of the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Through the efforts of the young Geological Survey and artists Albert Bierstadt and Thomas Moran contributed significantly to the effort to conserve the geological and ecological identity of the unique Yellowstone region, giving birth to a new kind of landscape ideal: that which is preserved for the enjoyment of all parties. Unfortunately, this was not a singular shift in global, national, or even local understanding of the value of nature, generating a perfect appreciation and respect for untouched wilds. In fact, the extractive mindset of Montana industries went unchecked well forward into the 20th century as mine companies found ways to establish nigh-plutocratic regimes of state governance which resulted in the emergence of our nation’s earliest progressive anti-corporate legislation with the Montana Corrupt Practices Act of 1912, pushing all corporate money out of public elections.

credit: Saunders Allen

MAPPING HUMAN VALUES IN THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE // ANTHROPOCENTRIC CLIMATE CHANGE exploration settlement extraction conservation BIG SKY OPENS progress

1964

1972 1970

2000

2014

1995

2008 [ecological futures]

OIL CRISIS OIL CRISIS OIL CRISIS

THE WILDERNESS ACT

credit: Saunders Allen

WOLVES reintroduced to yellowstone

ecuador amends constitution to protect nature’s rights to “exist, persist...[and] regenerate...”

stillwater mine GOOD NEIGHBOR agreement

49

new zealand establishes ENVIRONMENTAL PERSONHOOD federally

In the 20th century, the region’s values became explicit through the major political actions that took place here; the election of a female congressperson (Jeannette Rankin, 1916) before women could legally vote in every state in the Union perhaps most significant. In the study of the values of this Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem we find that the bureaucratic actions of this place are progressive in almost antithetical ways; while acceptance of the views of American Indians progressed slowly, feminism seemed to take-hold early in the state’s founding. Appreciation of the landscape seems clearly evident by the sheer acreage of public lands rivaling that in percentage to any state in the nation. In this age, even mining corporations seem intent on finding ways to serve the landscape in a constructive, wellreciprocated fashion. It has become evident that the love for this landscape is real - the remaining problem is that we may be “loving this place to death.” The ongoing large-scale construction projects of the region, the ever-growing migration of people seeking a better life, a second (or third home) and the development of amenities to make the place more desirable are all growing as threats to the stability of the landscape in their current patterns. The question that remains for us early in the 21st century is simple: will our value of the landscape outweigh our desire to make it ever more accessible and profitable, or will we love this miraculous Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to death?

MAPPING HUMAN VALUES IN THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE // GEOLOGIC TIME

4550 Ma

4000 Ma

2500 Ma

252 Ma 66 Ma 541 Ma 10,000 Years ago [holocene epoch]

humans arrive in north america

[hadean epoch] [archean epoch]

[proterozoic epoch]

[cenozoic epoch] [mezozoic epoch] [paleozoic epoch]

50

[anthropocene epoch] the ANTHROPOCENE epoch in which we live is so named because it is period that humans first made a permanent and measurable impact on the biosphere. This term was first adopted by a working group of scientist members of the Subcomission on Quarternary Stratigraphy in 2016 and specifically gives name to the historic threshold through which the natural system we inhabit has become one that is impacted most significantly by human-driven change which stands as a threat to the planet’s potential to support human life. It is worth noting that this anthropocene epoch is a tiny blip at the end of the 4 billion year geologic history of the earth comparable to a period on the last page of the encycopledia britannica.

credit: Saunders Allen

04

Student Projects 51

Development on the Periphery of Yellowstone

Interconnection, Immersion, and the Role of Large Private Land Owners

by Aleck Gantick

The communities located within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) are growing at a rapid pace. As people seek to evade endemic social problems prevalent in more densely populated areas, a pandemic health crisis, and seek the high quality of life offered in the region, there is a conflict of interests. The natural wonders that attract people to this region are at risk of being decimated at the hand of development and economic progress.

It is somewhat counterintuitive to to think that development can combat the negatives of development. However, as the region grows, we must seek to establish patterns of growth and habitation that encourage a more symbiotic relationship with ecosystem functions and our natural surroundings.

Context

Private lands, particularly large holdings, are mostly situated in lower elevations, near sensitive riparian areas, making them ecologically significant. The governance of these private lands is dictated by state rather than federal law, limiting the legal

leverage to pursue ecosystem conservation through broad reaching and well-coordinated policy reform. These large swaths of land represent areas of critical importance where continued growth and development patterns could have significant, negative impact on the ecology of the region.

In the coming years, these large tracts of land will become more valuable for development. This creates an opportunity for conservation initiatives to intervene or to employ best development practices that promote ecological viability and sustainability.

If a large percentage of land is controlled by only a few individuals, those individuals possess the ability to either act in a way that protects ecosystem viability or siphon the remainder of ecological wealth from the landscape. Without a conservation focus on the periphery, the GYE will become a biological island, only a fragment of a once thriving web of ecosystems.

There are organizations already working to achieve a similar goal. However, current conservation efforts have resulted in a patchwork of protected lands.

Although these lands area a benefit to the local ecology, the regional ecology relies on a larger mass of land to maintain viability.

Problem Statement

It is inevitable that some privately owned lands in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem will be sold to developers. Many of these individuals lack either knowledge or economic, political, and cultural incentives necessary to keep crucial animal migration routes intact and maintain ecological viability.

Is there a way to influence development in critical habitats connected to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem which benefits ecosystem function and 52

humans? Can that development engage community members and visitors to become ecological advocates?

Many organizations operate as separate entities with differing strategies to achieve a common goal; preserving the land, ecology, and sustainability of a region. Is there a grass-roots development strategy that leverages the current efforts and value sets of stakeholders that can achieve this common goal?

Can biodiversity be leveraged to turn visitors and new residents into environmental advocates?

Proposal Summary

The proposal can be divided into three responses: 1. Create a more prominent threshold condition separating areas acceptable for unrestricted human activity and key ecological zones. These thresholds are not only policy based, but experiential, signifying a need for increased awareness of an individual’s presence in the landscape.

2. Engage large land owners for multi-day ecotourism experiences using specific areas for temporary human habitation. By integrating a large spectrum of ecological educational experiences, the goal is to turn visitors into advocates.

3. Leverage local conservation groups, educational groups, and public lands to create a communitybased event space with a goal of engaging residents as advocates.

H u m a n i m p a c t o n Te r r e s t r i a l Ecosystems in Relation to the Ye l l o w s t o n e t o Yu k o n I n i t i a t i v e Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Peace River Break Y to Y Boundary Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

More Impact

Less Impact Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network–CIESIN - Columbia University. 2005. Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP2): Global Human Inuence Index (HII) Dataset (IGHP). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H46W980H. Accessed 05 February 2020.

Key Migration Points

80 mi

53

Ye l l o w s t o n e t o Yu k o n I n i t i a t i v e Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone to Yukon - desired boundary of conservation Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

National Parks, National Forest, and Wilderness Areas

Salmon Selway Bitterroot - Includes one of the largest continuous

road-less areas in the lower 48 States. Although it contains suitable habitat for grizzly bears, there have been no grizzlies in this region since the 1940’s. The goal to have grizzly bear populations reinhabiting the SSB within 20 years. The connectivity of surrounding ecosystems is vital to achieve this goal.

High Divide - One of the most important linkage areas in the Y to

Y region, connecting the three biggest blocks of protected wildlife habitat in the lower 48 States. It is a mix of grassland and upland forests, of public land interspersed with dozens of large working ranches that date back to the homestead era. Mostly isolated and with a rural agricultural character, this region is under pressure from housing development, extractive industries, and increasingly busy

“Our mission is to connect and protect habitat from Yellowstone to

highways.

Yukon so people and nature can thrive. Y2Y’s role is to set the context for regional conservation work by providing the vision for a healthy

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem - Includes the world’s first national park, Yellowstone, as well as Grand Teton National Park. Outside

Yellowstone to Yukon landscape, and to bring partners together to

Yellowstone Park hundreds of bison who wander out of the park in

achieve as a network what none of us can accomplish alone. Together,

search of food are slaughtered by Montana state officials. Yellowstone’s

we knit together the landscape from one jurisdiction to the next.“

grizzly population is geographically isolated from the remaining bears

- Yellowstone to Yukon vision and mission.

on the continent, threatening them with inbreeding and possible decline. Wildlife-vehicle collisions and impermeable fencing also pose 80 mi

54

challenges to wandering wildlife.

Human Impact - Yellowstone to Yukon Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone to Yukon - desired boundary of conservation Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

National Parks, National Forest, and Wilderness Areas More Impact

Less Impact Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network–CIESIN - Columbia University. 2005. Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP 2): Global Human Influence Index (HII) Dataset (IGHP). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic

Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H46W980H. Accessed 05 February 2020.

This map describes an index of impact for ten human footprint classes based on models developed by the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University. These models indicate impacts from human habitation, interstate highways, federal and state highways, secondary roads, railroads, irrigation canals, power lines, linear feature densities, agricultural land, campgrounds, highway rest stops, land fills, oil and gas development, and human induced fires. This data reveals only small pockets of isolated landscapes that have not been physically, visually, and ecologically altered by human occupation.

80 mi

55

Conservation Easements Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide

Easements U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2018, Protected Areas Database of the

United States (PAD-US): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/

P955KPLE

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone to Yukon - desired boundary of conservation Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

National Parks, National Forest, and Wilderness Areas More Impact

Less Impact Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network–CIESIN - Columbia University. 2005. Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP 2): Global Human Influence Index (HII) Dataset (IGHP). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic

Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H46W980H. Accessed 05 February 2020.

Conservation easements are a voluntary, legal agreement that permanently limits uses of the land in order to protect and preserve the landscapes they are applied to. The terms and conditions of easements are entirely private, potentially creating transparency and enforcement problems. However, because of conservation easements and the appeal to private land owners, approximately 11% of private land in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is under conservation easement.

Ted Turner’s Flying D Ranch

80 mi

56

Centennial Sandhills Preserve

L a rg e Pr i v a t e L a n d O w n e r s h i p Easements

Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2018, Protected Areas Database of the

United States (PAD-US): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/

P955KPLE

Private Land Ownership

(> 1,600 acres or 25 contiguous parcels)

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone to Yukon - desired boundary of conservation

Large Private Land Easements Parcel and ownership data via landgrid.com

Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

National Parks, National Forest, and Wilderness Areas More Impact

Less Impact Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network–CIESIN - Columbia University. 2005. Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP 2): Global Human Influence Index (HII) Dataset (IGHP). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic

Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H46W980H. Accessed 05 February 2020.

Ted Turner

Private lands, particularly large holdings, are mostly situated in lower elevations, near sensitive riparian areas, making them ecologically significant. The governance of these private lands is dictated by state rather than federal law, limiting the legal leverage to pursue ecosystem conservation. This map shows the top 180 largest land owners in region in 2017. By comparison, at the same time there were 5,050,717 people living in the region indicated on the map. These large swaths of land represent areas of critical importance where continued growth and development patterns could have significant, negative impact on the ecology of the region. Some of the largest owners include, the Wilks brothers (346,390 acres in MT, 211,00 acres in ID), Ted Turner (150,413 acres in MT), the Galt’s (343,392 acres in MT), Stan Kroenke (31,035 acres in MT), and various cattle and ranching operations such as the Matador Cattle Company owned by the Koch Family (111,900 acres in MT).

80 mi

57

Farris Wilks

Bill Galt

Metropolitan Counties Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone to Yukon - desired boundary of conservation Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

National Parks, National Forest, and Wilderness Areas

Easements U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2018, Protected Areas Database of the

United States (PAD-US): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/

P955KPLE

Private Land Ownership

(> 1,600 acres or 25 contiguous parcels)

Large Private Land Easements Parcel and ownership data via landgrid.com

Metropolitan Status Counties

More Impact

Less Impact Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network–CIESIN - Columbia University. 2005. Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP 2): Global Human Influence Index (HII) Dataset (IGHP). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic

Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H46W980H. Accessed 05 February 2020.

A metropolitan county status is determined by having at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more inhabitants. These become major centers of growth and influence on the surrounding counties and ecosystems they are a part of and adjacent to.

80 mi

58

Missoula, MT

Great Falls, MT

Boise, ID

Billings, MT

Residential Development Growth Easements

Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2018, Protected Areas Database of the

United States (PAD-US): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/

P955KPLE

Private Land Ownership

(> 1,600 acres or 25 contiguous parcels)

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone to Yukon - desired boundary of conservation

Large Private Land Easements Parcel and ownership data via landgrid.com

Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

100% or more growth

National Parks, National Forest, and Wilderness Areas

50% - 100% growth

More Impact

Less Impact Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network–CIESIN - Columbia University. 2005. Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP 2): Global Human Influence Index (HII) Dataset (IGHP). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic

Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H46W980H. Accessed 05 February 2020.

The darkest blue areas show the greatest percent change in residential development from 2000-2010. In the past 10 years these areas have continued to develop. The majority of this development has taken place in the rural landscape in the form of sprawling, exurban development.

80 mi

59

Bozeman, MT

Ennis, MT

Driggs, ID

Teton Valley, ID

Residential Development Growth Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone to Yukon - desired boundary of conservation Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

National Parks, National Forest, and Wilderness Areas More Impact

Less Impact

Easements U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2018, Protected Areas Database of the

United States (PAD-US): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/

P955KPLE

Private Land Ownership

(> 1,600 acres or 25 contiguous parcels)

Large Private Land Easements Parcel and ownership data via landgrid.com

100% or more growth 50% - 100% growth Metropolitan Status Counties Areas of interest

Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network–CIESIN - Columbia University. 2005. Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP 2): Global Human Influence Index (HII) Dataset (IGHP). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic

Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H46W980H. Accessed 05 February 2020.

Areas of Interest These four areas reveal themselves as areas with key conservation potential. These areas are identified by large private land holdings, few owners and a rapid growth in housing development in the past 20 years. In the coming years these large tracts of land will become more valuable for development, creating an opportunity for conservation initiatives to intervene or to employ best development practices that promote ecological viability and sustainability.

80 mi

60

E l k M i g r a t i o n f r o m Ye l l o w s t o n e Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone to Yukon - desired boundary of conservation Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

National Parks, National Forest, and Wilderness Areas More Impact

Less Impact

Easements U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2018, Protected Areas Database of the

United States (PAD-US): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/

P955KPLE

Private Land Ownership

(> 1,600 acres or 25 contiguous parcels)

Large Private Land Easements Parcel and ownership data via landgrid.com

100% or more growth 50% - 100% growth Elk Migration Routes Critical Area of Potential Conflict

Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network–CIESIN - Columbia University. 2005. Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP 2): Global Human Influence Index (HII) Dataset (IGHP). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic

Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H46W980H. Accessed 05 February 2020.

The circle, represents a critical area of potential conflict between ecological viability, rapid growth and land consumption, and large tracts of privately land owned by a handful of individuals. These conditions are critical in assessing the future threat or conservation potential of a region. If a large percentage of land is controlled by only a few individuals, those individuals possess the ability to either act in a way that protects ecosystem viability or siphon the remainder of ecological wealth from the landscape. The highlighted region is critical in achieving large-scale, ecological connectivity and viability. Without a conservation focus on the periphery, the GYE will become an biological island, only a fragment of a once thriving web of ecosystems.

61

Th e Qu e st i ons What role can large private land owners play in the future viability of an entire ecosystem?

How do conservation efforts engage residents and visitors and highlight the benefits of conservation, ecological viability, and sustainability?

Th e Prob l e m It is inevitable that some privately owned lands in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem will be sold to developers. Many of these individuals lack either knowledge or economic, political, and cultural incentives necessary to keep crucial animal migration routes intact and maintain ecological viability.

“Conservation will ultimately boil down to rewarding the private landowner who conserves the public interest.”

- Aldo Leopold

Aldo Leopold trip to the Rio Gavilan. Photo by US Forest Service

62

Co ns e rvat io n E ffo rts and Met h o d s There are currently organizations already working to achieve a similar goal.

However, current conservation efforts have resulted in a patchwork of protected lands. Although these lands are a benefit to the local ecology, the regional ecology relies on a larger mass of land to maintain viability.

Within the regulatory and political context of vital migration corridors, can a symbiotic relationship between development and ecology exist? How can stakeholders be incentivized? What are the patterns of development that can achieve this goal and can they be economically and ecologically viable?

63

Methods of Conservation APR

MLR

purchase of land

conservation easments

research

engage key groups restoration

free market environmentalism policy reform

The Nature Coservancy

PERC

64

H o w do we bring it all to get h er?

Many organizations operate as separate entities with differing strategies to achieve a common goal; preserving the land, ecology, and sustainability of a region. Is there a grass-roots development strategy that leverages the current efforts and value sets of stakeholders that can achieve this common goal? Can biodiversity be leveraged to turn visitors and new residents into environmental advocates?

65

Site Selection Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone to Yukon - desired boundary of conservation Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

National Parks, National Forest, and Wilderness Areas More Impact

Less Impact Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network–CIESIN - Columbia University. 2005. Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP 2): Global Human Influence Index (HII) Dataset (IGHP). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic

Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H46W980H. Accessed 05 February 2020.

66

Easements U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2018, Protected Areas Database of the

United States (PAD-US): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/

P955KPLE

Large Private Land Ownership (Greater than 1,600 acres or 25 contiguous parcels)

Large Private Land Easements Parcel and ownership data via landgrid.com

100% or more growth 50% - 100% growth Elk Migration Routes Proposed Site

Located 35 miles west-northwest of Yellowstone National Park, the “site” is an area defined by the Madison Valley to the east and the Ruby River Valley to the west. These valleys are divided by the Snowcrest, Gravelly and Greenhorn Mountain Ranges. On either side of the mountains, the largest tracts of privately owned land consist of Maloney Ranches, Turner Enterprises and T-L Irrigation Co. This acreage is a key linkage between the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the High Divide Ecosystem. Although less prevalent in the discourse of Yellowstone’s ecology, the areas on the periphery of the park are vital to it’s ecological viability.

67

As a complex mosaic of land designations, the region is similar to much of the mountain west. Often, migratory wildlife is reliant upon the linkages of public land as private land becomes more developed and fragmented. This is the key in understanding that large private land owners play a pivotal role in land stewardship and maintaining vital ecological functions necessary for long term sustainability.

68

As an example of a key migratory species that holds great economic and ecological value to the region, elk are at risk of having key migration routes impeded by expanding development, fences, roads, and increased recreation in the region.

*Original Map by WCS Conservation Assessment of the Madison Valley - reformatted for clarity

69

Even more so than elk, grizzly bears are adverse to increasing human pressure. Much of the valleys have been completely degraded of migratory habitat suitable for grizzlies. As development continues, this is worrisome to the genetic diversity and resiliency of grizzlies in the GYE.

*Original Map by WCS Conservation Assessment of the Madison Valley - reformatted for clarity

70

While much of this region will not experience a net loss in wildlife connectivity, key passage from east to west is being fragmented. For example, much of the connectivity degradation to the west is due to fencing practices on ranches that create barriers for wildlife. To the east, exurban development poses the greatest risk as roads, houses, and the human presence increase in magnitude.

*Original Map by WCS Conservation Assessment of the Madison Valley - reformatted for clarity

71

The loss of wildlife diversity in exurban developments is somewhat expected in the current model for platting.

However, it is less obvious that visits to less developed areas pose an equal, if not greater risk.

Throughout the focus region’s mountains, there is a network of dirt roads, allowing residents and visitors to access the region via motorized vehicles. Noise, pollution, and soil compaction from this type of use all pose a risk to the biodiversity and in turn the ecological viability of the region.

*Original Map by WCS Conservation Assessment of the Madison Valley - reformatted for clarity

72

How can architecture engage these issues?

1) Create a more prominent threshold condition between areas acceptable for unrestricted human activity and key ecological zones. These thresholds are not only policy based, but experiential, signifying a need for increased awareness of an individuals presence in the landscape.

2) Engage large land owners for multi-day ecotourism experiences using specific areas for temporary human habitation. By integrating a large spectrum of ecological educational experiences, the goal is to turn visitors into advocates.

3) Leverage local conservation groups, educational groups, and public lands to create a community based event space with a goal of engaging residents as advocates.

73

Stakeholders of the G.Y.E. key

private landowners multi-generational residents

directly informs proposal

ranchers farmers

livestock

vacation home owners

service industries real estate

development

[local economies]

outtters + retailers

construction industries

american indians migration corridors

new residents

[local ecosystem]

wildlife local conservation groups

recreation

guides sherfolk

trail users hunters

forest service

regulatory agencies

service industries tourists

mining

extraction

transportation

reneries + mills

tourism

timber

74

indirectly informs proposal

Proposed Methods of Conservation passive consumers

ecological advocates

immersion + connection es

ot

pr om

ot

om pr

es

area of focus

community agency

n]

[c om

m un

sio er m

ity

m

li

ba

ia

policy reform

free market environmentalism

supportive actions

se

nt

d

ie er

pr og

xp [e

supportive actions

ra m ]

mindful ecotourism

design intervention

research

restoration conservation easments investment in ecological infrastructure engage key groups

75

The highlighted areas of potential intervention range from minimal, such as wildlife friendly fencing, to more extensive infrastructural change and creation of community based program focused on ecological viability. The accompanying imagery highlights key points of engagement as a means to facilitate dialogue for policy change and design intervention.

76

1. RANCHLANDS increase wildlife friendly fencing on ranches

-increase awareness through education - utilize community volunteers to help owners with labor

2. ECOTOURISM Montana ranch experience - engage visitors through nostalgic notion of the west - integrate educational experiences - highlight nature and ranching coexisting to preserve ecosystem viability

- set up a subsidized material share program

3. GATEWAY CONDITION re-dene threshold to key ecological area - increased awareness of sensitive ecological area - minimize impacts of recreational vehicles - opportunity for educational experience

snowcrest mountains

greenhorn mountains

upper ruby road

77

3. GAT re-de ecolog

2. ECOTOURISM Montana ranch experience Engage visitors seeking a genuine experience of the mountain west. Idealism and nostalgic notions of the west can be leveraged in order to educate, immerse, advocate for a more symbiotic relationship to the region’s ecology.

This is the rst step in creating an immersive experience. After time spent and lessons learned on the ranch, visitors connect with the local ecology through a 3-day wilderness trip.

Use existin threshold c zone and u

educate visitors about ranching practices that maintain or enhance ecological viability/ orientation to 3-day wilderness trip.

gravel

engage nostalgic notions of the west as means to introduce individuals to the region

facilitate dialouge to challenge preconcieved notions and idealistic views of the west snowcrest mountains

greenhor

create wil - interac - focus o - backco share

78

3. GATEWAY CONDITION re-dene threshold to key ecological area

Use existing campground site to enhance the threshold condition between the ecological zone and unrestricted human occupation.

black butte mountain gravelly mountains

snowcrest mountains access to hiking and horse trails - part of specic ecotourism path - connects to network of campsites and huts greenhorn mountains reduce motor vehicle use past this point - utlilize a OHV permit system - establish OHV fee areas, funds invested in restoration - evaluate ecologically resilent areas least affected by OHV trafc

encourage ecologically friendly grazing - incentivize bison ranching - allow livestock in summer only

create wildlife viewing and educational center - interactive educational experiences - focus on how to minimize impacts while - backcountry travel checkpoint and supply share

upper ruby road

79

2. ECOTOURISM high mountain valley hut

This serves as a stopping point along a 3-day journey through varied ecological zones. In a region that is experiencing increasing pressure from human occupation, it is necessary to designate specic areas and types of use to minimize uncontrolled degradation. Simple shelter provides a place to reect during an unguided trip or educational experience.

explicitly dened areas of occupation aim to reduce human impact in sensitive ecological zones while providing shelter for individuals interested in connecting with the regional ecology. sheep mountain

greenhorn mountains

education through experience and immersion facilitates personal reection and mindful engagement with the natural world.

“To secure the diverse sustainability offered in these places also in the future, it will in many cases be correct to do nothing. For the places already under pressure, it will be vital to provide facilities preventing further destruction.”

- Kjetil Trædal Thorsen

80

4. ENGAGMENT community based program

5. GATEWAY CONDITON call road 292 gravelly range access point

The long term goal of turning passive consumers into advocates can only be achieved by community engagement. Through education, volunteer work, and social reinforcement, a symbiotic relationship between local ecology and residents can be established.

education through experience and immersion facilitates personal reection and mindful engagement with the natural world

sheep mountain

volunteer restoration workshop and education center

gravelly range road

rapidly expanding exurban development

outdoor education campus

enn

is

native species plant share

invasive weeds biocontrol drop center

81

Protecting Wildlife Migration Through Ecotourism

The Role of Large Private Land Owners

by Aidan Cohen

Within the regulatory and political context of vital migration corridors, can a symbiotic relationship between development and ecology exist? How can stakeholders be incentivized? What are the patterns of development that can achieve this goal and can they be ecologically and economically viable?

Many organizations operate as separate entities with differing strategies to achieve a common goal; preserving the land, ecology, and sustainability of a region. Is there a development strategy, with a grassroots origin, that leverages the current efforts and value sets of stakeholders to achieve this common goal?

Proposal Summary Context

The communities surrounding Yellowstone National Park are rapidly changing. The economies of these communities are directly linked to the ecological integrity of the region. Much of this land is privately owned and is susceptible to future development and land use change. This is threatening the viability of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystems as a whole.

There are currently organizations already working to maintain the ecological viability of the GYE. However, current conservation efforts have resulted in a patchwork of protected lands. Although these lands are a benefit to the local ecology, the regional ecology relies on a adjoining parcels of land to maintain viability.

The proposal seeks to define ecologically driven development guidelines and correlated setbacks while establishing acceptable areas for ecotourism.

Problem Statement

Is there a viable way to create a contiguous wildlife corridor in which all stakeholders benefit, and awareness of the necessity for such a wildlife corridor is brought to the public’s attention?

82

L a rg e Pr i v a t e L a n d O w n e r s h i p Easements

Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2018, Protected Areas Database of the

United States (PAD-US): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/

P955KPLE

Private Land Ownership

(> 1,600 acres or 25 contiguous parcels)

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone to Yukon - desired boundary of conservation

Large Private Land Easements Parcel and ownership data via landgrid.com

Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

National Parks, National Forest, and Wilderness Areas More Impact

Less Impact Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network–CIESIN - Columbia University. 2005. Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP 2): Global Human Influence Index (HII) Dataset (IGHP). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic

Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H46W980H. Accessed 05 February 2020.

Ted Turner

Private lands, particularly large holdings, are mostly situated in lower elevations, near sensitive riparian areas, making them ecologically significant. The governance of these private lands is dictated by state rather than federal law, limiting the legal leverage to pursue ecosystem conservation. This map shows the top 180 largest land owners in region in 2017. By comparison, at the same time there were 5,050,717 people living in the region indicated on the map. These large swaths of land represent areas of critical importance where continued growth and development patterns could have significant, negative impact on the ecology of the region. Some of the largest owners include, the Wilks brothers (346,390 acres in MT, 211,00 acres in ID), Ted Turner (150,413 acres in MT), the Galt’s (343,392 acres in MT), Stan Kroenke (31,035 acres in MT), and various cattle and ranching operations such as the Matador Cattle Company owned by the Koch Family (111,900 acres in MT).

80 mi

credit: Aleck Gantick

83

Farris Wilks

Bill Galt

Residential Development Growth Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone to Yukon - desired boundary of conservation Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

National Parks, National Forest, and Wilderness Areas More Impact

Less Impact

Easements U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2018, Protected Areas Database of the

United States (PAD-US): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/

P955KPLE

Private Land Ownership

(> 1,600 acres or 25 contiguous parcels)

Large Private Land Easements Parcel and ownership data via landgrid.com

100% or more growth 50% - 100% growth Metropolitan Status Counties Areas of interest

Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network–CIESIN - Columbia University. 2005. Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP 2): Global Human Influence Index (HII) Dataset (IGHP). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic

Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H46W980H. Accessed 05 February 2020.

Areas of Interest These four areas reveal themselves as areas with key conservation potential. These areas are identified by large private land holdings, few owners and a rapid growth in housing development in the past 20 years. In the coming years these large tracts of land will become more valuable for development, creating an opportunity for conservation initiatives to intervene or to employ best development practices that promote ecological viability and sustainability.

80 mi

84

credit: Aleck Gantick

E l k M i g r a t i o n f r o m Ye l l o w s t o n e Salmon Selway Bitterroot High Divide Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Yellowstone to Yukon - desired boundary of conservation Google Maps. “Yellowstone to Yukon Region (2013).” “Y2Y Priority Areas (2013).” Accessed 05 February, 2020. https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NnpCedIRWC3iTu6sQpyE8JC tsHG61bZU&ll=45.32337863073385%2C-124.66760999999997&z=2

National Parks, National Forest, and Wilderness Areas More Impact

Less Impact

Easements U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2018, Protected Areas Database of the

United States (PAD-US): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/

P955KPLE

Private Land Ownership

(> 1,600 acres or 25 contiguous parcels)

Large Private Land Easements Parcel and ownership data via landgrid.com

100% or more growth 50% - 100% growth Elk Migration Routes Critical Area of Potential Conflict

Wildlife Conservation Society - WCS, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network–CIESIN - Columbia University. 2005. Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP 2): Global Human Influence Index (HII) Dataset (IGHP). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic

Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). https://doi.org/10.7927/H46W980H. Accessed 05 February 2020.

The circle, represents a critical area of potential conflict between ecological viability, rapid growth and land consumption, and large tracts of privately land owned by a handful of individuals. These conditions are critical in assessing the future threat or conservation potential of a region. If a large percentage of land is controlled by only a few individuals, those individuals possess the ability to either act in a way that protects ecosystem viability or siphon the remainder of ecological wealth from the landscape. The highlighted region is critical in achieving large-scale, ecological connectivity and viability. Without a conservation focus on the periphery, the GYE will become an biological island, only a fragment of a once thriving web of ecosystems.

credit: Aleck Gantick

85

Initial Research Identifying relevant conservation groups, current means of conservation, economic drivers, and the response from the public.

Current Organizations and Means of Conservation What are the current organizations working to conserve this land? What are their strategies, motives, and impacts? What is the public’s response?

86

A m e r i c a n Pr a i r i e R e s e r v e ( A P R ) What is the APR? • A non-profit organization that purchases privately owned prairie lands for conservation means.

• They have no connection to the federal or state government.

What are their goal?

• To create the largest wildlife refuge in the United States in order to preserve grassland heritage, and wildlife ecosystems • To establish a free range bison herd in the plains of Montana Where do they stand today?

• They own 419,000 acres of prairie land in Northeastern Montana near Malta.

• They own and operate a beef cattle ranch called Wild Skies that attempts to support the historic culture of ranching in Montana.

What is the public response?

• “If you have nothing but bison and antelope, you might as well take the whole town out.” A rancher from Malta recently told a public radio station.

• “They’re destroying not only a way of life, they’re destroying a very vital economic base which is the foundation of America,” said another rancher from Malta

87

Montana Land Reliance (MLR)

What is the What the MLR? MLR? •• The in 1978 to protect agricultural lands, fish, and The MLR MLRwas wasestablished established in 1978 in order to permanently protect wildlife habits and open space through conservation easements.

agricultural lands, fish, and wildlife habitat, and open space through the use of voluntary conservation easements Where do they stand today?

• Protected 1,137,062 acres of land in perpetuity and 1,829 miles of streambank ecosystem • Partnered with 897 different families across Montana

88

Conservation Easements

What are Conservation Easements?

• A voluntarily legal agreement between a land trust such as the MLR and a private land owner what permanently limites uses of the land in order to protect its conservation values from inappropriate uses and development in perpetuity.

• A conservation easement can be tailored to the specific land use, and conservation goals of the land owner.

What are the economic benefits of Conservation Easements?

• The contribution of a conservation easement may qualify as a charitable contribution which can subsequently reduce income, estate, and gift taxes for the land owner What land uses are allowed on conservation easements?

• Construction of agriculutral infrastructure, housing for family members and employees, outfitting infrastructure, and any other small businesses that are legally operating on the land What land uses are prohibited on conservation easements?

• Subdivisions for residential development, substantial commercial development, dumping of hazardous waste materials, any other uses which may compromise the welfare of the natural landscape.

What is the public response to the MLR and conservation easements?

• “Our concern is that we don’t hamstring ourselves so much that we end up going borke in 20 or 30 years down the road because we restricted ourselves too much. And so I think about that a lot as where do we draw the line, and what do I do? You can’t see into the future you know?”

89

Current Organizations and Means of Conservation There are currently orignizations already working to achieve a similar goal. However, current conservation efforts have resulted in a patchwork of protected lands.

Although these lands are a benefit to the local ecology, the regional ecology relies on a larger conglomerate of land to maintain viability.

Within the regulatory and political context of vital migration corridors, can a symbiotic relationship between development and ecology exist? How can stakeholders be incentivized? What are the patterns of development that can achieve this goal and can they be ecologically and economically viable?

90

Economic Drivers and Impacts from Tourism and the Existence of Abundant Wildlife How are surrounding communities impacted economically by tourism? What role does tourism play in the economy of a community adjacent to a major tourism hub like Yellowstone?

ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF TOURISM IN GATEWAY TOWNS OF THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM

Gateway Towns of Yellowstone National Park 7,090 Jobs

Gateway towns of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are thriving universally. This mapping shows various towns that surround Yellowstone, their population, and median income. To the right are a series of charts that show the impacts of Yellowstone park on difference sectors of the economy.

According to a 2006 report released by the National Acco Parks Conservation Association, per-capita income and population in the Yellowstone Gateway region have both grown by approximately 33% since 1990. Additionally, the unemployment rate in these towns are consistently below the national average, and the income gap between the rich and the poor is narrowing. However, the park itself itsel is not experiencing the same economic benefits of tourism that towns in the Yellowstone Gateway region are. As of September 30th, 2019 more than $11 billion in repairs or maintenance of roads, buildings, utility systems and other structures throughout the park have been deferred due to a lack of budget. The quantity of deferred maintenance work continues to grow in Yellowstone as visitorship continues to increase, but the maintenance budget remains stagnent.

Yellowstone has given so much economic prosperity to it’s surrounding gateway towns. Are we giving enough back to adequately preserve it’s diverse ecosystem?

“Yellowstone attracts people from around the country and the world who contribute significantly to the local economies in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The economic benefits our neighbors enjoy are a direct result of preserving Yellowstone’s spectacular thermal features, abundant wildlife and dramatic scenery. As we look to the future, preservation has to be the key value we consider as we address increasing visitation. Protecting the park also add protects the regional tourism economy.”

$513 million in Visitor Spending

Livingston, MT

Cooke City, MT

Population: 7,529 Median Income: $38,807

Population: 140 Median Income:$45,625

$647 million in Economic Output

Cody, WY

Gardiner, MT

Population: 9,885 Median Income: $53,597

Population: 875 Median Income: $56,094

$224 million in Labor Income

- Former Yellowstone Park Superintendent Daniel Wenk

Camping

Restaurants

Gas

Retail

Groceries

Transportation

Hotels

Secondary Effects

$375 million in Value Added

Jackson Hole, WY

West Yellowstone, MT

Population: 10,532 Median Income: $75,406

Population: 1,365 Median Income: $32,316

SOURCES: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/7/3/54 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0145060 https://www.nps.gov/subjects/socialscience/vse.htm https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/news/19019.htm https://www.codywyomingnet.com/getting_here/west_yellowstone_montana.php https://www.yellowstonepark.com/road-trips/livingston-montana http://www.mitchellgeography.net/map-store/the-wildlands-of-greater-yellowstone https://www.npr.org/2018/06/07/617936487/yellowstone-national-park-superintendent-i-m-no-longer-wanted http://www.explorebigsky.com/economic-impact-of-yellowstone-national-park-tourism-tops-680-million https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/deferred-maintenance.htm

Recreation Industries

Directly Affected Sectors

Economic Effects of Visitor Spending

“The economic benefits our neighbors enjoy are a direct result of preserving Yellowstone’s spectacular thermal features, abundant wildlife, and dramatic scenary” - Former Yellowstone Park Superintendent, Daniel Wenk 91

Th e E c o n o m i c Va l u e o f W i l d l i f e C ro s s i n g s i n N o rt h A m e r i c a Case Study: Highway 191, Trapper’s Point, Wyoming In 2012, the Wyoming Department of Transportation completed construction of wildlife crossing infrastructure on Highway 191 outside of Pinedale, WY. The project consisted of two overpasses, six underpasses, and wildlife funnel fencing along an 8 mile stretch of the highway at a cost of roughly $11M. By the third year following construction, the total number of wildlife-vehicle collisions dropped by 81%, and pronghorn-vehicle collisions were completely eliminated.

In addition, habitat connectivity was improved, and back-and-forth movements increased by over 60% for mule deer and over 300% for pronghorn.

Before construction, wildlife-vehicle collisions at Trapper’s Point were costing over $500,000 each year. Now, the crossing structures are used by over 5,000 pronghorn and mule deer as they move from winter to summer range, and the state estimates that the crossings will pay for themselves in about 17 years.

SOURCES: https://jhalliance.org/2018/05/18/wildlife-crossings-spet-priority/trapperspointoverpass/ https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/484720-in-the-west-wildlife-crossings-save-lives-and-money https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2020/02/reducing-wildlife-vehicle-collisions-by-building-crossingscllcpew-005.pdf?la=en&hash=DE3157AFFECA4BE213B1AD95B33676472C37591A

92

How do we solve these issues in a way that works for wildlife and all of the stakeholders involved?

Many organizations operate as seperate entities with differing strategies to achieve a common goal; preserving the land, ecology, and sustainability of a region. Is there a development strategy, with a grassroots origin, that leverages the current efforts and value sets of stakeholders that can achieve this common goal?

93

I n f l u e n c e s Pre s e n t I n C re a t i n g a C o n t i g u o u s W i l d l i f e M i g r a t i o n C o r r i d o r i n Th e Y 2 Y

94

95

Ecologically Driven Development Guidelines and Correlated Setbacks

96

S i t e P l a n D i a g r a m A l o n g T h e Pe r i p h e r y o f T h e B l a c k t a i l E l k H e r d M i g r a t i o n R o u t e

97

Soundscapes of Yellowstone National Park

What is Noise Pollution?

- an unwanted or inapporpriate sound - According to the EPA, noise pollution is noise that interferes with normal activities such as sleeping and conversation, and disrupts or diminishes our quality of life

The Indicator of a Healthy Ecosystem

- Human-caused noise in protected areas interferes with visitor’s experience and alters ecological communities

by Tiffani Finley

Effects of Noise Pollution on Nature - With each 30% increase in human population, sources of road and aircraft noise doubled and tripled in some areas

Problem Statement

Human activity and development is rapidly increasing within the borders of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, resulting in high levels of noise pollution throughout natural environments

Proposal Summary

How can noise pollution be decreased in Yellowstone National Park through design in order to maintain and promot a healthy ecosystem?

What Do Soundscapes Tell Us? - Climate Change (the change in soundscapes over time demonstrates the change in ecology and wildlife of specific areas) - Timing of important biological events - How certain species’ compostition varies through time and spatial distribution - How the acoustic signature of a site is defined

- More than half of watersheds are located within 1,246 feet of a road, making road traffic a common source of noise pollution - Animal diversity and density decrease near roadways, with the exception of a few (usually) invasive or exotic species -Disruption to animals ability to communicate, find food, avoid prey, mating, migration - Peak periods of high air traffic increase noise in Yellowstone National Park by 5 decibels, decreasing the area predators can hear prey by 70% - Birds are performing mating calls at night instead of during the day due to lower noise levels at night -Certain frog species are performing their mating calls at higher pitches to be heard over the noise, resulting in the reduction of mating due to the fact that females prefer lower mating calls - Elk have been found to move away from the sound of vehicles up-to a kilometer away, but 98

are more likely to move when they were on a trail or road than if they were off the trail, which suggests that they were reacting to a perceived threat rather than the irritation of the noise - Mountain goats have been found to react to the sounds of helicopters - Aircrafts can disrupt behavior in ducks and other species that lasts for two hours afterward - Research has found that scenery is more meaningful to people when there is less artificial noise - Lower noise levels allow visitors to hear wildlife such as wolves, which are more likely to be heard rather than seen Identified Noise Challenges - Construction noises - Overflights by aircrafts - Vehicles, especially low-frequency noises from buses and trains and the distant drone of highway traffic - Backup alarms on vehicles - Motorcycles, Watercrafts, snowmobiles, and airboats - Lawn care equipment, Generators, chainsaws, and other equipment - Human-generated noise

ho Falls

Big SkyMAPPING SOUNDSCAPE

AREAS OF HIGH NOISE CONCERN IN YNP:

Red Lodge

Canyon Village

• Acoustic data was collect for 954 hours for 41 days from 14 Dec 2011 – 23 Jan 2012.

During this duration, non-natural sounds were recorded 66% of the time.

• All natural sounds were recorded only

Gardiner

41% of the time • Noise from building utilities was recorded 44% of the time and oversnow vehicles were recorded 18% of the time.

Canyon Village

Powell

West Yellowstone

West Yellowstone Entrance

• Acoustic data was collected for 6,084 hours over 254 days from 14 Jan – 5 Oct 2055. During the duration, 74% of the time non-natural sounds were recorded.

Cody

• All natural sounds were recorded 58% of the time.

Old Faithful

• All road vehicles were recorded 54% of the time

South Entrance

Old Faithful

• During a 91,192 hour recording period over 3,933 days, 97% of the recording period contained non-natural sounds.

• 54% of the time building utility sounds were recorded

Oxbow Point

• Only 45% of the time all natural sounds were recorded • The highest sound recorded was a helicopter at 104.8 dBA

Teton Village Jackson

99

Soundscape Management in the National Park System

Policies Governing Noise from Motorized Equipment in the National Park System

- NPS Soundscape Management Policy 4.9. According to this section of the

- Wilderness Act 36 CFR Section 2.12 Audio Disturbance. Under this section

2006 NPS Management Policies, “Using appropriate management planning,

the following is prohibited: Operating motorized equipment or machinery

superintendents will identify what levels of human-caused sound can be

that exceeds a noise level of 60 decibels measured on the A-weighted scale

accepted within the management purposes of parks. . . . In and adjacent to

at 50 feet or, if below that level, nevertheless makes noise that is unreasonable.

parks, the Service will monitor human activities that generate noise that adversely affects park soundscapes, including noise caused by mechanical

- Wilderness Act 36 CFR Section 2.18 Snowmobiles. Under this section,

or electronic devices. The Service will take action to prevent or minimize

“Snowmobiles are prohibited except where designated and only when their

all noise that, through frequency, magnitude, or duration, adversely affects

use is consistent with the park’s natural, cultural, scenic and aesthetic values,

the natural soundscape or other park resources or values, or that exceeds

safety considerations, park management objectives, and will not disturb

levels that have been identified as being acceptable to, or appropriate for,

wildlife or damage park resources.” The following are also prohibited:

visitor uses at the sites being monitored.”

“Operating a snowmobile that makes excessive noise. Excessive noise for snowmobiles manufactured after July 1, 1975, is a level of total snowmobile noise that exceeds 78 decibels measured on the A-weighted scale at 50 feet.”

- NPS Cultural Soundscape Management Policy 5.3.1.7. This section of the 2006 Management Policies states that “The Service will preserve soundscape resources and values of the parks to the greatest extent possible to protect

- Wilderness Act 36 CFR Section 3.15 Maximum Noise Level for Operation of

opportunities for appropriate transmission of cultural and historic sounds

Boats. A person may not operate a moving vessel at a noise level exceeding

that are fundamental components of the purposes and values for which the

75dB(A) measured using the test procedures in this section.

parks were established.”

- NPS Policy 8.2.3 re Use of Motorized Equipment. This section of the 2006 - NPS Director’s Order #47: Soundscape Preservation and Noise

Management Policies discusses motorized offroad vehicle use, snowmobiles,

Management. This order “directs park managers to (1) measure baseline

and personal watercraft use.

acoustic conditions, (2) determine which existing or proposed human-made sounds are consistent with park purposes, (3) set acoustic management goals and objectives based on those purposes, and (4) determine which noise sources are [adversely] impacting the park and need to be addressed by management.”

100

noise by five to ten decibels for every 30m width of woodland, especially sharp tones, and this reduces noise to the human ear by approximately 50%

Vegetation as an Acoustic Barrier

VEGETATION AS AN ACOUSTIC BARRIER

- Vegetation reduces noise pollution through a phenomenon called sound attenuation, which is the reduction of sound intensity

- Vegetation hastens the normal mechanisms of absorption, • Vegetation reduces noise pollution through aattenuation phenomenon deflection, refraction, and masking called sound attenuation, which is the reduction of sound intensity - Leaves, twigs, and branches on trees, shrubs, and herbaceous growth

and deflect sound energymechanisms • Vegetation hastens the normal absorb attenuation of - Planting “noise buffers” composed of trees and shrubs can reduce noise by absorption, deflection, refraction, and masking five to ten decibels for every 30m width of woodland, especially sharp tones, and this reduces noise to the human ear by approximately 50%

• Leaves, twigs, and branches on trees, shrubs, and herbaceous Vegetation as an Acoustic Barrier growth absorb and deflect sound energy Strategies - Plant the noise buffer close to the noise source (rather than close to the area to be protected) - Plant trees/shrubs as close together as the species will allow and not be overly inhibited - Use plants with dense foliage. A diversity tree species, with a range of foliage shapes and sizes within the noise buffer may also improve noise reduction - Foliage of the plants should persist from the ground up. A combination of shrubs and trees may be necessary to achieve this effect - Evergreen varieties that retain their leaves will give better year-round protection - When possible use tall plants. Where the use of tall trees is restricted, use combinations of shorter shrubs and tall grass or similar soft ground cover as opposed to harder paved surfaces 101

OLD FAITHFUL SITE

TRAILS

400 FT

ROADWAYS 400 FT

400 FT

WATERWAYS

900 FT

10 Miles

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK (YNP) BOUNDARY

Data Sources: Google Earth

102

400 FT

SITE ECOLOGY

ECOLOGY OVERVIEW: Woody Wetlands Areas where greater than 20% of vegetation cover is dominated by shrubland or forested vegetation.

The soil in these areas is periodically saturated with water. Woody wetlands play a significant role in supporting the biodiversity of Yellowstone National Park.

Mammals of Concern:

Birds of Concern:

Invertebrates of Concern:

Amphibians of Concern:

Pygmy Shrew

American Bittern

Frigga Fritillary

Western Toad

Little Brown Myotis

Great Blue Heron

Gillette’s Checkerspot

Northern Bog

Northern Hawk

Subartic Darner

Lemming

Owl

Brush-tipped Emerald

Grizzly Bear

Great Gray Owl

Boreal Whiteface

Alder Flycatcher

Subartic Bluet

Clark’s Nutcracker Varied Thrush LeConte’s Sparrow

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Areas where greater than 75% of vegetation cover is dominated by herbaceous (non-woody) water-adapted vegetation.

Herbaceous vegetation found in these areas is rooted below the water’s surface and grows either at the surface or stands erect above water. Common species include cattails, western wheat grass, Nebraska sedge, and hardstem bulrush.

Mammals of Concern:

Birds of Concern:

Black-necked Stilt

Invertebrates of

Little Brown Myotis

Common Loon

Common Tern

Concern:

Yuma Myotis

Horned Grebe

Foster’s Tern

Subarctic Darner

Fringed Myotis

Clark’s Grebe

Black Tern

Brushed-tipped

Eastern Red Bat

American White Pelican LeConte’s Sparrow

Emerald

Hoary Bat

American Bittern

Bobolink

Boreal Whiteface

Spotted Bat

Great Blue Heron

Townsend’s Big-eared

Black-Crowned Night-

Amphibians of Concern:

Bat

Heron

Grizzly Bear

White-faced Ibis

Northern Bog Lemming Trumpeter Swan Bison

Peregrine Falcon

Reptiles of Concern:

Yellow Rail

Snapping Turtle

Whooping Crane

Plains Hog-nosed

Franklin’s Gull

Snake

400 FT

103

Data Sources: EnviroAtlas, Montana Field Guide, Google Earth

Western Toad Great Plains Toad Northern Leopard Frog

SITE ECOLOGY

ECOLOGY OVERVIEW: Evergreen Forest Evergreen forests are made up of evergreen trees and are found across various climates. The most common evergreens in Yellowstone National Park include: lodgepole pine, white-bark pine, Engelmann spruce, sub-alpine fir, Douglas-fir, Rock Mountain Juniper, common juniper, and limber pine.

Mammals of Concern: Pygmy Shrew Little Brown Myotis Yuma Myotis Fringed Myotis Hoary Bat Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Grezzly Bear Fisher Wolverine Canada Lynx

Birds of Concern: Northern Goshawk Flammulated Owl Northern Hawk Owl Great Gray Owl Lewis’s Woodpecker Black-backed Woodpecker Pileated Woodpecker Clark’s Nutcracker Boreal Chickadee Brown Creeper

Pacific Wren Varied Thrush Cassin’s Finch Evening Grosbeak

Reptiles of Concern: Northern Alligator Lizard Western Skink

Amphibians of Concern: Coeur d’Alene Salamander Idaho Giant Salamander Western Toad

Grassland/Herbaceous Areas dominated by a mix of herbaceous (non-woody) vegetation, grasses, and grass-like plants. Grassland communities, also known as Prairies, are found in transition areas, where soil is too dry for forests to grow.

Mammals of Concern: Preble’s Shrew Merriam’s Shrew Pygmy Shrew Little Brown Myotis Yuma Myotis Fringed Myotis Hoary Bat Spotted Bat Townsend’s Big Eared Bat Grizzly Bear Bison

400 FT

104

Data Sources: EnviroAtlas, Montana Field Guide, Google Earth

Birds of Concern: Ferruginous Hawk Golden Eagle Peregrine Falcon Sharp-tailed Grouse Long-billed Curlew Loggerhead Shrike Green-tailed Towhee Baird’s Sparrow Bobolink

Reptiles of Concern: Greater Short-horned Lizard Western Skink Western Milksnake

SITE ECOLOGY

ECOLOGY OVERVIEW: Shrub/Scrub Areas dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. Vegetation found in these areas typically include shrubs and young trees. Sagebrush, juniper, and Rocky Mountain Maple are the most common shrubs found within Yellowstone National Park.

Mammals of Concern:

Birds of Concern:

Amphibians of Concern:

Preble’s Shrew

Ferruginous Hawk

Western Toad

Dwarf Shrew

Golden Eagle

Merriam’s Shrew

Greater Sage-Grouse

Little Brown Myotis

Sharp-tailed Grouse

Fringed Myotis

Burrowing Owl

Hoary Bat

Sage Thrasher

Spotted Bat

Loggerhead Shrike

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Green-tailed Towhee

Pygmy Rabbit

Brewer’s Sparrow

Columbia Plateau Pocket Mouse

Sagebrush Sparrow

Bison

Barren Land Areas where the ecosystem is less than 1/3rd covered in vegetation. Barren Land typically has thin soil, sand, or rocks and includes areas like deserts, dry salt flats, and exposed rock.

Mammals of Concern:

Birds of Concern:

Reptiles of Concern:

Preble’s Shrew

Ferruginous Hawk

Greater Shot-horned Lizard

Dwarf Shrew

Golden Eagle

Plains Hog-nosed Snake

Little Brown Myotis

Mountain Plover

Western Milksnake

Eastern Red Bat

Burrowing Owl

Hoary Bat

Loggerhead Shrike

Spotted Bat

Chestnut-collard Longspur

Pallid Bat Black-tailed Prairie Dog Black-footed Ferret

400 FT

105

Data Sources: EnviroAtlas, Montana Field Guide, Google Earth

Amphibians of Concern: Great Plains Toad

SITE ECOLOGY

ECOLOGY OVERVIEW: Developed Low Intensity Areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 20% - 49% of land coverage and include areas like on-site housing units and sidewalks.

Developed Medium Intensity Areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50% - 79% of land coverage and include areas like the visitor center and parking lots.

400 FT

106

Data Sources: EnviroAtlas, Montana Field Guide, Google Earth

AT RISK SPECIES MAPPING

TOTAL NUMBER OF OBSERVED AT RISK TERRESTRIAL PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES: 5 - 37 3-4 Old Faithful Development Area Terrestrial animals and plants are those which predominantly live on land. At risk terrestrial species are at risk of extinction due to habitat loss, pollution, disease, over exploitation, and competition from invasive species. Terrestrial plant species contribute to pollution reduction, erosion prevention, and serve as overall indicators of environmental quality.

Grizzly Bear

Douglas Fir

Bison

AT RISK TERRESTRIAL SPECIES TOTAL NUMBER OF OBSERVED AT RISK WETLAND PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES: 3 2 Old Faithful Development Area Wetlands ecology highly supports biodiversity by providing habitats for reptiles, birds, fish, amphibians, and semi-aquatic mammals. At risk wetland plant and animal species are at risk of extinction from habitat loss, pollution, disease, energy development, over exploitation, and competition from invasive species. Wetland habitats provide groundwater recharge, pollutant filtration, carbon sequestration, and storm water storage.

Western Toad

AT RISK WETLAND SPECIES

Data Sources: Enviro Atlas

107

Rushes

Snapping Turtle

HUMAN RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY HEAT MAP

HUMAN ACTIVITY: Human Recreation Activity Scale: Low Activity

High Activity

The Old Faithful Geyser viewing area is the most accessible and visitor friendly area within Yellowstone National Park. The geyser area provides visitors with bench seating, a visitor center, lodging, large parking areas, a ranger station, and various trails and boardwalks for geyser viewing. Currently, the geyser erupts around 20 times per day with an average of 74 minutes in-between eruptions. During eruption times, the geyser area faces a large influx of human activity due to the high volume of visitors viewing the geyser.

With Yellowstone National Park seeing around 4 million visitors a year, Old Faithful can become an area that is greatly overrun by human activity. Typically, the geyser area sees the most visitors between 12 pm until 6 pm.

Visitor numbers are usually high during these hours due to the arrival of tour buses. The Old Faithful area experiences less human interaction during winter months, compared to summer months when Yellowstone is fully open to visitors. The large majority of human activity that takes place around the geyser area is pedestrian walking/hiking. With high levels of human activity within the area, it causes concern for the high levels of noise pollution that is produced during peak activity periods.

400 FT

108

Data Sources: STRAVA Heatmap, Google Earth

SITE NOISE IDENTIFICATION

NOISE TYPES: Roadways Noise Source: Vehicle Typical Noise Level: 70 - 80 dB per vehicle Distance Noise Travels: 50 Feet Frequency: 50% of the day from 8 am - 8 pm Trails

Noise Source: Human Conversation Typical Noise Level: 55 - 70 dB per person Distance Noise Travels: 50 Feet Frequency: 50% of the day from 8 am - 8 pm Parking Areas Noise Source: Vehicle & Human Conversation 400

Typical Noise Level: 70 - 80 dB per vehicle 55 - 70 dB per person

400

Distance Noise Travels: 50 Feet Frequency: 50% of the day from 8 am - 8 pm

Structures

Noise Source: Building Utilities & Human Conversation Typical Noise Level: 60 - 80 dB per building 55 - 70 dB per person Distance Noise Travels: 50 Feet Frequency: 70% of the day

400

400

109

Data Sources: STRAVA Heatmap, Google Earth

SOUND MITIGATION DIAGRAMS

MASS - ABSORPTION

Sound absorption occurs when a sound wave loses energy while passing through a mass. Sound absorption results in a significant decrease in noise levels.

110

SOUND MITIGATION DIAGRAMS

MASS - REFLECTION

Sound reflection occurs when a sound wave encounters a hard surface mass. The sound wave is then reflected back towards the noise source and loses energy with each reflection. Reflection can be used to divert sound to or from specific areas.

111

SOUND MITIGATION DIAGRAMS

DENSITY - DIFFUSION

Increased density surrounding a noise source will result in a slower rate of sound travel. Sound waves become scattered, leading to decreased sound levels in surrounding areas.

112

ACOUSTIC MITIGATION SECTIONS

The above diagram demonstrates how the lack of acoustic barriers allows noise pollution to travel without interference.

Noise pollution from human activity significantly impacts wildlife and ecology negatively. Currently, the Old Faithful area features little to no acoustic barriers to assist in mitigating noise pollution.

113

ACOUSTIC MITIGATION SECTIONS

The above diagram demonstrates how a variety of acoustic barriers assists in mitigating noise pollution. By combining multiple mitigation strategies, noise pollution levels are reduced.

The Old Faithful Geyser area would significantly benefit from implementing a variety of noise pollution mitigation strategies.

114

OLD FAITHFUL VIEWING AREA - SOUND MITIGATION PROPOSAL

Old Faithful’s viewing platform is one of the most highly trafficked areas on the site. The viewing platform attracts a high volume of visitors at one time, causing this area to be heavily polluted by human noise. Current conditions around the platform lack any sort of acoustical buffers to reduce the impact. As a means to reduce the effects of noise pollution, a vegetation buffer that utilizes earth mounding and dense native ecology has been proposed.This proposal would require a higher amount of site manipulation due to coupling the platform area with earth mounding, but this technique would have a greater impact on absorbing human noise pollution. A dense native ecological zone would also help to diffuse the noise pollution, as well as increase animal habitat and preserve native ecology.

≥ 100 FT Vegetative Buffer Zone - Reduces noise pollution by 5 to 8 dB

Proposed Area of Intervention Section Cut

Vegetative Mound - Absorbs noise pollution

115

4’

OLD FAITHFUL DEVELOPMENT - SOUND MITIGATION PROPOSAL

The site surrounding the Old Faithful Geyser is classified as an area of medium development intensity. Medium density development consists of areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50% - 79% of land coverage and include areas like the visitor center and parking lots. Significant noise pollution occurs around these areas due to high levels of human traffic and building equipment noise. As a means to reduce the impact of noise pollution, it has been proposed that open areas surrounding the significant structures on site become vegetative buffer zones.

These vegetative zones would assist in diffusing and absorbing sound from buildings and people, while also providing an increased habitat area and preserving native ecology.

Proposed Area of Intervention Section Cut

≥ 100 FT Vegetative Buffer Zone - Reduces noise pollution by 5 to 8 dB

116

4’

OLD FAITHFUL PARKING AREAS - SOUND MITIGATION PROPOSAL

Old Faithful’s parking areas are a large source of noise pollution around the site. The parking areas around the site are typically full during most summer months, resulting in high levels of noise pollution from both vehicles and humans. Currently, the parking areas have little to no vegetation areas that would help diminish the effects of noise pollution. As a means to reduce the impacts of human and vehicle caused noise on the surrounding area, vegetative acoustic buffer zones should be implemented within the parking areas. Utilizing a combination of earth mounding and dense ecology, the distance the noise pollution travels would decrease. Bioswale areas should also be added to parking areas to assist in stormwater runoff and pollution mitigation. Bioswale areas would also provide diverse ecology and wildlife habitat.

Proposed Area of Intervention Section Cut

Bioswale - treats stormwater runoff & diversifies ecology

Vegetative Mound - Absorbs noise pollution

117

4’

co_Existing

Problem Statement

Re-imaging the border conditions of Yellowstone National park to align with ecological needs and reconnecting the American Buffalo with its historic migration patterns

Bison population in Yellowstone is growing too large for the ecosystem to continue to support. Currently, there are about 5,000 bison in Yellowstone and it is estimated that the bison population is growing at a rate of 11-17% a year. Mass starvation events may occur if bison populations continue to grow without an increase in habitat. Much of the park is not suitable habitat for bison during the winter. The combination of increasing population and extreme winters are pushing bison to seek food and habitat in lower elevations outside of the park, leading to conflict between bison and private landowners.

by John Sanford

Proposal Summary

Yellowstone National Park is the starting place for bison conservation and conservation in the United States in general. Before settlers started expanding westward, 20 - 30 million bison roamed freely across North America. By 1902, less than a hundred years after the Louisiana Purchase, there were 27 wild bison left. Today there are currently about 5,000 bison in the park and the bison from Yellowstone have been used to start new herds around the country. In 2016, the bison became the first national mammal of the United States.

Context

Under pressure from the cattle industry, the State of Montana sued the National Park Service in 1995 because bison started leaving the park and entering Montana. Bison carry a disease called brucelosis which can be transferred to cattle. Bison can also damage fences and compete with cattle for grazing resources. Elk is another migratory species that can carry brucellosis and cause these other issues, yet they do not face the same restrictions.

All bison that enter Montana from Yellowstone National Park are considered diseased animals whether they carry brucellosis or not. As a result, the National Park Service, Montana Department of Livestock, and other state and federal Agencies are mandated to prevent bison from entering private property. Bison are hunted, captured for slaughter, and hazed back into the park. Insead of treating bison legally and physically as livestock, they should be considered as the wild and free animals that they are. There are many challenges that must be overcome in order for people and bison to coexist in the western landscape, but it’s apparent that the Montana Department of Livestock has no intention of working toward a solution with the ecological needs of the bison in mind. In order to work toward the needs of the ecosystem and the needs of the bison, these animals need to have access to habitat beyond the park. Instead of imposing virtual boundaries on wild animals that have no conception of land ownership, using physical boundaries could reduce the conflict between bison and people.

118

Unpacking Yellowstone In 1872 Yellowstone Became the worlds First National Park. In 1916 the national park service was created which gave it authority and power to maintain the park and manage its natural resources. The national park service has the job of conservation and to promote tourism. These two objectives can come in conflict with each other.

119

ers

Secondary Stake Holders

Primary Stake Holders

Stakeholders

Tertiary Stake Holders

These groups are responsible for managing the bison These groups are at the center of the conflict. The The Tertiary stakeholders influence and are populations in the park and when the bison try to ranchers believe that allowing Bison to roam free would the conflict between bison and landowne negatively affect their livelihoods. Secondary Bison are not allowed Stakeleave.

Holders Tertiary Stake Holders Primary Stake Holders presence is not central in this conflict. to leave the management areas north and west of the These groups are responsible for managing the bison These groups are at the park. center of are the hazed, conflict.

The and They hunted, slaughtered if they The Tertiary stakeholders influence and are affected by the park and when the bison try to ranchers believe that allowing Bison to roam free would try to leave.

The lower elevationspopulations outside of in the park the conflict between bison and landowners but their negatively affect their livelihoods.

Bison are notand allowed would provide food habitat forleave. the increasing bison presence is not central in this conflict. to leave the management population areas northduring and west of the the winter. park. They are hazed, hunted, and slaughtered if they try to leave. The lower elevations outside of the park Bison National Park Service Native American Tribes would provide food and habitat for the increasing bison population during the winter.

Surviving Managing People and Animals Preserving Cultural Heritage

c

Bison

National Park Service

Native American Tribes

The National Park service is caught between the The The tribes are donated meat and hides Bison migration is driven by access to food and weather Managing and Animals Preserving Cultural Heritage purpose of Yellowstone, Engraved on the arch at the slaughtered Bison. The Fort Peck Reser conditions. In the winter, bison migrate to lowerPeople elevations north gate, is to preserve the natural resources of the receives Bison that have been captured and q to avoid harsh winters and have better access to food. park “for the benefit and enjoyment of the people”. to build their herd. Many Native Americans th In late winter, bison are more vulnerable to predators in Nationalfrom Parkthe service The is caught the The The tribes are donated meat hides fromofthe Bison migration is driven by access to food and weather nationalbetween park service is responsible for keeping the of bisonand a continuation the atrocities that deep snow because the bison areThe weakened purpose of such Yellowstone, Engraved onpark the and arch managing at the slaughtered Bison.

Fort Peck Reservation also conditions. In the winter, bison migrate lower elevations bison in the bison population fromThe committed against them.

The way of life winter andtothe snow has hardened enough that gate, is to togrow preserve growing the natural the population receivesgrows Bisontoo thatfast, have been captured and quarantined to avoid harsh winters andpredators have better access to food. too resources large. If theofbison tribes was inseparably tied to the buffalo. T don’t sink into the snow. north As food starts park “for the benefit enjoyment of thetopeople”. to build their herd. Many Native Americans slaughter In late winter, bison are more vulnerable to predators in food required support them will be consumed to slaughter andthe restrict Bison from roamin at higher elevations in the spring, the bison migrate to andthe The national park service isand responsible keeping the mass of bison a continuation the atrocities that have of been deep snow because the bison areelevations. weakenedThe fromfood the at higher the bisonforwill experience starvation events. of continue the genocide American Indians. higher elevations has in the park and managing bison population committed against winter and the snow has more hardened enough such that The National Park servicefrom is responsible for building andthem. The way of life for many nutritional value and is morebison abundant. growing too large. If the bison population growsinfrastructure too fast, tribes was inseparably tied to the buffalo. To continue predators don’t sink into the snow. As food starts to grow maintaining human inside of the park. the food required to support them will be consumed to slaughter and restrict Bison from roaming free, is to at higher elevations in the spring, the bison migrate to and the bison will experience mass starvation events. continue the genocide of American Indians. higher elevations. The food at higher elevations has The National Park service is responsible for building and more nutritional value and is more abundant. inside of theBison park. Management Plan Private Landowners maintaining human infrastructure Interagency Tourists

Surviving

Preserving their way of life

Preventing Bison from Causing Damage to Private Land

Private Landowners Much of

Experiencing Wildlife

Interagency PlansuedTourists Over four million people visit Yellowstone eve InManagement 1995 the state of Montana the national parks the private land in Paradise Valley, North Bison of this number will increase. As people acquir service for allowing bison to leave the park. As a ManyBison ranchers Preserving their way of life Yellowstone, is used for cattle ranching.

Preventing from Causing Damage Experiencing Wildlife other places around the world, especially in result, the management of Bison entering Montana see bison as having a negative impact on their to Private Landway of countries, Yellowstone will become a des from Yellowstone was transfered from Montana, Fish, life. There is fear that bison will transfer Brucellosis to four million Yellowstone everythat yearcomes and into the park In 1995 the of Montana sued the Much of the private land livestock. in Paradise Valley, North of never travel.

Every person Wildlife, andnational Parks toparks the MontanaOver Department of people visit Although there has been a state recorded thisfor number willover increase. them As people acquire in service for bison to leave theThis park.

As ashows a priority Yellowstone, is used for cattle ranching.

Many ranchers Brucellosis a different levelwealth of understanding and s Livestock. move livestock instance of bison transferring to allowing cattle, this other places around especially developing management Bison entering Montana Bison management see bison as having a negative on their of are result, toward nature. in Many people that come to th The Interagancy plan was the world, is the impact main reason thatway bison hazed,the captured, and of wildlife. countries,between Yellowstone willhave become a destination for in its natural ha fromthat Yellowstone was transfered from Montana, Fish, life. There is fear that bison will transferAnother Brucellosis to concern never seen a wild animal created to coordinate bison management slaughtered. major is that bison Every person that comes into the park carries with to the Montana Department of agencies. travel. livestock. Although there can has damage never been a recorded of understanding and excitement toward th state, federal, and tribal The effectiveness fences.

This reason Wildlife, may theand realParks reason them a different and set of values Livestock. move showsofa this priority foris livestock over instance of bison transferring to cattle, is where conflict between visitors and bison effort debatable and controversial.

Some level of understanding that Brucellosis bison are not able tothis roam free on the This landscape. toward Many people that come does to thenot park may to the US gov The the Interagancy was in the IBMP is the main reason that bison are hazed, captured, and Yellowstone belong havemanagement said that eachplan agency is nature. acting on Elk also carry Brucellosis yet they wildlife. do not face same Bison seen a wild animal in its natural habitat.

A lack created to coordinate management between slaughtered. Another major concern as that is that is an natural wonder that belongs to all peo their own with their own agendas.have Manynever criticize the restrictions bison do.bison A third source of conflict is that bison of understanding and excitement these animals state, federal, andland tribal agencies.

The can damage fences. This bison reasonand may the would real reason planet. toward How can everyone that is able, hav slaughter ofeffectiveness bison. cattle be sharing public grazing is where conflict between visitors and bison may occur. of this effort is debatable and controversial. Some that bison are not able to and roambison free may on the to experience Yellowstone without degradin getlandscape. onto private property and consume to there? the USWhat government. saidhas thataeach agencyMontana in the IBMP is acting on Elk also carry Brucellosis yet they do not theThe same being would it It take to turn the Department of LivestockYellowstone does not belong food meant forface cattle. cattle have industry strong to allinto people on thisfor its preservat own with their in own agendas. restrictions as bison do. A third source of conflict is that andtheir visit the park advocates MontanaMany Fish criticize Wildlife the and Parks is an natural wonder that belongs political influence in Montana a massive change planet. How can everyone that is able, have a chance of bison. bison and cattle would beperception sharing public grazing land will slaughter US Forest Service toward wild bison be required for bison to experience Yellowstone without degrading it just by and bison may get onto private property National Park Service to roam free. and consume being there? What would it take to turn the people that Montana Department of Livestock food meant for cattle. The cattle industry has a strong Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service visit the park into advocates for its preservation?

Montana Fish Wildlife and Intertribal Parks political influence in Montana and a massive change in Bison Council US Forest Service perception toward wild bison will be required for bison Nez Perce Tribe National Park Service to roam free.

Fort Peck Tribe Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Intertribal Bison Council Nez Perce Tribe Fort Peck Tribe 120

Re-imaging the border conditions of Yellowstone National park to align with ecological needs and reconnecting the American Buffalo with its historic migration patterns

co_Existing

Problem Statement: Bison and visitor populations in Yellowstone are growing too large for the ecosystem to continue to support.

Currently there are about 5,000 bison in Yellowstone and it is estimated that the Bison population is growing at a rate of 11-17% a year. If Bison populations are to continue to grow without an increase in habitat. The Bison will run out of food and there will me mass starvation events. Montana is intolerant of the bison coming out of Yellowstone because of fears of transferring brucellosis to cattle and Yellowstone visitation is now up to over 4 million people visiting the park every year and this number is expected to rapidly increase. Seeing Wildlife is the number one reason people come to Yellowstone How can the ecosystem remain intact with so many people entering the park every year?

NPS/Jacob W. Frank

Proposed Policy Change: Reclassify the bison that leave the park as wild animals instead of diseased animals

NPS/Jacob W. Frank

Intent: Allow bison to roam free outside the borders of Yellowstone Park in Montana.

121

Proposed Policy Change: Reclassify Bison As Wild Animals

hange: Wild Animals

There are 5 Legal categories of bison in Montana

Management Agency

1 Wild bison There are 5 Legal categories of bison in Montana 2 Bison on reservations 1 Wild bison Montana Code: Chapter 87 3 Commercial livestock 2 Bison on reservations 4 Display animals in the National Bison Refuge 3 Commercial livestock Montana Code: Chapter 81 5 Diseased Animals 4 Display animals in the National Bison Refuge Montana Code: 87-1-711

Montana Code: Chapter 87 Management Agency

5 Diseased Animals

Department of Livestock

Montana Code: 81-2-120

These are the bison that are entering Montana from Yellowstone.

These are the bison that are entering Montana from Yellowstone.

Brucellosis Brucellosis

Brucellosis is a disease that is carried in bison, elk, and cattle. It has been virtually eradicated from cattle but it still exists in elk and bison.

There is a fear that bison can spread the disease to cattle.

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Montana Code: Chapter 81 Tribal Montana Code: 87-1-711 Department of Livestock Montana Code: 81-2-120 U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Tribal Department of Livestock If Bison were toand be managed U.S. Fish Wildlife under FWP they would be managed as wild animals.

Department of Livestock

The Department of Livestock has a veste interest in preserving the profits of the C industry in Montana. The Cattle industry The Department of Livestock has a vested generally sees wild bison as harmful. If B interest in preserving the profits of the Cattle continue to be managed under the DOL industry in Montana. The Cattle industry will be managed as livestock and the ne generally sees wild bison as harmful. If Bison of the cattle industry will be prioritized o continue to be managed under the DOL they the ecological needs will be managed as livestock and the needs of the cattle industry will be prioritized over the ecological needs

Brucellosis is a disease that is carried in bison, elk, and cattle. It has been virtually eradicated cattlebeen but ita recoded There from has never still exists in elk bison. instance ofand cattle contracting brucellosis Therefrom is a fear that bison can bison spread the disease to cattle.

There has never been a recoded instance of cattle contracting brucellosis from bison Use better, more up to date science to minimize the risk of transferring disease from wildlife to cattle.

Use b minim disea

Elk also carry Brucellosis yet they do not face the same restrictions as Bison.

Elk also carry Brucellosis yet they do not face the same restrictions as Bison.

Fencing Fencing

Bison are very large, wild animals and they can cause damage to fencing

Bison are very large, wild animals and they can cause damage to fencing Under Montana Law, if a wild animal damages property, there is no way for the property owner to receive reimbursement.

Unless a wolf or a bear kills livestock.

Ranchers can receive compensation for animals killed by predators.

122

Under Montana Law, if a wild animal damages property, there is no way for the property owner to receive reimbursement.

Compensate land owners for damage to fences and incentivise use of best case practices Unless a wolf or a bear kills livestock.

Ranchers can receive compensation for animals killed by predators.

Com fence pract

dent

Precedent

American Prairie Reserve

Madison Valley Expeditions

Serengeti N

The American Prairie Reserve seeks to restore natural Madison Valley expeditions is an ecotourism Located in Tanzan habitat in the plains of north central Montana. They organization that operates in the Madison Valley. They tures the largest u operate by purchasing pieces of private land from provide nature and wildlife experiences to tourists on recognizes the im “Based on the experiences of free-ranging willing sellers to connect fragments of public land private ranch land. The tours are focused on revealing the ecosystem and programs within other regions, bison and together. The plan is to purchase 3.5 million acres issues regarding wildlife conservation and private park while protect cattle can coexist on the landscape.” for conservation. Currently 400,000 acres have been land. The ranchers are paid for allowing tour groups are a number of o purchased and set aside for conservation. Public land on their land and expanding tourism builds a stronger regions that allow is often used for grazing so APR is also purchasing economy in Ennis. This model insensitives good land -Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks grazing leases from the landowners when they stewardship purchase the property. One of the conservation goals of APR is to reintroduce wild bison to Valley this landscape.

American Prairie Reserve Madison Expeditions Serengeti National Park Because APR privately owns the land, the bison are considered livestock Montana law.

The American Prairie Reserve seeks to restore natural under Madison Valley expeditions is an ecotourism Located in Tanzania, the Serengeti National Park fea-

on the experiences of free-ranging ms within other regions, bison and n coexist on the landscape.”

ontana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

habitat in the plains of north central Montana. They operate by purchasing pieces of private land from willing sellers to connect fragments of public land together. The plan is to purchase 3.5 million acres for conservation. Currently 400,000 acres have been purchased and set aside for conservation. Public land is often used for grazing so APR is also purchasing grazing leases from the landowners when they purchase the property. One of the conservation goals of APR is to reintroduce wild bison to this landscape.

Because APR privately owns the land, the bison are considered livestock under Montana law.

organization that operates in the Madison Valley. They provide nature and wildlife experiences to tourists on private ranch land. The tours are focused on revealing issues regarding wildlife conservation and private land. The ranchers are paid for allowing tour groups on their land and expanding tourism builds a stronger economy in Ennis. This model insensitives good land stewardship

Defenders of Wildlife The Defenders of wildlife have started a project called The Yellowstone Bison Coexistence Program. The project partners with other conservation organizations to provide funding, information, and assistance to private landowners to build bison resistant fencing.

This program helps protect private property and build tolerance for bison among private landowners.

Henry Mountains Bison Herd The Henry Mountains Bison Herd is a generically pure free range herd in the Henry Mountains in Utah. The herd is legally classified as a wild bison herd. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources manage the Henry Mountains bison herd. To manage the size of the herd, the State Of Utah issues hunting permits. The herd size ranges from 250- 400 bison.

Herd

Defenders of Wildlife

Henry Mountains Bison

The Defenders of wildlife have started a project called The Yellowstone Bison Coexistence Program. The project partners with other conservation organizations to provide funding, information, and assistance to private landowners to build bison resistant fencing.

This program helps protect private property and build tolerance for bison among private landowners.

The Henry Mountains Bison Herd is a generically pure free range herd in the Henry Mountains in Utah. The herd is legally classified as a wild bison herd. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources manage the Henry Mountains bison herd. To manage the size of the herd, the State Of Utah issues hunting permits. The herd size ranges from 250- 400 bison.

123

tures the largest ungulate migration on the planet. The recognizes the important role that migration plays in the ecosystem and lets animals move in and out of the park while protecting animals within the park. There are a number of other national parks and conservation regions that allow this migration to happen.

nges for Geographic Challenges for migration expanding bison migration

Yellowstone River I-90

Livingston

Expanded Winter Habitat

Livingston

Expanded Winter Habitat

Geographic Pinch Point

Geographic Pinc

IBMP Bison Tolerance Zone IBMP Bison Tolerance Zone

Yellowstone National Park Boundary Yellowstone National Park Boundary

Montana Wyoming Geographic Pinch Point

Gardiner Pinch Point Geographic

Gardiner Yellowstone River

Seasonal Migration

Seasonal Migration

Summer Habitat 124

Yellowstone River

Summer Habitat

d Ownership

Land Use

Land Ownership

Agricultural Land 125

Physical Boundaries

1

Instead of imposing virtual boundaries on wild animals that have no conception of land ownership, using physical boundaries could reduce the conflict between bison and people.

Livingston

1 2

2 Natural

Steep topography Rivers Roads

Human

Agricultural Land Buildings

126

Gardiner

Bison on Protected Lands

Historic Value

Economic Value

Bison was central to the pains Indian’s way of life. The bison provided: food, shelter, and almost everything else they needed to survive on the plains. Every part of the bison was used. Not only was the bison a giver of life in a physical sense, it was also a giver of life in a spiritual sense. For many native American cultures, the bison was a central part of their spirituality.

For landowners and ranchers, Bison are still more valuable if they are dead. Bison can cause damage to property and fencing and there is a fear that bison can transfer disease to cattle. The cattle industry in Montana generates $1.8 Billion in labor and supports about 60,000 jobs1. Yellowstone National Park generates 657.1 Million dollars in economic output and supports 7,089 jobs for the communities that surround Yellowstone. In total the tourism industry in Montana generates about $3.6 billion from non-resident spending and supports over 44,000 jobs. 2 Although tourism does not support as many jobs in Montana, it does bring in more money into the state’s economy.

How much is bison worth to the tourist economy?

Yellowstone Generates $647 million in economic output annually to the surrounding communities

Reasons For Visiting Yellowstone National Park $537 million is generated by people seeking to experience wildlife

Each Bison is worth $107,400 to the tourist economy surrounding Yellowstone

Cotsiogo, Hide Painting of the Sun Dance, c. 1890-1900, Eastern Shoshone (Wind River Reservation, WY)

Currently there are about 5,000 bison in Yellowstone

Bison Were hunted to near extinction for their primarily for their hides. European Bison hunters would shoot the bison and then remove the hides and leave the bodies to rot in the grass. In 1880 a Buffalo hide cost about $3.50

NPS 2016 annual visitor report

Intrinsic Value All living things, communities, and ecosystems have value that is not arbitrarily created by humans. The concept of environmental personhood promotes the idea that living things should be granted the same natural rights as humans. This concept is starting to gain traction around the world. A number of towns in the united states have voted to extend natural rights to bodies of water. Bison have been an essential component of the ecosystem for millions of years. Do bison have the right to exist?

1Power, and Donovan S. S. Power.

TheThe Impact of Climate Change on Montana’s Agriculture Economy.

Montana Farmers Union, 2014,2014, The Impact of Climate Change on Montana’s Agricul1 Power,Thomas ThomasMichael, Michael, and Donovan Power.

Impact of Climate Change on Montana’s Agriculture Economy.

Montana Farmers Union, The Impact of Climate Change on Montana’s ture Economy.

Agriculture Economy.

2 Grau, ofof Nonresident Travel Spending in Montana Travel Regions and and Counties” (2019).

Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research Publications.

391. 391.

2 Grau,Kara, Kara,“2018 “2018Economic EconomicContribution Contribution Nonresident Travel Spending in Montana Travel Regions Counties” (2019).

Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research Publications.

127

The Ecological Value of Bison

Bison

Keystone Species- Critical species for maintaining the integrity of an ecosystem.

Bison hoofs aerate the soil

Migration patterns and Eating Habits of Natural Grasses

Unlike cattle, bison have evolved on this landscape.

For millions of years bison were a key part of the ecosystem. Some biologists and ecologists describe bison as ecologically extinct because, “Wild bison no longer influence the landscape on the vast scale of historical times by enhancing nutrient cycling, competing with other ungulates, creating wallows and small wetlands, converting grass to animal matter, and providing sustenance for predators, scavengers, and decomposers.” -NPS (Auttelet, et al.)

Nutrient Cycling

Wallowing Behavior

The Depressions in the ground create micro wetlands

Prevents plant species from taking over

Greater diversity of plant Species

Better grazing for other herbivores

Greater diversity of Insect species

Increased amphibian populations and diversity

Increased diversity of Birds

Willard Drake Johnson

Dan Dzurisin

Bison Wallow

128

Joe Neal

Photos by: Jimmy Brown

129

Where the Buffalo Roam

Redefining the Park Experience through Connection Points along an Inverted Boundary

by Nicole Andersson

The American Buffalo is a critical animal within Yellowstone Park Ecosystem and its presence symbolizes a conflict between man and nature that has become a part of our shared heritage. John Sanford and I chose to look at the bison because its presence within Yellowstone Park represents a larger narrative about human’s relationship to nature, and the complex issues that arise from our treatment of animals and wildlife. Those issues invariably highlight the critical positions relative to social-cultural, economic and ecological impacts, strategies and potential solutions to development in the rural West.

Context

Bison are the only remaining large ungulate in North America since their migration from Siberia 10,000 years ago. In just a short two hundred year span, bison have endeared and have succumbed to the shifting cultural values and human wildlife practices brought by European settlement which almost led their extinction. Before European settlement, the bison population of North America was somewhere

in the range of 30 to 60 million. As an integral part of American Indian cultures, the bison was honored for its many uses, providing food, shelter and clothing and can be thought of at this time as a source of survival. 1870 marks the arrival of European settlers and the incremental destruction of the historic bison range. The unchecked hunting of bison for their hides, reduced the population down to 4 million.

Westward settlement also brought the Trans-Pacific Railroad, becoming a physical barrier for bison migration, effectively bisecting the historic herd to the north and south.

By 1880, there were only 25,000 bison remaining, marking an era of wildlife eradication for the purpose of profit; bison became commodified as an integral resource in the fur trade spurred on by the popularization of bison fur clothing. However, it was at this time too, when conservation efforts began to prevent the complete extinction of the animal.

Established by Theodore Roosevelt in 1872, Yellowstone National Park, stood for a new era of the conservation of wildlife in the U.S., being the first national park of its kind. During the first decades of the park’s existence, park management had no legal ground to prevent the poaching of bison on park land. As a result, bison populations in the park dwindled. In 1904, Roosevelt established the American Bison Society to keep the remaining 1,000 buffalo in Yellowstone Park from extinction.

Over the course of the next century park management increased the bison population from less than 100 to now number over 5,000. Bison migration patterns have shifted and as populations reach capacity within the park, the animals are forced further beyond the park boundary in the winter to find suitable habitat where vegetation is more accessible with less snow-pack. Diagrams on the fol130

lowing pages illustrate the spreading of the bison population across the park since the 1970’s. The light brown represents winter and fall habitat and the dark brown summer habitat in the Lamar and Hayden valleys. By the 2000’s, the bison population grew to where their grazing and range exceeded the capacity of the park, forcing the bison beyond the park boundary and in conflict with humans at the north entrance. Because the State of Montana does not allow bison to roam free outside the park, the Interagency Bison Management Plan was established in 2000 to control and limit the population to under 5,000 with strategic removal practices.

Problem Statement

As a design prompt and a way to envision a new future of how humans can relate to wildlife and nature, we asked ourselves “What if bison could roam free?”

As a design response, this project looks at the park boundary as an opportunity for redefining a new park experience The traditional boundary of the park is built on an anthropocentric ideology, where the creation of the park and the premise for its existence was for the enjoyment of humans. In one way, the construct of the park boundary line has served as protection of a ‘pristine’ wilderness, but on the other, has simultaneously served as a tool by which animals are controlled and withheld from their natural migration ranges.

The construct of the boundary is human centric, establishing a direct hierarchy between humans and animals. Furthermore, the perceived separation of humans from nature by way of the boundary line reinforces the distinguishing of our bodies as separate from nature, perpetuating a mindset of nature as outside ourselves, and something to be controlled for consumptive purposes.

Proposal Summary

This project first proposes a bison migration corridor connecting Yellowstone Park to the APR, illustrating a potential ‘soft border’ migration range that would coexist with and adjacent to human development. Effectively extending the borders of the park, a north-south corridor would allow more bison to roam free without controlling populations through strategic slaughter, hazing and hunting at the boundary of the Park. The corridor follows protected areas, largely BLM land, along the low-lying grasslands and adjacent to natural waterways.

Secondly, the project proposes a park boundary concept that negotiates the conditions between human development and animal ecosystems along park boundaries. As a historical approach, the implied boundary line of Yellowstone Park demarcated the containment of animals and wildlife for conservation and ultimately for the enjoyment of humans. People were allowed to tread over the boundary, but animals were intended to be contained within it. Current conditions allow for migration of some animals across park boundaries, such as elk. However, the lack of protected corridors beyond the park places animals in vulnerable positions in conflict with human development.

A potential future, as it is proposed in this design project, suggests that an extension of park boundaries to accommodate animal corridors would connect park and conservation areas into a network for wildlife and ecosystem sustainment, but would demand a re-definition of park boundaries along the threshold of human development. A proposed ‘soft’ boundary defining animal corridors between conservation areas, presupposes a paradigm shift, in which the park boundary is no longer applied to contain animals, but rather is inverted to permit

their movement. The inversion upends the anthropocentric model of the park boundary line. The north entrance to the park at Gardiner presents an opportunity for examining an inverted boundary condition. Topographically, the valley acts as a pinch point, bringing humans, bison, water, and roadways into confluence, offering a chance to examine potential boundary permeability.

I propose connection points 1 and 2, which lay within the IBM area and along the natural bison winter migration route. As it is proposed, bison would migrate down this valley to low-lying grasslands lands in the winter. New border conditions that allow an expansion of the bison range prompt a redefining of transportation, vantage and viewing areas, entry points, and ground conditions that can alter the human experience of the park.

An early concept drawing starts to talk about the fluidity and permeability of a new park boundary.

These connection points become opportunities to create new vantage points to view the migration of bison in the winter. In this proposal, water becomes a natural boundary over which a new human experience can occur. The sound and visual movement of the water heightens the visceral experience of the visitor. Platform pathways elevate winter visitors as a confluence of humans, water, bison and topographic shifts, creating an opportunity for overlaps and perforation across the park boundary and extending seasonal park engagement beyond the summer months. The raising of visitors above leaves land, usually used for visitor vehicles, undisturbed and open solely for animal migration.

Projections of walkways cross over the park boundary at pinch points of roadways, water and bison movement. It could be assumed that these structures would somehow be temporary and 131

accessed only during the winter seasons at bison migration. This new park access raises and reorients the Yellowstone visitor in a unique way that establishes a new dynamic between human and animal.

Access to the park acts primarily along these flexible border conditions of new established animal migration corridors. Humans will not tread over the park landscape, but rather stand away in reverence.

The Historic Bison Ranges in North America

Bison are the only remaining large Ungulate in North America since their migration from Siberia 10,000 years ago. In just a short two hundred year span, Bison have endeared and have succumbed to the shifting cultural values and human wildlife practices brought

by European settlement which almost led to their extinction.

Photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bison_skull_pile-restored. jpg

‘A Source of Survival’ 1500

Yellowstone Park

30 to 60 million

Bison

‘Eradication and Commodification’ 1870

4 million

Bison

map source: W. Andrew Marcus, James Meacham, Ann Rodman, Alethea Steingisser. Atlas of the Yellowstone. University of California Press; First edition (April 23, 2012)

132

‘Conservation’ 1880

25,000

Bison

Bison in Yellowstone Park Over the course of a century park management has increased the bison population from less than 100 Bison to now over 5,000. Bison migration patterns have shifted and as populations reach capacity within the park, the animals are forced further beyond the edges of the park boundary in the winter to find suitable habitat where vegetation is more accessible with less snow-pack.

Because the State of Montana does not allow bison to roam free outside the park. In 2000 the Interagency Bison Management plan was established to control and limit the population to under 5,000 with strategic removal practices.

Photo: Neal Herbert, NPS

1970’S

1990’S

1980’S

2000’s

Lamar Valley Hayden Valley

600

Bison

2,000

4,000

Bison

Bison

Fall + Winter Range Breeding Range (July - August) Bison Management Areas

map source: W. Andrew Marcus, James Meacham, Ann Rodman, Alethea Steingisser. Atlas of the Yellowstone. University of California Press; First edition (April 23, 2012)

133

5,000

bison

Photo: Jacob W. Frank

134

To control the expanding bison population within the park around 1,000 every year are either relocated to tribal reservations, allowed to be hunted by tribal members or sent to slaughter. Hazing (with helicopters or ATVs) is also a tactic to deter bison from migrating across park boundaries.

135

Bison on Protected Lands A proposed bison migration corridor (hatched brown) connects the Yellowstone to the APR, illustrating a potential ‘soft border’ migration corridor that would coexist with and adjacent to human development. Effectively extending the borders of the park, a north-south corridor would allow more bison to roam free without controlling populations through strategic slaughter, hazing and hunting at the boundary of the Park. The corridor, as it is mapped here, follows protected areas, largely BLM land, along the low-lying ranges and adjacent to natural waterways.

From Gardiner, the proposed corridor extends through paradise valley to Livingston, around the Crazy Mountains and Judith basins before touching the most western edge of the proposed APR range.

T1 Protected Lands (permanent protection of natural state) T2 Protected Lands (some uses permitted) T3 Protected Lands (subject to extractive uses) Indian Reservations IMB Managed Bison Range APR Acquired Land APR Proposed Semi-Free and Free-Roaming Wild Bison Proposed Free-Roaming Bison Corridor Area of Interest

136

Design Questions

1/ Who does the park belong to?

2/ Is there a less impactful way of integrating humans into the park?

3/ How can a visit to Yellowstone National Park become a truly transformative series of experiences that could convert people into advocates for the landscape instead of simply visitors?

Proposal Extending and re-defining the traditional park boundary lines, allows for the free-roaming migration of bison, and has the potential to establish a new relationship between humans and nature.

An inversion of the park boundary upsets the anthropocentric construct of ‘protected wilderness’ and thereby upends the historic heirarchy of humans above nature, placing importance on the natural movement of animals rather than humans.

This disruption holds the potential to rewrite our current patterns of integration with nature, a shift away from a consumptive mindset to one of reverence.

Photo: Jacob W. Frank

137

A Complex Issue letting bison roam free would...

against

for

land

• • •

restore pre-European settlement prairie ecosystem open historic bison migration corridors

•

reduce grazing land available to cattle

•

Brucellosis transferred from bison to cattle threatens ranching operations

connect bison to other free-roaming herds

•

Brucellosis has only been seen to transmit to cattle from elk

•

increase bio-diversity of birds, plants and amphibians

•

•

reduce invasive grass species

threaten established ecosystems and habitats their force and vast quantities of space and food needed for their survival

•

provide protection for an animal deeply rooted in the culture of native peoples

•

threatens human safety on vehicular and walking paths and within human development

ecosystems

human rights

•

animal rights • •

honor an animal that provided survival

prevent the slughter of bison within the Park give bison their natural historic habitat

138

•

damage personal property

•

like cattle, bison are a consumptive source of food and should be designated to specific grazing areas

Boundaries

a line that marks the limits of an area; a dividing line a limit of a subject or sphere of activity In mapping a proposed bison migration corridor, the concept of the boundary became an obvious human construct to consider, one that articulates certain cultural mindsets and attitudes toward nature; that it is something ‘other’ than us and that, like the animals in it, it must be contained.

Problem statement The traditional boundary of the park is built on an anthropocentric ideology, where the premise for its existence was for the enjoyment of humans.

In one way, the construct of the boundary line has served as protection of a ‘pristine’ wilderness, but on the other, has simultaneously served as a tool by which animals are controlled and withheld from their natural migration ranges. The construct of the boundary is human centric, establishing a direct hierarchy between humans and animals.

Furthermore, the perceived separation of humans from nature by way of the boundary line reinforces the distinguishing of our bodies as separate from nature, perpetuating a mindset of nature as outside ourselves, and something to be controlled for consumptive purposes.

139

Inverted Boundary Humans Animals hard boundary permeable park boundary soft migration boundary

Proposal: A new park experience for a new boundary condition

A proposed ‘soft’ boundary defining animal corridors between conservation areas, presupposes a paradigm shift, in which the park boundary is no longer implied to contain animals, but rather is inverted to permit their movement. The inversion upends the anthropocentric model of the park boundary line.

140

Park Boundary Proposal

Humans Animals hard boundary permeable park boundary soft migration boundary

Historical Approach

Current Conditions

Proposed Conditions

A Potential Future

The implied hard boundary line of Yellowstone Parkdemarcated the containment of animals and wildlife for conservation and ultimately for the enjoyment of humans.

Migration of some animals across park boundaries, such as elk, is allowed. However, the lack of protected corridors beyond the park places animals in vulnerable positions in conflict with human development.

Bison advocates, and park management argue for more free-roaming area for bison beyond park boundaries. The Interagency Bison Management plan being the first step towards bison tolerance as an integrative management approach, with the idea that more land beyond the park will be designated for bison to roam, effectively extending the boundaries of the park system.

An extension of park boundaries to accommodate animal corridors would connect park and conservation areas into a network for wildlife and ecosystem sustainment, but would demand a re-definition of park boundary along the threshold of human development.

141

Connection Points Redefining the park experience

The north entrance to the park at Gardiner presents an opportunity for examining an inverted boundary condition. Topographically, the valley acts as a pinch point, bringing humans, bison, water, and roadways into confluence, offering a chance to examine potential boundary permeability.

Connection points 1 and 2 exist within the IBM area and along the natural bison winter migration route. As it is proposed, bison would be allowed to migrate down this valley to low-lying prairie lands in the winter.

New border conditions that allow an expansion of the bison range prompt a redefining of transportation, vantage and viewing areas, entry points, and ground conditions that can alter the human experience of the park.

Waterways

North Entrance

Existing Roadways Interagency Bison Management Current Fall and Winter Bison Range USFS Wilderness National Park Conservation Easement

142

hum nsp tra an

River Park Boundary

ort

Connection point bi

so

n

m

Connection point

ig

ra tio

n

143

Connection Point 1

humans

Water becomes a natural boundary over which a new human experience can occur.

Platforms pathways elevate winter visitors as a confluence of humans, water, bison and topographic shifts, creating an opportunity for overlaps and perforation across the park boundary. The raisingof visitors above leaves land, usually used for visitor vehicles undisturbed and open solely for animal migration.

Waterways Existing Roadways Interagency Bison Management Current Fall and Winter Bison Range National Park

looking north up valley

144

animals

Connection Point 2

water as a natural soft boundary condition

This new park access raises and reorients the Yellowstone visitor in a unique way that establishes a new dynamic between human and animal.

Gardiner

Access to the park acts primarily along these flexible border conditions of new established animal migration corridors.

Humans will not tread over the park landscape, but rather stand away in reverence.

Waterways Existing Roadways Interagency Bison Management Current Fall and Winter Bison Range National Park

looking south towards Gardiner

145

146

147

Re-Imagining the Park Experience: Transitioning Away from a Car-Centric Yellowstone National Park

by Saunders Allen

Prologue

Yellowstone National Park was designated by act of Congress in 1872, permanently set aside for the benefit and enjoyment of the people. While this was the first and possibly most significant act of federal land conservation in our nation’s history, it did not emerge from nowhere; the American Transcendental movement of the late 1830’s, paired with Europe’s Romantic movement, had been planting the seeds of the importance and metaphysical value of nature for some time. These movements were deeply connected to the American Identity when our National Parks came to exist and are the roots of our 20th and 21st century environmental movements.

Context

Yellowstone National Park sees 4 million visitors per year, most of whom enter and travel through the park in personal automobiles. There is nothing inherently wrong with this - the car is a symbol of the American identity in many ways. It is also symbolic of the initial

intent of the National Park System - designed and designated for “the enjoyment of the people,” a basic tenet of which is the autonomy to enjoy the park as we so choose. The sheer number of visitors - and the cars they depend on - congest the Park’s infrastructure, creating a huge need for maintenance and repair. The constant automobile traffic is also a stress on animal populations - the inhabitants that are perhaps the most important focal point of Yellowstone National Park. There are instances of human conflicts with the park’s wildlife every year; visitors attempt to save bison from the cold, harass them with drones, or fail to respect their immense weight, speed, and power. Paired with incidents at thermal features - running across the surface of or crashing drones into Grand Prismatic Hot Spring, for example - it would appear that the current Park Experience lacks the threshold whose crossing gives evidence to the fact that this is sacred ground.

Problem Statement

The creation of a more real threshold experience does not solve the problem of equitable access to Yellowstone National Park. Getting there is one thing, but the knowledge of the complex geology, ecology, and human history are not readily available for all visitors - and it is this knowledge that truly illuminate the Park.

This knowledge is the real opportunity for creating a threshold in the process of turning Visitors into Advocates.

Proposal Summary

The primary goal is to transform Yellowstone’s visitors into lasting advocates by enhancing the immersive and educational experience.

148

The first step in this process is to make visitors aware of the fact that when they visit Yellowstone, they enter the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem long before they reach the park. The GYE is the southern tip of a vast and interconnected series of ecological regions referred to as the Yellowstone to the Yukon. This can be accomplished by simple educational campaigns including billboards and other informational resources. By raising awareness of this enlarged boundary of Yellowstone National Park, we can allow the Park’s physical borders to become more porous to the native species that populate the region.

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is transitioning into something of a Hyperobject - a system so complex that we cannot fully grasp its scale but whose impacts shape everything around us. As such we cannot fully map the stakeholders of modifications to the system, but can instead only choose those groups we hope to prioritize. Nature, of course, is the primary point of focus in this system, as our wildlife and our economy depend on the health of this system. What if by modifying our infrastructure, we could provide a benefit to all stakeholders?

The first real infrastructural change to the park in this proposal is a simple shuttle line system to reduce the need for cars for every visitor. Shuttle systems have been in practice in our national parks for several years to much success in Zion and others but Yellowstone’s Lynx shuttle system was given only a brief life with little success. First and foremost, this system needs to be revived and overhauled.

To suit the needs of the ever-growing numbers of annual park visitors in an equitable fashion, the

rail lines that once brought the Yellowstone’s first patrons to its boundaries must be revived and enhanced to match our modern age. Rails can be run more efficiently than the hundreds of thousands of cars that come through the park each year, can provide less disturbance to the wildlife that call the park home, and provide a more immersive and educational experience for the visitors that flock here every year. These trains could be more than a means of transit; they could be an augmented reality experience that provides curated access to the incredible natural phenomenon of Yellowstone National Park.

Everything could become identifiable to the lay person - from the peaks that surround every vista, to the species of flora and fauna that populate the region - and in any language. Thematic journeys could be created tracing human history through the area or the movement of bison, curated specifically to the interests of the passenger.

This proposal’s keystone is the introduction of new thresholds to entering Yellowstone National Park.

Yellowstone’s historic lodges are beautiful and educational resources, but they are all set deep inside the Park’s boundaries. By building museum/ welcome center hybrids at the Park’s existing gates, the visitor would have access to education before entering the Park rather than after already entering, allowing for a more curated visit.

What if instead of observing animals from our cars or exposed turnouts, we provided places for people to observe and not impact them? A curated experience that includes real forms of safe observation and study of wildlife and other phenomena may reduce the possibility of the kinds of negative interactions we see now. It may just be that if we can modify the Yellowstone National Park’s user interface into something extremely regular from a human perspective,

we may see the patterns of Nature including migration and become equally regular or even more so.

This proposal is not a lightweight undertaking but is instead a full paradigmatic shift in how we occupy and understand our National Parks as a kind of hyper-amenity for both humans and the nature we adore. The sincere hope of this proposal is that it enables us as visitors to National Parks to more fully engage in the experiences they offer - and to somehow commune with them in a more transcendentalist fashion. The ideas of Ralph Waldo Emerson touched on engaging Nature as a Translucent Eyeball - a being that wanders across the landscape, experiencing but not negatively impacting anything and everything around it.

body seems when “The exposed to ittoasfeel it the beauty when exposed to it as the it feels the campfire ng not by eyes alone, or sunshine, entering not by the eyes alone, but equally through all one’s flesh e radiant heat.” like radiant heat.”

- John Muir

John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt in Yosemite (1903) // Library of Congress

149

John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt in Yosemite (1903) // Library of Congress

prologue

In 1872, the world’s first national park was designated in what we now know as Yellowstone with the intention of serving for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.

Roughly 30 years prior, an American Trancendental movement worked to shape our nation’s identity into one more aware of the positive impacts of time in nature. Europe’s Romantic movements run parallel to national park wasindesignated in what this ideal - that Nature we might find ourselves and stone with the intentional of serving for we depend. become connected to the land on which

ent of the people

Experiences in nature have since been proven to have an American therapeuticTranscendental effects on humansmovement - but for many, the ability tion’s into one more is aware toidentity pursue real time in nature limited by increasingly of time in lives nature.

Romantic urban andEurope’s the growing ubiquity of technology. to this ideal - that inParks Nature we might What our National need might be a method omethrough connected land on which we whichto technology could be embraced to create a more immersibe and educational experience in nature.

The Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone (1872) // Thomas Moran// Thomas The Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone (1872)

150

Moran

context identification Yellowstone National Park sees 4 million visitors every year. Many of these visitors build their visit around the car. There is nothing inherently wrong with this the car is a symbol of the American identity in many ways. It is also symbolic of the the initial intent of the National Park System - designed and designated for “the enjoyment of the people,” a basic tenet of which is the autonomy to enjoy the park as we so choose.

The sheer number of visitors - and the cars they depend on - congest thecation park’s infrastructure, context identi Yellowstone National sees 4 million and visitors every year. creating a huge need Park for maintenance repair.

The Many of these visitors build their visit around the car. constant automobile traffic is also a stress on animal populations - the inhabitants that with are perhaps most There is nothing inherently wrong this - the the car is a symbol important focal point of Yellowstone of the American identity in many waysNational Park.

It is also the animals initial intent of the National Park System There are symbolic incidentsofwith every year; visitors - designed and designated for “the enjoyment of the people,” a attempt to save bisonisfrom the cold,to harass basic tenet of which the autonomy enjoy them the park as we so with drones, or fail to respect their immense weight, choose. speed, and power. Paired with the incidents at thermal features - running across the surface or crashing drones into Grand Prismatic Hot Spring, for example it would appear that the current park experience lacks the threshold whose crossing gives evidence to the fact that this is sacred ground.

151

Man taunting bison, Yellowstone NP, ABC News

Auto Stages, Sylvan Lake, by F.J. Haynes

152

Yellowstone Traffic Jam, National Park Service, Jacob W. Frank

problem statement The creation of a more real threshold experience does not solve the problem of equitable access to Yellowstone National Park.

Getting there is one thing, but the knowledge of the complex geology, ecology, and human history are not allreal readily available for all visitors - and is thisthe problem n of a more threshold experience does notitsolve accessknowledge to Yellowstone National Park.the park. that truly illuminates

m statement

e is one thing, but theisknowledge of the complex geology, This knowledge the real opportunity for creating d human history are notprocess all readily available for all visitors - and it a threshold in the of turning Visitors into edge that truly illuminate the Park.

Advocates

dge is proposal the real opportunity for creating a threshold in the process sitors into Advocates. re-imagining the park experience: transitioning away from a car centric Yellowstone National Park

k experience:

153

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Routes + Nodes

Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport Livingston, MT // Home of Yellowstone’s original rail spur line

US HWY 191 // deadliest road in Montana + the most used route out of Yellowstone Yellowstone’s North Gate // Gardiner, MT

[site : GYE] rethinking the car in the greater yellowstone ecosystem

CURRENT MODEL

The current park visitor experience is CURRENT MODEL

a car-centered and mostly private one.

The current park visitor experience is Many visitors come and go on a a car-centered and mostly private one. road-trip style journey with checklist Many goals visitors and onwhat a roadof come what to seego and to do trip style journey with checklist often missing some uniquegoals of what to see andofwhat to do - often experiences Yellowstone National missing some Park - theunique primaryexperiences benet of their car of Yellowstone - thewhen and being thatNational they canPark choose primary benefit of their car being that where to stop to some degree, in an they can choosekind when uncurated of and way.where to stop to some degree, in an uncurated kind of way.

INTERMEDIATE MODEL INTERMEDIATE MODEL

Thestep rstisstep is to work to expand The first to work to expand the the theoretical boundary the Park theoretical boundary of theofpark for for visitors to share the understanding visitors to share the understanding that Yellowstone is the center of a that Yellowstone is the center of a beautiful and complex ecosystem that beautiful and complex ecosystem has been moderated by humans for that has been moderated by humans more than 130 years. The edges of for more that 130 years. The edges this ecosystem are porous and we as of this ecosystem are porous and we visitors often have no idea what it as visitors often havethrough no ideathem. what it means to pass means to pass through them.

PROPOSED MODEL PROPOSED MODEL

By re-introducing rail infrastructure By re-introducing rail infrastructure to to the Greater Yellowstone Infrastructure, the Greater Yellowstone Infrastructure, we can more explicitly celebrate its we can more explicityly celebrate signicance to the local life and its significance to the local life economy. The adventure of and economy. The adventure of experiencing the Greater Yellowstone experiencing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the National Park at its Ecosystem and be themore National Parkfor at visitors heart can curated its heart can be more curated for and returned to its inhabitants human visitors and returned its inhabitants; and animal, oratoand fauna by human and animal, flora and signifcantly reducing thefauna stresses by significantly the stresses introducedreducing by 4 million introduced by 4 million automotiveautomotive-based visitors a year. based visitors a year.

154

eh [ s [ntasat utkrae eka sh o ol dl deer rss] : G Y E ] center s u b t i t l e - scale + description

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is

transitioning into something The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem isof a hyperobject a system sosomething complex of that we cannot -fully grasp transitioning into a Hyperobject a system so complex that we cannot shape fully grasp its scale but whose impacts everything its scale but whose impacts shape everything around us. As such, we cannot fully map the around us. As such we fully mapto the stakeholders of cannot modifications the system, stakeholders of modications to the system, but but can only choose those groups we hope to can instead only choose those groups we hope prioritize. to prioritize.

Nature, of course is the primary point of focus Nature, of course, is the primary point of focus in thisinsystem, as our wildlife our economy this system, as our and wildlife and our economy depend on theon health this system. if byWhat if by depend the of health of thisWhat system. modifying our infrastructure, we could provide modifying our infrastructure, we could provide a benet to all stakeholders? a benefit to all stakeholders?

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Routes + Nodes

points of focus non-focal points

155

Yellowstone Boundary

national parks for several years much successto better Yellowstone National Parktoexperience in zion and others but Yellowstone’s Lynx suit the park’s needs is to revive the Lynx shuttle shuttle system was given only a brief life with system and pull the park’s visitors out of their little success. The rst step in re-curating the personal cars.

Yellowstone t h e f i r s t National s t e p i nPark e aexperience s i n g a c cto e sbetter s suit the park’s needs is to revive the Lynx shuttle system pull the park’s visitors out of in their Shuttleand system have been in practice our personal cars. national parks for several years to much

[proposed shuttles]

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Proposed Rail Line Yellowstone Airport Rail Terminus Livingston Rail Hub

success in Zion and other - but Yellowstone’s Lynx shuttle system was given only a brief life with little success. The first step in re-curating the Yellowstone National Park experience to better suit the park’s needs is to revive the Lynx shuttle system and pull the park’s visitors out of their personal cars.

[ precedent ]

[ precedent ]

[precedent]

Mammoth Hot Springs Shuttle Hub

zion national park shuttle system

Zion National Park shuttle zion national parksystem shuttle system

points of focus

points of focus

non-focal points

Geyser Basin Trail Stop

Yellowstone non-focalBoundary points

South Entrance / Teton National Park Station

Roads

Yellowstone Boundary

Proposed Shuttle Lines 156

Roads

ofthe annual in an brought equitable the fashion, rail park linesvisitors that once Yellowstone’s the rail lines that once brought the Yellowstone’s rst patrons to its boundaries must be revived rst patrons to its boundaries mustmodern be revived and enhanced to match our age. Rails and enhanced to match our modern age. Rails can be run more ef ciently than the hundreds can ciently hundreds m abe j orun r i nmore f r a sef tru c t u r than a l cthe han ge thousands of cars that come through ofofthousands of cars that come through the parkthe park each year, can provide less disturbance each year, can provide less disturbance to the to the To suit the needs of the ever-growing numbers wildlife that call the park home, and provide a wildlife that call the park home, and a of annual park visitors in an equitable provide more immersive and educational experience for more immersive and experience for fashion, the rail lines thateducational once brought the the visitors thatthat ockpatrons here here every year.

Yellowstone’s first to its boundaries the visitors ock every year.

[proposed rail lines]

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Proposed Rail Line Yellowstone Airport Rail Terminus Livingston Rail Hub

must be revived and enhanced to match our modern age. Rails can be run more efficiently than the hundreds of thousands of cars that come through the park each year, can provide less disturbance to the wildlife that call the park home, and provide a more immersive and educational experience for the visitors that flock here every year.

[ precedent ]

[ precedent ]

[precedent]

Gardiner Rail Station Yellowstone Park Entrance Museum Lamar Valley Wildlife Pavilion

Norris Geyser Basin Station + Rest Center

northern pacic - gardiner rail northern pacific - gardiner rail

northern pacic - gardiner rail points of focus

Old Faithful Station and Park Museum

non-focal points

points of focus

Yellowstone Boundary

non-focal points

South Entrance / Teton National Park Station

Roads

Yellowstone Boundary

Proposed Rail Lines 157

Roads

FISH

ING

BRID

GE -

YEL

LOW

STO NE

LAK

E

Channel Mountain Elevation: 8750 ft 44°16’35”N 110°22’29”W

American Bison [bison bison] - endemic more information

158

[digging

deeper]

arrival sequence - livingston to gardiner

[d i g g i n g d e e p e r] arrival sequence - livingston to gardiner

area of focus critical points Yellowstone boundary roads existing buildings

159

[park experience] lamar valley wildlife pavillion

visitor

advocate

What if instead of observing animals from our cars or exposed turnouts, we provided places for people to observe and not impact them? A curated experience that includes real forms of safe observation and study of wildlife and other phenomenon may reduce the possibility of the negative interactions we see now.

It may just be that if we can modify Yellowstone National Park’s user interface into something extremely regular from a human perspective, we may see the patterns of nature such as migration become more entrenched in a natural cadence.

real immersion

160

American Bison [bison bison] - endemic

FISH

ING

BRID

more information

GE -

YEL

LOW

STO NE

[ p ro j e c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e s ] vignettes of a re-imagined park

This proposal is not a lightweight undertaking but is instead a full pardigmatic shift in how we occupy and understand our National Parks as a kind of hyper-amenity for both humans and the nature we adaor. The sincere hope of this proposal is that it enables us as visitors to National Parks to mor fully engage in the experiences they offer - and to somehow commune with them in a more Transcendentalist fashion.

LAK

E

Channel Mountain Elevation: 8750 ft 44°16’35”N 110°22’29”W

The ideas of Ralph Waldo Emerson touched on engaging nature as a transluscent eyeball - a being that wanders across the landscape - experiencing but not negatively impacting anything and everything around it.

161

Habitat Restoration in the GYE:

The Case for Wetlands Creation in a Rapidly Developing Landscape

by Jimmy Brown

Context

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GRE) serves as the key source of water for much of the western United States, providing essential water resources to over 60 million people.

Snowpack in the GYE matters. The extent of the snow pack, indicated in the map on the left, directly aligns with the GYE boarder. We must protect this miracle in our own backyard, a greatly threatened resource, and we may lose it of we don’t take action.

“Waterways located in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming with sources originating in the GYE have been dammed. These dams provide irrigation, hydroelectric and drinking water resources.

Problem Statement

Given the importance of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, how can we protect the existing habitats in our backyard?

Proposal Summary

Wetlands: Wetlands are the “kidneys of the landscape” Similar to human kidneys, the organs that extract waste from our blood and balance body fluids, wetlands have the ability to clean the water that flows through them, mitigate large flood events and recharge underground aquifers.

Coastal wetlands, such as mangroves forests, sequester and store large quantities of blue carbon in the vegetation and sediment below. “Blue carbon” is the carbon that is stored naturally by marine and coastal ecosystems, hence the name. Blue carbon ecosystems hold a LOT of carbon — a given area of mangrove forest, for example, can store up to 10 times as much carbon as the same area of landbased forest. It’s important to protect and conserve blue carbon because the release of this carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide is a major driver of climate change.

The species found in wetlands are some of the most unique in the world because they’ve evolved specifically to survive in these hydrologically changing ecosystems. Alligators, crocodiles, muskrats, nutrias, fish species and hundreds of birds, including mallards, geese and herons are all found in wetlands. More than half of the 800 species of protected migratory birds in the U.S. rely on wetlands.

The vegetation found in wetlands is also unique as they have evolved to survive in seasonally flooded and saline conditions. Some examples include the cattail in freshwater wetlands and mangrove species in coastal wetlands.

162

The threats continue as many of the wetlands are still being drained, destroyed and replaced with agricultural fields, as well as commercial and residential urban developments. The destruction of wetlands also negatively impacts the lives of millions of humans that depend on the ecosystem services provided by the wetlands.

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Research | River Mapping

163

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Research | Snowpack Mapping RIVERS ORIGINATING IN THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM

164

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Research | Dam Location and Use

165

Given the importance of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, How can we protect the existing habitats in our backyard?

BOZEMAN, MONTANA

166

Bozeman, MT Research | Bozeman’s Water Source

BOZEMAN WATERSHED SATELLITE MAP

BOZEMAN WATERSHED MAP

Bozeman

3D MAPPING CALLOUT Bozeman

Blackmore Peak

Hyalite Reservoir Hyalite Peak

167

Hyalite Reservoir

RIVER MAPPING

WETLANDS

PROTECTING THE LAND

MIGRATION

168

Bozeman, MT Research | Wetlands

BOZEMAN WETLAND LOCATIONS

CITY LIMITS

WETLAND LOCATIONS

STREET MAP

PARKS & OPEN SPACE

169

Bozeman, MT Research | What Are Wetlands?

Wetlands are the “kidneys of the landscape” Similar to human kidneys, the organs that extract waste from our blood and balance body fluids, wetlands have the ability to clean the water that flows through them, mitigate large flood events and recharge underground aquifers.

170

Bozeman, MT Research | What Are Wetlands?

Wetlands can mitigate climate change Coastal wetlands such as mangroves forests sequester and store large quantities of blue carbon in the vegetation and the sediment below. “Blue carbon” is the carbon that is stored naturally by marine and coastal ecosystems, hence the name. Blue carbon ecosystems hold a LOT of carbon — a given area of mangrove forest, for example, can store up to 10 times as much carbon as the same area of land-based forest. It’s important to protect and conserve blue carbon because the release of this carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide is a major driver of climate change.

Wetlands are a habitat for biodiversity The species found in wetlands are some of the most unique in the world because they’ve evolved specifically to survive in these hydrologically changing ecosystems. Alligators, crocodiles, muskrats, nutrias, fish species and hundreds of birds, including mallards, geese and herons are all found in wetlands. More than half of the 800 species of protected migratory birds in the U.S. relay on wetlands. The vegetation found in wetlands is also unique as they have evolved to survive in seasonally flooded and saline conditions. Some examples include the cattail in freshwater wetlands and mangrove species in coastal wetlands.

Many of the world’s wetlands are degraded The threats to wetlands continue as many of the wetlands are still being drained, destroyed and replaced with agricultural fields, commercial and residential urban developments. The destruction of wetlands also negatively impacts the lives of millions of humans that depend on the ecosystem services provided by the wetlands.

171

Bozeman, MT Design | Bozeman’s Green Belt

172

Bozeman, MT Design | Diagrams TRAILS

North View WETLANDS

Main Street

Historical Datum

OPEN SPACE

Willson Ave Gallagator Kagy Blvd Potential Design Location South View

173

WILDLIFE

Bozeman, MT Design | Precedent SHELBY FARMS PARK | MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

SEATTLE WATERFRONT | SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

The Master Plan, designed by Field Operations, was the beginning of the transformation of this extraordinarily diverse 4,500 acre landscape into a nationally-renowned landmark park. The design addresses issues of ecological connectivity, conservation and restoration; hydrology; circulation and wayfinding; definition of park edges and gateways; and relationships between recreational uses and landscape character.

Field Operations has been leading the design of a comprehensive framework plan and dynamic urban design for 1.5 miles of Seattle’s Central Waterfront. With the removal of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and the reconstruction of the Elliot Bay Seawall, the City of Seattle is poised to reclaim its Central Waterfront and reconnect to Elliott Bay. The Framework plan works at multiple scales to re-center the city and shape a new public realm. A robust Urban Framework utilizes character zones, nodes and linkages to acknowledge difference in adjacent neighborhoods and capitalize on unique waterfront conditions.

A long-term, legacy project, Shelby Farms Park has three main components complete: the Wolf River Pedestrian Bridge, an early implementation project that strategically connects the Wolf River Greenway with the Park; Woodland Discovery Playground, which is designed to foster play and discovery, embracing fun and delight while cultivating healthy development of children’s physical and social well-being within a natural woodland context; and Hyde Lake, the “Heart of the Park” that features an expanded and ecologically-revitalized lake as well as event space, restaurants, and a community building.

174

Bozeman, MT Design | Precedent FRESHKILLS PARK | STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK

MUSCOTA MARSH, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY | INWOOD, NEW YORK

At nearly three times the size of New York City’s Central Park and only a stone’s throw away, Freshkills Park comprises over 1,000 acres of closed landfill and 450 acres of important wetland framed by spectacular views of downtown Manhattan. This award-winning Master Plan vision, for this 2,200 acre park designed by Field Operations, will guide the transformation from landfill to parklands over the next 30 years. The park is owned and operated by the NYC Department of Parks & Recreation.

Musota Marsh is a waterfront park and wetland restoration project, which increases neighborhood public access to the waterfront, restores and extends the area’s native marshland adjacent to Inwood Hill Park and creates an opportunity for increased educational and recreational activities for the community. Field Operations worked for Columbia University and the NYC Department of Parks & Recreation, and received a 2012 Design Excellence Award for Green Infrastructure from the NYC Public Design Commission.

175

Bozeman, MT Design | Plan

176

Bozeman, MT Design | Sections C

Section AA

D

Section BB

B

B

Section CC

Section DD A

A

D

C

177

Bozeman, MT Design | Rendering

178

Bozeman, MT Design | Rendering

179

Gateway to an Ecosystem

Development in Gallatin Gateway

by Eliana Delabahan & Sander Story

from Big Sky and Yellowstone International Airport.

This traffic creates conflict due to vehicle congestion and major movement patterns of elk and other ungulates.

Gallatin Gateway has increasingly been affected by the growth from the north and south in the form of exurban sprawl. As residential and other various developments exponentially continue to grow, the risk of habitat fragmentation grows stronger.

Habitat fragmentation of species habitats can lead to changes in normal habitat behavior and even species die off due to habitat groups being cut off from necessary resources.

Problem Statement Context

Gallatin Gateway began as a small farming and ranching community, and in recent decades has experienced tremendous growth from visitor and local amenities and exurban sprawl of residential properties. There has been a substantial increase in exurban development in the Gallatin Gateway area since 1953. It can be assumed the rapid growth from the north and south of Gateway, idyllic views, and the various cultural amenities in the area have encouraged this spike in development.

The Milwaukee Road was an arterial rail link that brought passengers from the Northern Pacific Rail line to Gallatin Gateway. Gallatin Gateway was the wonder entrance to Yellowstone and “The Greatest Gateway” to the greatest national park.

Gallatin Gateway is now a major thoroughfare towards Yellowstone National Park and Big Sky with heavy traffic from both locals and visitors driving

Gallatin Gateway is a critical connection within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. However, human systems are disrupting the natural migration of wildlife in this area.

Does wildlife have a right to exist in this landscape?

How can development in Gallatin Gateway respect the natural migration of wildlife within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem?

Proposal Summary

Through the process of layering both perceivable and invisible conditions, which contribute to the critical status of Gateway, areas emerge where future development should be avoided to prevent negative habitat impact. In the event that these areas are maintained, habitat vitality and landscape improvements can aid in promoting a thriving human-environment relationship within the landscape.

180

The tremendous richness of the riparian areas provides species key habitat in the Gallatin Gateway area. Unfortunately, Highway 191 and dense development have created dangerous obstacles for wildlife in search of riparian resources.

Current development is in need of a paradigm shift.

We are proposing a process of development that redefines conventional development practices by introducing interdisciplinary collaboration. The biological and geographical sciences possess knowledge and skill sets that must be tapped into early in the development stages and are essential for preserving our rich natural ecosystems.

Human Footprint of the West The USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center developed a map of the human footprint for the western United States. The map was created from an analysis of 14 landscape structures and anthropogenic features.

These structures and features became the input for a model to estimate

the total human inuence on wildlife populations as a result of changes in habitat or predator densities.

FIGURE 14

181

Gallatin Valley Human Footprint The USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center developed a map of the human footprint for the western United States. The map was created from an analysis of 14 landscape structures and anthropogenic features.

These structures and features became the input for a model to estimate the total human inuence on wildlife populations as a result of changes in habitat or predator densities.

Data from the 2018 American Community Survey is reported per census tract. The smaller and therefore more densely populated tracts are in Bozeman. Future projection based on the human footprint of Spokane today which is a comparable population to Bozeman’s projected population by 2060.

FIGURE 15

Human Footprint Today

FIGURE 16

Projected Human Footprint 2060

9

182

Roadkill Intensity on Highway 191

Gallatin Gateway is a major thoroughfare towards Yellowstone National Park and Big Sky with heavy trafc from both locals and visitors arriving from Big Sky and Yellowstone International Airport. This trafc creates conict due to vehicle congestion and major movement patterns of elk and other ungulates.

MONTANA

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK

WYOMING

MONTANA

WYOMING

IDAHO

IDAHO

FIGURE 18

FIGURE 19 FIGURE 17

183

10

The Push to Put Gallatin Gateway on the Map

The Milwaukee Road was an arterial rail link that brought passengers from the Northern Pacic Rail line to Gallatin Gateway.

Gallatin Gateway was the wonder entrance to Yellowstone and “The Greatest Gateway” to the greatest national park.

FIGURE 22

FIGURE 20

FIGURE 21

FIGURE 23

11

184

Gallatin Gateway Historical Cultural Inventory

Gallatin Gateway Current Cultural Inventory

Gallatin Gateway started as a small farming and ranching community, although over the decades has experienced tremendous growth, from visitor and local amenities to an exurban sprawl of residential properties.

Local farmers just north of Gallatin Canyon

AGRICULTURE

HOTELS FIGURE27

RECREATION

LARGE LAND OWNERSHIP

Trains reached Gallatin Gateway by 1927

INDUSTRIAL

RESIDENTIAL

Large swaths of land present ranches with the room they need for raising cattle and other various necessities.

Alternative routes and roads were developed as technology changed

RELIGION

CONSERVATION LAND

RESTAURANTS

HABITAT

ANTIQUE SHOPS

EDUCATION

Gallatin Gateway Current Cultural Inventory Gallatin Gateway started as a small farming and ranching community, although over the decades has experienced tremendous growth, from visitor and local amenities to an exurban sprawl of residential properties.

13

Stacey’s Bar, a historic establishment for the community and visitors alike

A small herd of migrating elk find their way around an open area in Gallatin Gateway with access to water.

185

Gallatin Gateway Current Cultural Inventory

Casey’s Corner Store

Gallatin Gateway Highway 191

Historic Gallatin Gateway Inn

Gallatin Gateway Rural Fire District Station 186

y Development

As seen in the map to the left, there has been a tremendous increase in exurban development in the Gallatin Gateway Gallatin Gateway area since 1953. It Development can be assumed the rapid growth from the north and south of Gateway, As seen in the maps to the left, there has been a the beautiful views, and the various cultural amenities tremendous increase in exurban development in the area have driven this spike in development. in the Gallatin Gateway are since 1953. It can be

assumed the rapid growth from north and south of Gateway, the beautiful views, and the various cultural amenities in the area have driven this spike in development.

Gallatin Gateway Development

As seen in t tremendous i Gallatin Gate the rapid gro the beautiful in the area ha

FIGURE32

FIGURE 33 https://www.explorebigsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Highway-GHMca.-1900_WEB.jpg

16

FIGURE 31

187

FIGURE32

Gallatin Gateway: Existing Conditions

188

Identified Areas in Gallatin Gateway to Avoid for Future Development

Through the process of layering both perceivable and invisible conditions, which contribute to the critical status of Gallatin Gateway, areas to avoid for future development have been made clear.

In the event that these areas are maintained as such, habitat vitality and landscape improvements can aid in promoting a thriving human environment relationship within the landscape.

189

Zone ofHighest Highest Concern Zone of Concern

After gaining an understanding of the complexity of After gaining an understanding of the complexity of factors which contribute to the critical status of Gallatin factors which contribute to the critical status of Gallatin Gateway, identifying critical areasareas whichwhich need Gateway, as aswell wellas as identifying critical increased development protection, a zone at the need increased development protection, a zone southern bend of bend Highway is revealed as at the southern of 191 Highway 191 is revealedthe asmost needing the most protection needing protection and development and development mitigation. mitigation.

Aerial view of South Zone

FIGURE 36

CRITICAL AREA OF INTEREST

32

190

The of Riparian and Wetland ZoneRole of Highest Concern & The Role ofAreas Riparian and Wetland Areas SOUTH ZONE

The tremendous richness of the riparian areas seen The tremendous richness of the habitat riparianto areas seen below is what attracts various the Gallatin below isarea, what attracts various habitat to the Gateway providing various necessities for the animals.

Gallatin Gateway area, providing various necessities Unfortunately, Highway 191 and dense development for the animals. Unfortunately, Highway 191 and have created dangerous obstacles for dangerous an animal in dense development have created search of the riparian resources. obstacles for an animal in search of the riparian resources.

SOUTH ZONE

33

FIGURE 37

191

Ecology Ecology ExistingConditions Conditions Existing

SOUTH ZONE

The graphic below presents a diagrammatic section of an The graphic below presents a diagrammatic section area of important connectivity status for wildlife of an area of important connectivity status migration in Gallatin Gateway. observable riparian in The Gallatin Gateway.

The and for wildlife migration wetland classifications along the length of the section present observable riparian and wetland classications along the length of the section present an understanding of the an understanding of the proximity conflict of highway 191 issues oftrajectory highway 191 to habitat movement toproximity habitat movement based on both riparian and trajectory based on both riparian and wetland resources wetland resourcesland. and conservation land. and conservation

SOUTH ZONE SECTION A-A

1

2

East-West Section A-A

3

34

192

Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Key Ecological Area Key Ecological Area 1 1

SOUTH ZONE

SECTION A-A A

SOUTH ZONE SECTION A-A

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CONFLICT

35

193

Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Key Ecological Area Key Ecological Area 2 2

SOUTH ZONE

SECTION A-A

SOUTH ZONE SECTION A-A

36

194

Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Key Ecological Area Key Ecological Area 3 3

SOUTH ZONE

SECTION A-A

SOUTH ZONE SECTION A-A

37

195

Diagramming theSectional Sectional Conflicts Diagramming the Con icts of of the Condition the Current Current Condition

The diagram below is derived from the chosen section The diagram below is derived from the chosen section through Gallatin Gateway. The importance of landscape through Gallatin Gateway. The importance of continuity for wildlife migration becomes clear as the landscape continuity for wildlife migration becomes diagram reveals a conceptualized current condition clear as the diagram reveals a conceptualized current presenting of the horizontal conditionvertical presentingfragmentation vertical fragmentation of the habitat trajectory across the valley.

These vertical horizontal habitat trajectory across theconflicts valley.

These vertical icts come in the form of buildings and come in the formcon of buildings and highly utilized residential. highly utilized residential

38

196

Position

Position

Current development is in need of a Current development paradigm shift. is in need of a paradigm shift.

We are proposing a process We are proposing athat process ofnes of development rede development redefines conventional conventionalthat development practices by introducing interdisciplinary development practices by introducing collaboration. The biological interdisciplinary collaboration.

Theand geographical sciences possess biological and geographical knowledge skill set which must be sciences possess knowledge skill set tapped into in the which must beearly tapped intodevelopment early in the stages and are essential for development stages and are essential preserving our rich for preserving our richnatural natural ecosystems. ecosystems.

39

197

Negative Implications of Negative Implications of the CurrentCondition Condition the Current

FIGURE 38

Exurban Sprawl

Gallatin Gateway has increasingly been affected by the growth Gallatin Gateway has increasingly been affected by the from the north and south in the form of exurban sprawl. As growth from the north and south in the form of exurban sprawl. residential and various developments exponentially continue As residential and various developments exponentially tocontinue grow, theto risk of the fragmentation grows stronger. grow, risk of fragmentation Fragmentation of species can lead toofchanges in normal grows stronger.

Fragmentation species can lead to changes inand normal behavior anddue evento habitat behavior even habitat lead to species die off lead to species die habitat groups being cut habitat groups being cutoff off due fromtonecessary resources. off from necessary resources.

FIGURE 39

Exurban development and forest dieback in Gallatin Valley Photograph by Andrew Hansen

“They’ve become urbanized elk. They don’t go back to the mountains, they stay in the subdivisions.... [t] here they lay all day long, smiling at cameras…[t]he people that are coming here now don’t know the background of what it used to be like.”

Lee Hart, owner of Broken Hart Ranch 3 mi. south of Gallatin Gateway

FIGURE 41

FIGURE 40

Habitat Fragmentation

Areas promoting fragmentation of species in the landscape.

40

198

Moonlight Basin Moonlight Basin

0RRQOLJKW %DVLQ )RUHVW &DUQLYRUH +DELWDW &RQQHFWLYLW\ 100 Lot Alternative 7KLV PDS GHSLFWV SUHGLFWHG HON FRQQHFWLYLW\ EHWZHHQ XQLWV RI IHGHUDOO\ RZQHG SXEOLF ODQG LQ WKH YLFLQLW\ RI 0RRQOLJKW %DVLQ ZLWK H[LVWLQJ DQG DSSURYHG GHYHORSPHQW SOXV SODQQHG GHYHORSPHQW ZLWK /RW $OWHUQDWLYH LQ 0RRQOLJKW 7HUULWRU\ 7KLV PRGHO XVHV JUL]]O\ EHDU DQG ZROYHULQH DV VXUURJDWH VSHFLHV UHSUHVHQWLQJ D EURDGHU UDQJH RI IRUHVW FDUQLYRUHV :ROYHULQH KDELWDW LV EDVHG RQ SXEOLVKHG ZROYHULQH PRGHOV ,QPDQ HW DO

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

/HJHQG 6WUXFWXUH 8 8

/RVW /DNH 2'3 ([LVWLQJ 3ODQQHG 0RRQOLJKW%DVLQ%RXQGDU\ &RQVHUYDWLRQ (DVHPHQW )HGHUDO /DQG

0

LOH

V

&RQFHQWUDWLRQ RI 0RYHPHQW +LJK

/RZ

¹

FIGURE 32

FIGURE 48 Image: Centre Sky Architecture

6HUYLFH /D\HU &UHGLWV &RS\ULJKW 1DWLRQDO *HRJUDSKLF 6RFLHW\ L FXEHG 7H[W

49 Image: Degler Real Estate - Moonlight Basin Golf FIGURE Course

42

FIGURE 50

199

Moonlight Basin Moonlight Basin

In 2018, Moonlight Basin’s overall development 2018, Moonlight Basin’s Overall Development plan wastoamended to relocate plan was amended in order relocate 81 units for 81 units for take advantage of other proposed take advantage of other proposed amenities and amenitiesaccess and while recreation while recreation providing access more flexibility providing more exibility in unit types. This shift also in unit types. This shift also reduced the density reduced the density in housing located in housing located adjacent to a prominent adjacent to the wildlife corridor which wildlife corridor which would increase wildlife would increase wildlife movement. movement.

The planned development units are 160+ acre planned parcels that have not been to The development units committed are 160+ development at this time but have been sited acre parcels that have not been committed in to the “lowest value wildlife habitat”. The plan goes development at this time but have been sited in on to recognize the various threats to wildlife that the “lowest value wildlife Thethreats plan goes development poses and habitat”. how these will on to recognize the various threats to wildlife that be mitigated. Steps include rigid covenants, development and how these threats will be adaptive poses management, education of homeowners, and covenants, a staff Wildlife mitigated.

Steps include rigid adaptive Education and Enforcement Ofcer. and management, education of homeowners, a staff Wildlife Education and Enforcement Officer.

Threats to Wildlife

Image: Moonlight Basin

FIGURE 51

200

43

Traditional Best Traditional BestPractice Practice

If a biologist is consulted, it takes place well into If a biologist is consulted, it takes place well into the design process after drawing sets have been the design process after drawing sets have been completed. This limits the capacity of the completed.

This limits of the design design solution to the take capacity on recommendations by solution to take on recommendations the biologist. Therefore the nished project by will the not be the result of an ecological approach butwill rather biologist.

Therefore, the finished project not a traditional design with some elements to mitigate be the result of an ecological approach but rather a ecological impact. traditional design with some elements to mitigate ecological impact.

44

201

Ecological Interdisciplinary Interdisciplinary Ecological Design Design Process Process

When aa biologist biologist is is introduced introduced to When to the the design design team team, the resulting project will be a fundamentally the resulting project will be a fundamentally ecologically sensitive design. The ecologic ecologically sensitive design. The ecologic implications of various design solutions will be implications of various design when solutions be considered from the beginning there will is the greatest opportunity inuencewhen the there nal design considered from the to beginning, is the solution. opportunity to influence the final design greatest solution.

45

202

Stewardship Stewardship

The introduction introduction of of passionate passionate biological The biological experts experts early early into the development process also means an increase into the development process also means an increase in dialogue regarding environmental in dialogue regarding environmental and habitat and habitat sensitivity resulting in a reinforced sensitivity resulting a reinforced environmental environmental values in mindset at various scales. Onevalues result mindset at various scales. One result is an increase in is an increase in stewardship introduced via an stewardship introduced via an interdisciplinary interdisciplinary development and design process. This stewardship comes in various development and design process.

This forms. stewardship comes in various forms.

FIGURE 53 Image: jhlandtrust.org

Fencing

FIGURE 54 Avena Botanicals Image:

FIGURE 55 Lynn Image:

FIGURE 57 ennead.com Image:

FIGURE 58 adriankasperski.pl Image:

Xeriscaping

Betts / USDA NRCS

Vegetative buffers

FIGURE 52nrcs.usda.gov Image:

Stewardship FIGURE 31

FIGURE 56 Getty Images Image:

Overpasses

Bird-friendly glass

203

Subterranean Residences

46

Ecological Design Ecological Design

Fencing is is aathreat threat to migration the migration of Fencing to the of ungulates ungulates in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. In orderIn to order to design fences that serve the need of humans design fences that serve the need of humans without without creating barriers to wildlife migration, it is creating barriers to wildlife migration, it iscross important to important to understand how ungulates fences. understand how ungulates cross fences.

If a fence If a fence is needed it should be highly visibleis to wildlife andbewildlife should ableand to needed it should highly visible to be wildlife jump wildlife over orto crawl . crawl under. allow jumpunder over or

FIGURE 53 jhlandtrust.org Image:

Fencing

In an effort to reduce reduce roadkill roadkill and and make make highways highways safer, wildlife wildlife overpasses safer, overpasses and and underpasses underpasses have have been constructed in various parts of the country. This been constructed in various parts of the country. This infrastructure allows wildlife to safely travel infrastructure allows wildlife to safely travel across heavy trafcked areas. Accidents not across heavy trafficked areas.

Accidents only only claim the lives of hundreds of animals andnot people claim theexpensive. lives of hundreds andupwards people but but are Hitting of ananimals elk costs of $25,000. are expensive. Hitting an elk costs upwards of $25,000.

FIGURE 56 Getty Images Image:

Overpasses

47

204

Ecological Design Ecological Design Xeriscaping was developed as a landscaping strategy Xeriscaping was developed as proven a landscaping in drought-affected areas but has to have numerous ts when it’s principles arehas applied in strategy inbene drought-affected areas but proven different useprinciples of native to have climates. numerousPrinciples benefitsinclude when it’s are

vegetation, conservation of water, applied in different climates. Principles includesoil use improvement, limiting turf, mulching, of native vegetation, conservation of water, and the use of drip irrigation systems. The FIGURE 54 Avena Image:

soil improvement, limiting turf, mulching, and resulting landscaping projects are lower maintenance, the use of Thepolluting resulting eliminate the drip need irrigation of chemicalsystems. fertilizers and mowers, reduce water by 50-75%, and landscaping projects areconsumption lower maintenance, eliminate provide for localfertilizers wildlife. and polluting mowers, the needhabitat for chemical

Botanicals

Xeriscaping

reduce water consumption by 50-75%, and provide habitat for local wildlife.

An estimated one billion birds die annually An estimated one billion birds die annually as a as a result of building collisions. Using bird result of building collisions. Using bird safe glass in safe glass in designs can reduce the occurrence of life designs cancollisions reduce the occurrence of life threatening threatening for the wide variety of bird species that inhabitforthethe Greater Ecosystem. collisions wide Yellowstone variety of bird species Bird that safe glass works by using patterns or  lms that allow inhabit the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Bird safe which might the tousing see patterns the glass glass birds works by or films thatthey allow the otherwise mistake for whatever may be reected on its birds to see the glass which they might otherwise surface. mistake for whatever may be reflected on its surface.

FIGURE 57 ennead.com Image:

Bird-friendly glass

48

205

Ecological Design Ecological Design

FIGURE 55 Lynn Image:

A buffer isis aa“greenbelt” “greenbelt” or a natural, natural, A vegetative buffer undisturbed area along a river, stream, undisturbed stream, or or other other body bodyof of water.

These areas provide critical habitat and sources water. These areas provide critical habitat and sources of food for wildlife while also decreasing erosion of food for wildlife while also decreasing erosion and and protect aquatic ecosystems from agricultural protect aquatic ecosystems from agricultural runoff runoff pollutants while connecting otherwise pollutants while connecting otherwise fragmented fragmented habitat. Fish, Wildlife, and Parks recommends setback from riversa habitat.

Fish,a minimum Wildlife, 250 and foot Parks recommends in order for wetlands, riparian areas, andinassociated minimum 250 foot setback from rivers order for uplands to be properly functioning habitat. wetlands, riparian areas, and associated uplands to be properly functioning habitat.

Betts / USDA NRCS

Vegetative buffers

Earth sheltered dwellings dwellings are areananalternative alternative to to Earth sheltered designs disrupt the landscape and contribute designsthat that disrupt the landscape and contribute habitat fragmentation.

This architecture to habitattofragmentation.

This architecture would would be physically and visually embedded in the land, be physically and visually embedded in the land, utilizing green roofs and solar energy taking cues from utilizing green roofs and of solar energyWells. taking cues from the “gentle architecture” Malcolm the “gentle architecture” of Malcolm Wells.

FIGURE 58 adriankasperski.pl Image:

Subterranean Residences

49

206

Conclusion Conclusion

How do we get there? “an ethical, sustainable, honorable human place in nature” William Cronon environmental historian

How does the work relate to the larger goal?

Increased ecologically viable land, connectivity in triangle, promote stewardship

Ecology driven policy change + design standards

How can the success be measure?

50

207

208

image credit: John Sanford

School of Architecture | PO Box 173760 | Bozeman, MT 59717-3760 arch.montana.edu | architect@montana.edu

209