Price, Martin Francis (Ph.D., Geography) Mountain forests as common-property resources: management policies and their outcomes in the Colorado Rockies and the Swiss Alps. Thesis directed by Professor Jack D. Ives This is a historical, comparative study of the development, implementation, and results of policies for managing the forests of the Colorado Rockies and the Swiss Alps, with emphasis on two study areas in each region. The Pikes Peak (Colorado) and Davos (Switzerland) areas have been adjacent to regional urban centers since the late 19th century. The Summit (Colorado) and Aletsch (Switzerland) areas have experienced a rapid change from a resource-based to a tourism-based economy since the 1950s. The study's theoretical basis is that of common-property resources. Three primary outputs of the forests are considered: wood, recreation, and protection. The latter includes both the protection of watersheds and the protection of infrastructure and settlements from natural hazards. Forest management policies date back to the 13th century in Switzerland and the late 19th century in Colorado, but were generally unsuccessful in achieving their objectives. In the late 19th century, the early foresters in each region succeeded in placing the protection of mountain forests on regional, and then national, political agendas. In consequence, by the beginning of the 20th century, federal policies were in place to ensure the continued provision of the primary functions of the forests recognized at that time: protection and timber supply. During the 20th century, these policies have been expanded, with increasing emphasis on the provision of public goods. However, most policies have been reactive, not proactive. Many of their long-term objectives have not been realized, especially because the structure of the forests is generally not adequately diverse, largely as a result of human actions. Other major conclusions and recommendations are as follows. The concept of sustained-yield forestry is not sufficient for the management of these forests. Management requires increased involvement from members of local communities. This must be based on public understanding of the interactions between ecological processes and human actions in these forests, and should not be based on short-term economic factors or nationally-set goals for producing forest outputs. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was made possible through the support and assistance of many people and organizations in the United States and Switzerland. It could never have taken place without long-term encouragement from Professor Jack Ives, my advisor at the University of Colorado; and Professor Dr. Bruno Messerli and Professor Dr. Paul Messerli, coordinators of the Swiss Man and the Biosphere (MAB) program at the Geographisches Institut, Universitat Bern. At the University of Colorado, I would like to acknowledge my committee for their patience with, and contributions to, this complex and continually-evolving project: particularly Professor Spense Havlick, for his ideas and finding much- needed financial support; Professor Sam Fitch, for introducing me to public policy analysis; and Dr. Bob Alexander, for his comments on innumerable proposals and drafts. I would also like to thank Professor Chuck Howe for providing vital office space and John Wiener for his thoughts and suggestions. Many other individuals in Colorado provided invaluable help, especially Professor Denny Lynch of Colorado State University and many Forest Service officials. Financial assistance for my research in Colorado was provided by research fellowships and a Graduate Foundation Fund award from the Graduate School, and a research grant from the Colorado Mountain Club Foundation. My research in Switzerland was supported by a Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation and by the Swiss MAB program. My life and research in Switzerland were made considerably easier by- members of the Geographisches Institut, Universitat Bern, particularly both Professors Messerli and their secretaries, Frau Florin and Frau Kunz. In addition, I received considerable assistance from several members of the Institut fur Wald- und Holzforschung, ETH-Zurich, for helping me to interpret Swiss forest management policies; particularly Professor Dr. Franz Schmithusen, who reviewed the final draft of the study, and Frau Rosmarie Louis, who provided many literature sources. I am also grateful to the scientists at the EAFV, employees of the federal and cantonal forest services, and members of the forestry industry who consented to be interviewed. Finally, I would like to thank my parents for introducing me to the mountains and their continual support in my evolution as an interdisciplinary scientist. CONTENTS ■1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Scope of study 1 1.2 Choice of study regions and areas 3 1.3 Common-property resources, private goods, and public goods: definitions and a classification of forest outputs 4 1.4 Outline of study 9 2. STUDY REGIONS AND AREAS 11 2.1 Swiss Alps 11 2.1.1 Ecology and distribution of forest species 2.2 Aletsch 14 2.2.1 Physical setting 2.2.2 Climate 2.2.3 History: demography, economy, transportation 2.2.4 Forest ownership patterns 2.3 Davos 18 2.3.1 Physical setting 2.3.2 Climate 2.3.3 History: demography, economy, transportation 2.3.4 Forest ownership patterns 2.4 Colorado Rockies 22 2.4.1 Ecology and distribution of forest species 2.4.1.1 Aspen 2.4.1.2 Lodgepole pine 2.4.1.3 Ponderosa pine 2.4.1.4 Douglas fir 2.4.1.5 Engelmann spruce 2.4.1.6 Subalpine fir 2.4.1.7 Limber pine 2.5 Pikes Peak 30 2.5.1 Physical setting 2.5.2 Climate 2.5.3 History: demography, economy, transportation 2.5.4 Forest ownership patterns 2.6 Summit 36 2.6.1 Physical setting 2.6.2 Climate 2.6.3 History: demography, economy, transportation 2.6.4 Forest ownership patterns 2.7 Comparison of study regions and areas 41 3. EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF POLICIES FOR MOUNTAIN FORESTS 46 3.1 Swiss communal regulation until 1798 46 3.2 Swiss cantonal regulation until 1902 48 3.3 Development of Swiss Forest Police Laws 50 3.4 First Colorado state forest policies 54 3.5 Development of U.S. Forest Reserve and Organic Acts 57 3.6 Early policy development: comparative analysis for the Swiss Alps and Colorado Rockies 63 4. POLICY DEVELOPMENT FOR FEDERALLY-PROTECTED FORESTS 66 4.1 Development of legislation and policies for the management of the Swiss mountain forests, after 1902 67 4.1.1 Organizational structure of forest management agencies 4.1.2 Development of federal legislation and policies 4.1.3 Legislation and policies for Canton Valais 4.1.4 Legislation and policies for Canton Graubunden 4.2 Management plans for the Swiss study areas 73 4.2.1 Aletsch 4.2.2 Davos 4.3 Development of policies and plans for the management of Colorado's National Forests, 1897-1960 75 4.3.1 Development of the organizational structure of the US Forest Service 4.3.2 Federal policies and their implementation in Colorado 4.4 Policies and plans for the management of the Colorado study areas, until 1960 86 4.4.1 Pikes Peak 4.4.2 Summit 4.5 Development of US federal legislation and policies, and their implementation in Colorado, since 1960 90 4.6 Plans for the management of the Colorado study areas since 1960 94 4.6.1 Pikes Peak 4.6.2 Summit 4.7 Comparative analysis of policies and plans for forest management in the twentieth century 97 5. THE INFLUENCE OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES ON MOUNTAIN FORESTS 101 5.1 Aletsch study area 103 5.1.1 Human influences on the forests before federal legislation 5.1.2 Implementation and effects of forest management policies from 1902 5.1.3 Summary 5.2 Davos study area 111 5.2.1 Human influences on the forests before federal legislation 5.2.2 Implementation and effects of forest management policies from 1902 5.2.3 Summary 5.3 Human activities and the forests of the Swiss study areas 120 5.4 Pikes Peak study area 125 5.4.1 Human influences on the forests before federal legislation 5.4.2 Implementation and effects of forest management policies from 1898 5.4.3 Summary 5.5 Summit study area 135 5.5.1 Human influences on the forests before federal legislation 5.5.2 Implementation and effects of forest management policies from 1905 5.5.3 Summary 5.5.4 Human activities and the forests of the Colorado study areas 146 6. MOUNTAIN FORESTS AS COMMON-PROPERTY RESOURCES: POLICIES AND OUTPUTS IN THE COLORADO ROCKIES AND SWISS ALPS 152 6.1 Regional analysis: pre-twentieth century 152 6.2 Regional analysis: twentieth century 154 6.3 Local analysis: Davos and Pikes Peak study areas 156 6.4 Local analysis: Aletsch and Summit study areas 159 6.5 Conclusion 161 REFERENCES 166 Archival and internal Forest Service sources 183 Newspaper articles 189 Census documents 190 Personal communications 192 TABLES 1.1 Classification of forest outputs 7a 2.1 Swiss alpine forest trees l1b 5.1 Aletsch study area: harvests in six communes 1877 - 1891 103a 5.2 Aletsch study area: distribution of saplings in altitudinal zones 108b 5.3 Davos study area: estimated average annual harvests 113a 5.4 Davos study area: purpose and ownership of reforestation projects 115a 5.5 Davos study area: forest size structure 117a 5.6 Davos study area: forest stand structure 117b 5.7 Pikes Peak study area: five-year average annual harvests and use of wood 1931 - 1957 128a 5.8 Pikes Peak study area: five-year fire frequencies 1941 - 1983 130a 5.9 Pikes Peak study area: forest size structure from 1936/7 survey 130b 5.10 Pikes Peak study area: forest size structure from RIS 132a 5.11 Summit study