living on the edge: a process for redesigning campgrounds ...people.tamu.edu › ~sshafer ›...

Living on the edge: a process for redesigning

campgrounds in grizzly bear habitat

M.S. Creachbauma,*, C. Johnsonb, R.H. Schmidtc

a Shoshone National Forest, 808 Meadow Lane Rd., Cody, WY 82414, USAb Faculty of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA

c Faculty of Fisheries and Wildlife Department, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA

Abstract

The North Fork of the Shoshone Highway Corridor contains 52% of the developed recreation sites within the Shoshone

National Forest. The highway is a popular access route for visitors traveling from Cody, WY to Yellowstone National Park.

This river corridor is also an important habitat for a growing population of grizzly bears. The Shoshone National Forest is

currently proposing a major reconstruction of recreation facilities along the highway corridor. This has presented the Forest

with an excellent opportunity to recreate facilities that encourage more appropriate human behavior in grizzly habitat. This

concept for campground design is a composite of many design strategies currently used internationally in bear habitat designs

and information derived from current research in bear/human con¯ict, grizzly bear behavior and bear habitat use and habitat

assessment. The application of this concept to recreational facilities in the North Fork Corridor is the product of an interagency

design team of landscape architects and biologists from the US Forest Service, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, US Fish

and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service in the Greater Yellowstone Area. The design process involves identifying

local grizzly bear use patterns and zoning campground components to accommodate these patterns. The most vulnerable

facilities (tent pads), are located furthest from bear travel corridors and food preparation areas. Buffer zones, leave strips, trails

and barriers are used to help direct bear travel around the campground. Food storage facilities, garbage facilities, cooking

sites, and other attractants are consolidated. Human access into bear travel zones is structurally controlled. A major focus of

the design is to emphasize the presence of the bear through the actual layout of campground facilities and to capitalize on the

unique experience of camping in the grizzly bear's domain. # 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Recreation planning; Grizzly bear±human con¯icts

1. Introduction

National Forest Service (NFS) planners and land-

scape architects are often faced with management

contradictions. The multiple use mandate of the

NFS requires the Forest recreation planner to balance

the health of intricate ecosystems with the ever-

increasing demands of the Forest user. Typically `user'

implies use by humans. Designers for the National

Forest Service expend a good deal of energy to gain an

understanding of their campground users through

public scoping and user observation. The habits and

needs of the non-human users of campgrounds rarely

receive the same level of attention. This oversight is

perplexing, as it is often the non-human users of our

Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-307-344-2024; fax: +1-307-

578-1212.

0169-2046/98/$19.00 # 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

P I I S 0 1 6 9 - 2 0 4 6 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 9 2 - 9

public landscapes that draw humans to these spaces.

With regard to grizzly bears it is an oversight that

could have potentially disastrous effects for both

humans and bears.

Of all the developed facilities within National

Parks, campgrounds appear to cause the most con¯ict

with grizzly bears. These stationary concentrations of

humans are frequently built in areas of high quality

bear habitat. In a survey of injuries caused by grizzly

bears in Yellowstone National Park between the years

1959 and 1969, Craighead found a direct correlation

between an increase in visitor use and injuries caused

by grizzly bears (Craighead and Craighead, 1971;

Martinka, 1982). Built in an area of extremely pro-

ductive grizzly habitat, Yellowstone's Fishing Bridge

campground accounted for over 50% of the bear-

in¯icted injuries in the park between 1966 and

1983. Bear±human encounters at Fishing Bridge

resulted in 61 removals of grizzly bears (USDI,

1988). Herrero (1985) stated that although the risk

of injury by bears in National Parks is low (one for

every 600,000 park visitors) the risk of injury was

highest in national park campgrounds. As visitation in

the Yellowstone Ecosystem continues to swell, land

managers can expect the job of managing bears and

people to become increasingly more dif®cult. It is

reasonable to conclude that, without proper planning,

National Forests surrounding Yellowstone may expect

to experience many of the same problems previously

experienced only within the Park.

Although grizzly activity is frequent throughout the

Yellowstone area many National Forest visitors travel

Fig. 1. North Fork scenic byway location.

270 M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286

into grizzly bear habitat oblivious to the potential

danger they might encounter. Except for bear resistant

trash dumpsters and a few `Bear Warning' signs,

campgrounds in bear habitat appear virtually the same

as any other campground. These facilities are inade-

quate in informing visitors of potential danger. Most

important, the existing facilities do nothing to take

advantage of an incomparable opportunity for educat-

ing visitors and enhancing their appreciation of the

grizzly bear.

In 1992 the Wyoming Department of Transportation

began to complete plans for a major reconstruction of

the North Fork Scenic Byway. The proposed project

would include the section from the Shoshone National

Forest boundary, 44 km west to the east entrance of

Yellowstone National Park (Fig. 1). In order to capi-

talize on an opportunity to lower construction costs

and lessen the inconvenience to travelers the Shoshone

National Forest had planned a concurrent campground

enhancement project. The environmental impacts for

both the highway and recreation projects were ana-

lyzed within the same Environmental Impact State-

ment (EIS). In their response to the EIS (WTD, 1994a)

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) raised

concerns over the enhancement of campground facil-

ities in an area known to be frequented by grizzly

bears. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recom-

mended that four campgrounds on the western end

of the corridor be relocated to an area of less frequent

bear use.

The Shoshone National Forest disagreed strongly

with the USFWS and WGFD position. The North Fork

highway and its associated developments currently

comply with all Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines

(USDA, 1986b) as well as the standards and guidelines

outlined in the Shoshone National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan USDA (1986a). All

dumpsters within the campgrounds are of a bear proof

design. The Grizzly Bear Special Order which

requires the safe storage of all food and garbage is

strictly enforced by Forest Service personnel. The

Forest argued that although many bears frequent the

area there are minimal con¯icts between bears and

humans. Forest managers also point out that removal

of the largest and most popular campgrounds next to

Yellowstone National Park would in¯ame local com-

munities against grizzly bears, be cost prohibitive

and would not serve the public need. (Enterprise,

1994).

The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (1993) emphasizes

that the support of the local population is integral to

the recovery of the grizzly bear (USFWS, 1993a). As

recreation becomes a primary industry local commu-

nities are asking planners and designers to improve the

recreation opportunities offered on surrounding public

lands. When these facilities are located within grizzly

bear habitat they force compromise on a wildlife

species whose very nature suggests an inability to

compromise.

It is the objective of this report to summarize the

exploration of various alternatives for the responsible

planning and design of campground facilities within

grizzly bear habitat. The process was formulated by

gathering information in three steps; a broad level

literature review, a review of bear human con¯ict

management techniques and a interagency design

charrette. The information gathered was used to de®ne

a design process as well as site speci®c design criteria

for a bear compatible campground design. The process

and design criteria were then applied to the Three Mile

Campground study area.

2. Study area description

The North Fork Scenic Byway (Byway) (Fig. 2) is a

primary recreation area, receiving over 52% of all the

recreation use on the entire Shoshone National Forest.

Traditionally, the 11 campgrounds located along the

Byway have been viewed as a `bedroom facility' for

travelers coming and going from Yellowstone

National Park. Campgrounds, especially those within

16.5 km of Yellowstone Park, have traditionally oper-

ated a maximum capacity of 1145 persons at one time

(PAOT) from June 1 to September 1 (WTD, 1994a).

Approximately 30% to 35% of the total recreational

use of the North Fork corridor is by local residents

(USDA, 1986a p. III±26). Average daily traf®c counts

through the North Fork corridor in 1993 were 1675

vehicles per day. The Wyoming Transportation

Department projects 2350 vehicles per day by the

year 2010 (WTD, 1994a).

The `North Fork Corridor' (Corridor) refers to the

area encompassing the North Fork Scenic Byway, the

North Fork of the Shoshone River, and all developed

M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286 271

Fig

.2.

Nort

hF

ork

scen

icbyw

aydev

eloped

recr

eati

on.


recreation sites outside of the North Absaroka and

Washakie Wilderness boundaries. The Corridor sup-

ports a wide variety of recreational uses offering

spectacular views and a variety of cultural and histor-

ical landmarks. Camping, hiking, trail rides, ®shing,

viewing wildlife and scenery, hunting, cross country

skiing, downhill skiing, snowmobiling, rock climbing,

and river rafting make the North Fork of the Shoshone

an attractive destination for local and international

visitors alike.

Three Mile Campground (Fig. 3) is located on the

North Fork Scenic Byway 4.8 km from the east

entrance of Yellowstone National Park and 78.2 km

west of Cody, WY. The campground is situated on a

narrow steep bench between the highway and the

North Fork of the Shoshone River. The developed

area encompasses approximately 9 acres. The camp-

ground is operated from June 1 to September 30.

Three Mile Campground is very popular and operates

at 70% to 80% capacity during the shoulder seasons of

June 1 to June 15 and August 15 to September 30.

During the peak of the summer from June 15 to August

15 the campground is 98% to 100% of capacity every

night.

Grizzly bear have been documented by sight and

telemetry throughout the North Fork corridor.

Management objectives for grizzly bears within the

Yellowstone Ecosystem are outlined in the Grizzly

Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS, 1993a) and the Inter-

agency Grizzly Bear Management Guidelines (Guide-

lines) (USDA, 1986c). The Interagency Grizzly Bear

Guidelines (USDA, 1986c) identify two of the three

major management objectives as: (1) Minimize Griz-

zly±Human Con¯ict and (2) Resolve Grizzly±Human

Con¯ict.

3. Literature reviewed

An extensive literature review of recent research in

bear behavior, bear habitat evaluation models, and

bear human con¯ict management was conducted. The

purpose of the review was provide an investigation

into the grizzly bear as `campground user'. Several

key behavioral elements and management techniques

were then incorporated into the proposed design pro-

cess for Three Mile campground.

3.1. Habitat evaluation

Obviously the only way to completely eliminate

the potential for bear±human con¯icts in developed

Fig. 3. Three Mile Campground existing site condition.


campgrounds is to construct them outside of grizzly

bear habitat. Bear biologists have developed many

models for grizzly bear habitat evaluation. Habitat

evaluation methods range from the extensive and

comprehensive Grizzly Bear Cumulative Effects

Model (Weaver et al., 1986; Craighead et al., 1982;

Mattson, 1990; USDA, 1990) to the short and rela-

tively subjective transect method (Knight et al., 1984;

Herrero et al., 1988; Reinhart, 1990; McCrory and

Mallam, 1991).

In planning campsites, trails, and other recreation

developments in Kananaskis Provincial Park, British

Columbia, Herrero et al. (1988) employed a transect

method for grizzly bear habitat evaluation. Initially, a

survey of aerial photos helped biologists to determine

potential transect lines. Each transect was based on an

assumed habitat potential and existing evidence of

grizzly bear habitat use and diet. Transects covered

areas where development was proposed as well as

along trails and pathless areas. Each transect was

divided into a number of segments that began and

ended with changes in vegetation or topography.

Habitat potential was rated by applying subjective

judgements on the relative abundance of the known

grizzly bear plant foods along each transect segment.

Knowledge of the importance of each food resource

was gained from a prior detailed study of grizzly bear

habits and diet in Banff National Park. Elements such

as grizzly bear scat, ground squirrel diggings, tracks,

marked trees, and bear trail locations were noted. This

information was mapped and then summarized by

watershed.

Information from the transect was then used to

locate areas where bear±human con¯ict would be

likely and recommended locating proposed develop-

ments out of important grizzly habitat areas. Habitat

evaluation information was incorporated into the Park

Management Plans by delineating bear use zones and

human use zones. Herrero recommends that once the

initial habitat evaluation is complete then the data

collection continues using in depth habitat delineation

analysis, including long term radio telemetry studies

(Herrero, 1985). The transect method offers a quick

and inexpensive technique for determining grizzly

bear habitat use. These are useful attributes but as

Herrero (1985) readily admits the results of this

method are neither `precise or quantitative'. In order

to be accurate the transect must be assessed by persons

with an extensive background in grizzly bear habitat

evaluation. In addition to the problems associated with

subjectivity, the transect method requires that a

detailed study of grizzly bear food habits in a similar

ecosystem be available. As Wayne McCrory (1989)

points out in a similar study at Kokanee Glacier and

Valhalla Provincial Parkst, `̀ The timing of park devel-

opments, budget constraints or other factors often

prohibit in depth studies of grizzly bears and their

habitats before development begins'' (McCrory et al.,

1986). In lieu of a thorough investigation the transect

method gives land managers, at the very least, a place

to start in planning and identifying areas of potential

bear±human con¯ict. The other obvious bene®t to the

transect method is that landscape architects and plan-

ners generally have the skills required to establish and

monitor transect lines.

3.2. Bear behavior

Grizzly bears are highly evolved, intelligent ani-

mals. Bears are curious and learn new behaviors very

quickly. These adaptations help the grizzly exploit a

wide variety of food resources over a large range. This

exploitation of resources is critical to a species pre-

paring for a long period of hibernation. Grizzly bears

are generally solitary but sometimes will congregate at

high quality food resources. This is evidenced at

salmon streams in Alaska and at insect aggregations,

trout streams and berry patches in the Yellowstone

Ecosystem. Social hierarchies have been known to

exist in areas of high grizzly concentrations (Egbert,

1974; Olson et al., 1990).

Animals respond to stress in two different ways.

They may gain tolerance for the stressor or they may

eliminate their exposure to the stressor. Increased

tolerance is called habituation. Grizzly bears may

habituate to other bears as noted above or they may

avoid the area and so eliminate exposure to the stress

(Mattson et al., 1991; Mattson et al., 1992) The

grizzlies's general intolerance for one another and

their ability to travel great distances permit them to

locate and exploit new food resources as well survive

in a capricious environment (MacArthur-Jope, 1983).

Development of nearly any type, including roads

and campgrounds, displaces grizzly bears or leads to

attraction and increased mortality. Bears in Yellow-

stone avoided roadways by as much as 500 m in the


spring and summer and to 3 km in the fall (Mattson

et al., 1987). Some bears are excluded from feeding

in areas of high quality because of their inability to

tolerate humans (Olson et al., 1993, United States

Department of the Interior (USDI, 1988), Mattson et

al., 1987). Those bears which can tolerate humans (i.e.

habituated bears) are far more likely to come into

con¯ict with humans. Habituation to people in and of

itself is not a bad thing. Con¯icts arise when hungry

bears begin to associate humans with food (Herrero,

1985). Food conditioned bears may be a threat to

human safety and so to themselves. Once a bear

becomes habituated to humans his chance of mortality

increases dramatically (Knight et al., 1988).

Despite their infrequency bear attacks certainly

have catastrophic effects for the humans involved

and for the potential for grizzly bear recovery. Accord-

ing to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS,

1993a) a primary source of grizzly bear mortalities

occur indirectly. Indirect mortalities are de®ned as

`̀ ..those actions that bring bears and people into

con¯ict such as road use, land development, and

recreation.'' (USFWS, 1993a, b).

The most common cause of bear±human con¯icts is

the sudden encounter. These encounters are seldom

fatal. When a human being encounters a bear during

the day the bear is generally surprised and frightened.

They may attack only to `neutralize' what they per-

ceive as a threat to their safety. A second type of

common bear±human encounter is much more dan-

gerous. These encounters generally occur at night with

grizzly bears that have become habituated and food

conditioned (Herrero, 1985). Bears that enter human

developments at night are usually searching for a meal

and are extremely dangerous. It is this type of encoun-

ter that is of primary concern to bear managers.

Several studies have been conducted to evaluate

habitat characteristics associated with bear±human

encounters. Nadeau (1987) found that several situa-

tions were commonly associated with bear±human

con¯icts. The study revealed that in a review of grizzly

human confrontations within Glacier National Park,

from 1980 through 1984, sight distance and distance to

water were signi®cantly less at confrontation sites

than at control sites (<60 m). Grizzly bear±human

encounters were also very common on hiking trails.

It may be assumed that trails are used by bears because

they often follow or connect riparian areas. Herrero

(1985) believes it is a matter of convenience and points

out that bears, like people, `follow the path of least

resistance' (Herrero, 1985).

Subadult bears were observed more frequently in

areas of higher visitor use. Hikers traveling off trail

were far more likely to be injured than hikers traveling

on high use trails. Nadeau's research indicates that

hikers were safer near habituated or less dominant

bears.

Several studies suggest that bears are less likely to

attack on high use trails. MacArthur-Jope's study

(1983) in Glacier National Park found that bears in

Glacier were less likely to attack hikers if the human

use occurred in a regular and predictable manner

(MacArthur-Jope, 1983; Jope and Shelby, 1984;

Nadeau, 1987).

Recent observations of grizzly movements near

campgrounds indicate that bears used all areas of

the campground vicinity more frequently at night than

during the day. Bears consistently bypassed the camp-

ground when it was occupied. Bears were observed

frequently investigating the campground when it was

unoccupied (MacArthur-Jope, 1983; Nadeau, 1987;

DeLozier, 1991). This concept applies to hikers on

trails as well. Nadeau also found that hikers in groups

of two or more are far less likely to encounter a grizzly

bear (Nadeau, 1987).

It is clear that people movements in¯uence bear

movements. Bears given plenty of available good

quality habitat would probably prefer to leave human

beings alone. When food resources become scarce, or

less dominant bears are displaced from habitat bears

come into contact with humans.

3.3. Bear±human conflict management

Campgrounds within grizzly habitat are, for one

reason or another, not easily relocated. As in the case

of Fishing Bridge Campground, traditional use pat-

terns and political sentiments were the most in¯uential

factors in wildlife management decisions. In many

cases such as McNiel Sanctuary in Alaska the bear is

the very reason the facility exists. In any recreation

development in grizzly bear habitat the single most

important management action for controlling bear±

human con¯ict is keeping food and garbage unavail-

able to bears (Herrero, 1985).


In order for recreators using bear habitat to comply

with garbage and food storage actions they must ®rst

be made aware of the problem and appreciate the

severity of the situation for human and bear safety. The

greatest success is generally achieved when informa-

tion is motivating and techniques for storing food and

disposing of garbage are simple and easy to use (Keay

and Webb, 1989).

Backcountry campers generally have a higher level

of knowledge about safety in grizzly habitat than

frontcountry campers (Dalle-Molle and Van Horn,

1989). Backcountry campsites in National Parks

and National Forests within grizzly habitat have spe-

ci®c regulations with regard to layout. Campsites must

be located at least 100 yards and upwind of food

preparation areas. Food storage should be located at

least 100 yards from sleeping areas. When possible,

food preparation areas and food storage should be

within view of sleeping areas. Backcountry campsites

should be located well away from streams and game

trails (USDI, 1986, 1993, 1994a, b, c) Some proposed

backcountry campsites in BC Parks are equipped with

a special backcountry grey water drains to help elim-

inate food odors (Province of British Columbia, 1994).

Campgrounds within Katmai National Park and

Preserve and McNiel Sanctuary in Alaska have their

own unique situation. At McNiel Sanctuary 15 cam-

pers are ¯own in for a maximum of 4 days. Potential

campers are chosen through a lottery system. The sole

purpose for the campground is to house the visitors

who come to view brown bears ®shing at McNiel

Falls. Sleeping areas are completely separated from

cooking areas at the McNiel Campground. Cooking

facilities are provided in a shelter which may be

locked at night. This does not appear to hinder the

experience since visitors generally enjoy cooking

together in the shelter and meals often become com-

munal affairs (Schieldler, pers. comm. 1994). At

Katmai food preparation areas are provided on an

average of 30 feet from sleeping areas, and BC Parks

is currently exploring the option of separating food

preparation areas and sleeping areas in small camp-

grounds (K. Jingfors, pers. comm. 1994).

In most bear management plans, very little is noted

in the area of vegetation removal or enhancement.

However, the BC Parks Plan (1994) does recommend

the removal of non-native but palatable grizzly bear

foods from campground areas.

Fencing is often a consideration at campgrounds in

bear country. BC Parks Bear±People Con¯ict Preven-

tion Plan recommends keeping the option open for

electric fencing at heavily used campgrounds (BC

Parks 1994). Katmai National Park does not recom-

mend fencing campgrounds in their management plan,

citing that ` people often get a false sense of security'.

Katmai has successfully used a low level drift fence to

direct grizzly bears away from the campground area

(Gilbert, pers. comm. 1994). At one time, Glacier

National Park had a 12 in chain link fence that sur-

rounded Mini-Glacier Campground. Bears on several

occasions became trapped within the fence were

very dangerous. It was removed sometime ago, pri-

marily for aesthetic reasons (B. Dunkley, pers. comm.

1994).

Several National Parks have adopted a policy of

seasonal closures for trail systems within bear habitat.

In order to increase sight distance along trails the

Glacier National Park Bear Management Plan, the BC

Parks Plan and the Katmai National Park and Pre-

serve's Bear Management Plan allow the removal of

vegetation. Several plans recommend relocating trails

out of prime bear habitats and rerouting them away

from noisy streams.

3.4. Proposed design process and criteria

The above information was then re®ned and devel-

oped into the following design criteria for Three Mile

Campground:

1. The most effective method of eliminating bear±

human con¯ict is to avoid areas of frequent bear

activity. Bear habitat evaluations are an effective

means of locating developments out of bear

habitat. Transect methods of habitat evaluation

are a quick and effective solution to determine

habitat use. The transect method should be used

only when more sophisticated habitat and tele-

metry data are not available.

2. The primary cause of bear±human conflicts are

surprise encounters. To lessen the chance of sur-

prise encounters trails should have a maximum of

sight distance (�60 m). Vegetation may be

removed to increase sight distance on trails and

in campgrounds. Grizzly bears utilize both open

meadows and dense timber. Bear±human conflicts


are more likely to occur off trail and on low human

use trails.

3. Bear±human conflicts also occur when a grizzly

bear associates humans with food. Bears are highly

adaptive and learn quickly. All potential bear

attractants such as garbage, food or other odorous

substances must be made completely unavailable

to bears. Bear±human conflicts can be avoided by

sleeping at least 100 yards from food and garbage

areas.

4. Bears travel the path of least resistance.

5. People are fascinated by bears but have varying

levels of knowledge about proper human behavior

in bear country. Frontcountry campers generally

have a lower level of knowledge concerning these

issues than backcountry users.

4. Design charette

In order to facilitate good working relationships

between the National Forest Service (NFS), the

Wyoming State Game and Fish Department (WGFD)

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), an

interagency design team was formed. Grizzly bear

biologists and landscape architects from the USFWS,

WGFD, the Shoshone National Forest and Yellow-

stone National Park were invited to participate in a one

day design charette. Charette participants were asked

to design a campground that `̀ uses everything you

know to minimize the potential for bear±human con-

¯ict'' and provides a unique and high quality experi-

ence for the National Forest Service visitor. Rather

than focus on bear management practices, the biolo-

gists were asked to focus on facility design.

4.1. Methods

The de®nition of `charette' is: an intense ®nal effort

made by design students to complete their solutions to

the design problem in an allotted time or the period in

which such an effort is made. The procedure used for

the development of the charette was adapted from a

process used by Johnson (1992).

Charette participants were sent a pre-work package

which consisted of very basic reading materials on

campground design and grizzly bear habitat evalua-

tion methods. The packet also contained various

examples of existing management and design strate-

gies currently used in grizzly bear habitat.

The proposed deign criteria outlined above was not

shared with the design team participants. The infor-

mation gathered was used to understand what back-

ground data the team would need to ®nd a viable

solution to the charette problem. The knowledge

acquired from the literature review was also helpful

in establishing credibility with the design team parti-

cipants.

On the morning of the charette, participants were

divided into three teams. Each team consisted of two

bear biologists and a landscape architect. The teams

were given a design program which outlined the

design criteria for a ®ctitious campground. Using

the design criteria, teams were asked to develop a

design concept for `Moose Carcass Campground'. The

design program provided all the site information the

¯edgling designers would need to ®nd a solution. The

site used was similar, but not identical, to the existing

site plan of Three Mile Campground on the Shoshone

National Forest. Information included in the program

was: an area map indicating topography, grizzly bear

travel corridors, adjacent bear habitat, existing vege-

tation, soils data, wetland locations, and historic visi-

tor use patterns. Teams were asked to place campsites

for tenting, recreational vehicle use, restrooms, picnic

tables, trails, grills, ®re rings, bear proof trash recep-

tacles, bear proof food storage facilities, information

kiosks and interpretive sites. Roadway relocation and

vegetation planting or removal were permitted. Teams

were provided with scales, markers, trace paper, and

base maps at a scale of 100�600.Prior to beginning the charette the following com-

mon general criteria were `brainstormed'. The group

agreed that the design for Three Mile Campground

must:

1. Allow bears, to the best of the designers ability, to

move through the North Fork Corridor unimpeded

by human presence.

2. Create a safer environment for both bears and

people.

3. Make Visitors immediately aware that they are in

grizzly bear habitat.

4. Improve working relationships with the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, the National Forest Service,

and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.


Each team was given 4 h to work through the

problem and come to a team consensus. At the end

of the design period each team was asked to present

their design solution.

4.2. Results

Many of the concepts presented by the design teams

were quite similar. All teams recommended a `zoning'

approach (Fig. 4). Bear use areas were identi®ed and

buffered. `Bear zone' buffers varied in size but typi-

cally were as large as the site would allow (�100 yds).

Facilities placed adjacent to the buffer zone were those

that are perceived to be of minimum risk, such as

roadways, toilet buildings and hard sided campers.

Food preparation areas, food storage boxes, garbage

receptacles, and picnic tables were consolidated into

the `community zone'. Community zones were gen-

erally located centrally within the campground. Grey

water drains near the community zones were sug-

gested by all teams. The `tent zone' representing

the most vulnerable of campground users was located

on the far side of the community area and farthest

away from the bear use zone.

Design solutions created by all teams allowed for

human access into the adjacent riparian zone. It was

felt that prohibiting human use of the riparian corridor

would be unrealistic. Teams recommended allowing

Fig. 4. Comparison of design concepts by team.


access to the riparian areas but controlling that

access with vegetation and barriers. Interpretation at

restroom facilities and at the campground entrance

were included in the design solutions of all three

teams. To improve sight distance within the camp-

ground vegetation removal was suggested by all par-

ticipants. Teams recommended removing much of the

dense lodgepole pine in and around the community

area. Two teams proposed that vegetation be cleared

near all trails within the campground.

Teams initially disagreed over the placement of

trash receptacles. Two teams recommended dumpsters

in the community area. The third team suggested

individual trash receptacles in the community area

and a dumpster pullout near the campground entrance.

It was determined after much debate that although

some sort of trash collection was necessary in

the community area, the odor caused by a dumpster

would not be conducive to happy picnicking. A com-

promise was reached that allowed for smaller trash

receptacles within the community area and a dumpster

pullout located near, but not in, the community

area.

Restrooms were placed by teams at various loca-

tions throughout the campground. It was unanimously

agreed that restrooms must be easily accessible from

all areas of the campground, should contain some sort

of bear warning message, and should have night

lighting.

A group discussion was held after the team pre-

sentations. Charette participants were asked to brain-

storm additional ideas for the design details within the

campground. The discussion centered on a desire to

create a campground where the grizzly bear was the

focus of all design elements and facilities. Participants

responded with unique and creative ideas. Of parti-

cular note was L. Roop's suggestion that bear paw

imprints be placed in the concrete foundations of

restroom buildings.

A summary of design solutions by each team is

summarized in Fig. 4.

Other suggestions included the use of bear biology

as the focus for interpretation. It was suggested to

interpret aspects of bear biology or behavior along

with the corresponding requested change in human

behavior. Each sign could be placed where that change

in behavior is requested. For example, an interpretive

sign near the riparian area could discuss a grizzly's

reliance on his acute sense of hearing. The posted

interpretive sign might alert visitors that the river's

noise could prevent a bear from hearing them. The

sign would ask the visitor's to make noise to alert the

bear of their impending approach. The concept that the

campground could make visitors constantly aware of

the potential presence of grizzlies without the use of

copious warning signs was popular with all partici-

pants.

Participants in the design charette were invited to

continue their involvement in campground design on

the Shoshone National Forest and in particular with

the design of Three Mile Campground. Many positive

comments were expressed on the charette format.

Participant's comments ranged from `extremely use-

ful' to `it was fun'.

Notes and drawings were compiled, copies were

made and later distributed to all participants for their

comments. No signi®cant criticisms or design changes

were noted in the participant responses.

5. Proposed design process and designcriteria

The proposed design criteria for a bear compatible

alternative for Three Mile Campground must comply

with the management direction outlined in the

Shoshone National Forest Land and Resource Man-

agement Plan (1986). The design concept must also

address concerns raised by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department

with regard to frequent grizzly bear use of the North

Fork Corridor. In order to meet this goal information

from the literature review and the interagency design

charette were compiled and duplications were elimi-

nated. The following process was identi®ed and then

applied to Three Mile Campground:

1. Habitat evaluation

a. Compile a complete list of available and

potential grizzly bear foods.

b. Identify any grizzly bear foods that exist in the

campground area.

c. Evaluate grizzly bear use patterns. Use must be

evaluated both for seasonal and annual use

patterns. This information must cover a wide range

of years with a wide range of climatic conditions.


d. Evaluate other developed facilities in the area of

the campground for their potential impacts on

existing grizzly use patterns(i.e., lodges, trails,

picnic areas, etc).

e. Evaluate grizzly use patterns in close proximity

to the campground area. Identify at a site specific

level where bears are likely to access the camp-

ground.

f. If areas of high quality grizzly bear habitat

exist near the campground make recommend-

ations for campground relocation or seasonal

closure.

2. Campground design

a. Using grizzly bear use data, zone campground

components accordingly.

b. Identify `people free' bear use zones.

c. Use the community area concept to consolidate

all grizzly bear attractants.

3. Reevaluate bear use patterns and campground

design components.

a. Identify areas where fences, trails, barriers and

habitat enhancement may facilitate the unimpeded

movement of grizzly bears around the camp-

ground.

4. Recommend Campground Management Strate-

gies

a. Plan interpretive programs and facilities.

b. Evaluate garbage collection needs.

4.0 The process applied

6. The process applied

6.1. Habitat evaluation

The Three Mile Campground Area, indeed the

entire western portion of the North Fork corridor have

been identi®ed as important low elevation grizzly bear

habitat by the USFWS and the WGFD (WTD, 1994a,

b). In spring, when snow still covers the higher

elevations, grizzly bears utilize the riparian vegetation

along the North Fork River (Roybal pers. comm.

1994). Most importantly the western portion of the

corridor is adjacent to a primary elk birthing area. Elk

calves and winter killed carrion are important spring

foods for grizzly bears. Other foods utilized in the

Three Mile Campground vicinity are whitebark pine

nuts, roots, roots, clover, and graminoids.

Radio Telemetry data and records of human sight-

ings of grizzly bears have been collected in the North

Fork Corridor since 1982. This time period encom-

passes several years of varying annual rates of pre-

cipitation. An examination of the telemetry data

reveals that most creek and river drainages in the

corridor also serve as primary bear travel corridors.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the US

Fish and Wildlife Service have identi®ed the western

portion of the North fork corridor as `high quality low

elevation spring and fall grizzly bear habitat, as well as

a major movement corridor' (WTD, 1994a). Wyoming

Game and Fish data show yearlong use of the area by

several reproductive adult females (bears #104 and

#163) (Hayden-Wing Associates, 1992).

The North Fork Scenic Byway lies within the

Shoshone Bear Management Unit (BMU). From

1982 through 1988, 270 bear±human confrontations

were reported with the majority occurring in front-

country recreation areas west of Newton Creek (Ham-

mond et al., 1989). Eighteen known grizzly±human

con¯icts and one illegally killed grizzly were docu-

mented within the Shoshone BMU in 1992±93 (WTD,

1994a).

An examination of the historic use patterns of

grizzly bears in the North Fork Corridor indicates that

bears can be expected frequently in the Three Mile

Campground area, especially in the spring. Primary

bear travel patterns indicate that grizzly bears fre-

quently move up and down the North Fork River

Corridor in all seasons.

Other developed facilities in the vicinity include the

Pahaska Tepee Lodge, Pahaska Trailhead, and the

Grinnell Trailhead. The Pahaska trailhead is located

just across the road from Three Mile Campground.

These facilities have a great potential to affect bear

movements if human foods or garbage are made

available to them at these locations.

Three Mile Campground is bounded on the south by

the North Fork of the Shoshone River. The river has

formed a steep cut bank which runs nearly the entire

length of the campground. This cut bank is currently

fenced to prevent campers from falling into the river.

Three Mile is bounded by the highway on the north

and to the east. The identi®ed primary bear use area

near Three Mile Campground is, of course, the North

Fork River. It is likely that bears will access the

campground at two points. Those points are at the


Fig

.5.

Pri

mar

ygri

zzly

bea

rac

cess

toT

hre

eM

ile

Cam

pgro

und.


far western and eastern portions of the campground

where the lack of steep topography allows easy access

from the river (Fig. 5).

6.2. Campground design

The primary goal for the design for bear compatible

campgrounds is to make human food and garbage

unaccessible to grizzly bears.

The design for a bear compatible Three Mile Camp-

ground should incorporate the zoning concept as

discussed by the interagency design team. Bear use

areas must be buffered by as much distance as is

feasibly possible. Optimum distance for a buffer area

is 300 m. This distance is very obviously not possible

in Three Mile Campground (Fig. 6). The design

should allow for facilities to be placed at the maximum

distance possible from the River.

The least vulnerable campground components

should be placed next to the bear use buffer zone,

these components include roads, hard sided vehicles

and restroom buildings. A centrally located commu-

nity area should contain all elements within the camp-

ground that are associated with food, garbage or other

bear attracting odors. All food cooking facilities,

garbage and food storage facilities, ®re rings, water

pumps and gray water drains should be located in the

community area.

Forest visitors should be immediately aware that

this is no ordinary campground. From the overall site

layout to the smallest of design details the camp-

ground should create a whole different atmosphere.

Design details such as bear paw prints in concrete

foundations or bear silhouettes on site indicators, can

constantly remind the visitor that they are in a very

special place. In a sense, the grizzly bear should

become the reason the campground is there. It is

important that the campground be as user friendly

as possible. The design must provide for ample park-

ing and food drop off areas. Dumpsters should be

easily accessed by the road and the common area. The

centrally located community area should not feel like

an inconvenience. In order for this design to be

successful it must be easy to use. The design must

create a sense of community by providing a shelter

with comfortable benches and large common ®re ring.

The shelter will contain a bank of cooking grills

constructed of river rock. Picnic tables will be placed

outside around the shelter. Tables which are located

near the cooking shelter be equipped with ®re rings

and/or cooking grills. Tables which are located along

the periphery of the community area will not have

cooking facilities. The design should allow people to

be ¯exible. It should be possible to cook and eat alone

or move your picnic table to a group and join in. Bear

proof food storage and garbage buildings will be

located in the community area. Food storage buildings

must have compartments large enough for coolers and

be able to be locked if so desired. Garbage buildings

should have compartments for recycling. Restrooms

and bear proof food storage buildings should be well

lit after dark. Gray water drains must be available for

the disposing of waste water.

Large and accommodating recreational vehicle

spurs must be provided. Each campsite spur must

have a hardened living area but contain no outside

cooking facilities. RV campers will, however, be

permitted to cook in their campers. All cooking out

of doors must be done in the community zone. All RV

spurs will be leveled. Typical spur size will be

600�150. A total of 17 recreational vehicle campsites

will be provided.

A separate tent camping area will be contain 10

campsites. 200�200 tent pads will be constructed and

must be located at least 100 yards from the nearest

cooking facility. Tent Pads must be easily accessed by

vehicle parking areas. Most importantly, tent sites

must be located upwind from cooking facilities. High-

way construction will widen the existing footprint of

roadway. Tent sites must be located carefully in order

to be hidden from view of the highway. Tenters must

be able to access their cars and the community area

without walking a great distance.

Riparian access will be allowed on either end of the

campground. Vegetation will cleared and the remain-

der of the riparian zone will be fenced. Trails must be

at least 2 m in width and have a maximum of sight

distance.

Ample restrooms must be provided. Campers must

not be required to walk the length of the campground

in the dark. Restrooms must have night lighting. All

restrooms in Three Mile Campground must be of a

fully accessible design. At least one accessible tent

site and one accessible RV site must be provided. Due

to the constrained area available for human use at

Three Mile Campground all areas south of the river


Fig

.6.

Thre

eM

ile

Cam

pgro

und

site

dev

elopm

ent

conce

pt.


must be designated as a `people free zone' bear use

zone.

6.3. Reevaluation of grizzly travel corridors

The area available for development is quite limited

in Three Mile Campground. Optimally, tent areas and

RV spurs should be located farther from grizzly travel

corridors. In addition, the Grinnell trailhead located

across the highway has the potential to attract food

conditioned grizzlies. Fencing and a human con-

structed `bear trail' are recommended for placement

north of the campground and across the highway. The

trail and fencing should encourage south bound bears

to travel to the west of the campground. An additional

fence should be placed just to the west and north of the

tent area. This fence should be placed out of view from

all tent areas. A buck and pole fence design is sug-

gested with brush wattling between poles.

6.4. Management guidelines

Interpretation must be informative and motivating.

An interpretive pullout should be designed at the

entrance of the campground. If possible pulling into

the interpretive pullout should be mandatory. Potential

campers must be informed that this is an area of

frequent grizzly bear use and that they will be

required, for their safety and the safety of others, to

conduct themselves somewhat differently. Campers

should be informed of other camping opportunities in

areas of less frequent grizzly activity. The interpretive

pullout must also show the campground layout and

discuss how to use the facilities. Interpretive signing

must be a mix of direct and straight forward bear

warnings and interpretation designed to enhance

appreciation of the grizzly bear. Interpretation should

relate bear behavior to the corresponding requested

change in human behavior. These interpretive signs

should be placed at the location where the change in

human behavior is requested.

The design for a bear compatible campground will

only be successful if it is used correctly. Changing

historic patterns of human camping behavior will not

be easy. In order for the design at Three Mile to be

successful an of®cial presence is necessary. A camp-

ground host with a good working knowledge of bear

ecology should be stationed at the campground

throughout the summer. The host must be responsible

for checking for compliance in food storage and

cooking regulations. Campground roving is most cri-

tical during the late afternoon when campers are

arriving from Yellowstone. Evening programs that

interpret grizzly bear ecology should be provided

by the host or by the Forest naturalist on a daily basis

throughout the summer.

7. Discussion

In 1995 the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion on

the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the

Cody to Yellowstone Highway (WTD, 1994a). In

the document the USFWS endorsed the above design

process proposed for Three Mile Campground. The

Opinion required that all new facilities construction on

the North Fork highway follow the bear compatible

design process and design criteria. The USFWS also

requested that an interim plan for the bear compatible

design be implemented. The interim plan identi®es

key components in zoning, vegetation management,

and interpretation that may be implemented without

major construction. The Shoshone National Forest

will begin implementing the Interim Plan in the

summer of 1997.

The design proposal for Three Mile Campground

attempts to bene®t the bear by making human food and

garbage unavailable and by designating people free

zones to restrict human use of the riparian corridor. It

may be argued that the real bene®t to the bear will

come from the ability of the campground design to

educate visitors about proper behavior in grizzly bear

habitat. The campground design attempts to capitalize

on the fascination that people have for the grizzly by

allowing them to experience the bear in a reasonably

safe environment.

The community approach will teach the camper a

several valuable lessons. Visitors will be informed

about the ®rst rule of camping in bear country; you

do not sleep where you eat and cook. Once informed

of the dangers of improperly stored food or garbage,

the community may begin to police itself. Most people

are less willing to disobey safety regulations in public,

especially if it is a danger to the group. Adding to the

compliance element, the campground host can easily

police the area each evening. Patrolling individual


campsites can be intrusive and even dangerous, in the

compatible campground alternative the host can make

sure the community area is secure before turning in. At

the hub of all campground activity, the community

area is more likely to be continuously occupied. This

constant human presence may dissuade a curious bear

from investigating the area.

Finally, the emphasis on the grizzly bear, in all

aspects of the campground design, from the physical

layout, interpretive displays and programs, to the

subtlest of design features, will create an exciting

recreational and educational opportunity for all forest

visitors.

8. Conclusion

Conducting a thorough habitat evaluation to deter-

mine grizzly bear use and use potential must be

included in planning all developments within bear

habitat. These analyses must be evaluated by a trained

and experienced bear biologist. It is clear that a

determination of high habitat quality is only the

beginning of the process. Unless the habitat evaluation

and subsequent planning efforts have the complete

support of the public, and of the managing agencies, it

will have little impact. In fact the removal of facilities

in bear habitat without public support can often be of

more harm to the grizzly than leaving them in place.

As grizzly bears reach recovery levels this situation

will become more frequent and grizzlies occupying

the interface between bear and human will continue to

be at risk. It would be wonderful to be able to predict

that through sensitive design, grizzlies and humans

can exist in harmony. This is unlikely. It is likely

however, that through design, landscape architects and

wildlife biologists may be able to share our knowledge

to soften the interface between human and wildlife

species

References

Craighead, J.J., Craighead Jr., F.C., 1971. Grizzly bear±man

relationships in Yellowstone National Park. Bioscience 21,

845±863.

Craighead, J.J., Sumner, J.S., Scaggs., G.B., 1982. A definitive

system for analysis of grizzly bear habitat and other wilderness

resources. Wildl. Inst. Monogr. 1. Missoula, Montana, 279 pp.

Dalle-Molle, J.L., Van Horn., J.C. 1989. Bear±people conflict

management in Denali National Park, Alaska. Bear±People

conflicts-Proc. of a Symposium on Management Strategies,

Northwest Territories Dept. of Renew. Res., pp. 121±126.

DeLozier, K. 1991., Black bear management in Chimneys Picnic

Area, Great Smokey Mountains National Park. USDI National

Park Service, 4 pp.

Egbert, A.L., Stokes, A.E., 1974. The social behaviour of brown

bears on an Alaskan salmon stream. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and

Manage. 3, 41±56.

Johnson, C., 1992. A manual for wildlife conservation in

urbanizing areas of Utah. Utah State Coopertive Extension

Service, Utah State University, Logan, UT.

Hammond, F.M., Peterson, C.M., Hunt, C.L., Carriles, H.,1989.

Behavioral responses Yellowstone grizzly bears to applications

of aversive conditioning, 1988.

Hayden-Wing Associates, 1992. Wildlife Technical Reports:

existing environment and environmental consequences of the

improvement of US highway 14,16,20, Cody to Yellowstone

Natioanl Park. Final-December 1992. Laramie, WY, 59 pp.

Herrero, S., 1985. Bear attacks: their causes and avoidance. Nick

Lyons Books, New York, NY.

Herrero, S., McCrory, W., Pelchat, B., 1988. Using grizzly bear

habitat evaluation to locate trails and campsites in Kananaskis

Provincial Park. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 6, 187±193.

Jope, K.L., Shelby, B., 1984. Hiker behavior and the outcome of

interactions with grizzly bears. Leisure Sciences 6(3), 257±270.

Keay, J.A., Webb, M.G., 1989. Effectiveness of Human±bear

management at protecting visitors and property in Yosemite

National Park. Bear±People Conflicts: A Symp. on Manage.

Strat. Northwest Territories Dept. of Renew Res., pp. 145±154.

Knight, R.R., Mattson, D.J., Blanchard, B.M., 1984. Movements

and habitat use of the Yellowstone grizzly bear. Rept. for the

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committe.

Knight, R.R., Mattson, D.J., Blanchard, B.M., Eberhardt, L.L.,

1988. Mortality patterns and population sinks for Yellowstone

grizzly bears, 1973±1985. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16, 121±125.

Martinka, C.J., 1982. Rationale and options for management in

grizzly bear santuaries. Trans. of the North American Wildl.

and Natural Resources Conference. Washington D.C., pp. 471±

475.

Mattson, D.J., Knight, R.R., Blanchard, B.M., 1987. The effects of

development and primary roads on grizzly bear habitat use in

Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Int. Conf. Res. Manage.

7, 259±273.

Mattson, D.J., 1990. Human impacts on bear habitat use. Int. Conf.

Bear Res. Manage. 8, 33±55.

Mattson, D.J., Gillin, C.M., Benson, S.A., Knight, R.R., 1991. Bear

feeding activity at insect aggregation sites in the Yellowstone

ecosystem. Can. J. Zool. 69, 2430±2435.

Mattson, D.J., Blanchard, B.m., Knight, R.R., 1992. Yellowstone

grizzly bear mortality, human habituation, and whitebark pine

seed crops. J. Wildl. Manage. 56(3), 432±442.

MacArthur-Jope, K.L., 1983. Habituation of grizzly bears to

people. Int. Conf. Bear Res. Manage. 5, 322±327.

McCrory, W.P., Herrero, S.M., Whitfield, P., 1986. Using grzzly

bear habitat information to reduce human-grizzly bear conflicts


in Kokanee, Glacier an fValHalla Provincial Parks, B.C. Proc.-

grizzly bear habitat symposium. U.S. For. Ser.Gen. Tech. Rep.,

INT-207.

McCrory, W., Mallam, E., 1991. An update on using bear hazard

evaluation as a means to minimize conflicts between people

and bears in recreational situations. In: Grizzly Bear Workshop.

Revelstoke, BC. March 20±21, 1991. pp. 57±61.

Nadeau, M.S., 1987. Habitats, trails, and campground situations

associated with grizzly bear±human confrontations in Glacier

National Park, Montana. M.S. Thesis, Montana, Missoula.

Olson, T.L., Gilbert, B.K., Fitkin, S., 1990. Brown bear behavior

and human activity at salmon streams in Katmai National Park,

Alaska. Final Rep. Natl. Park Serv. Contract No. A9700±78028.

Utah State University, Logan.

Olson, T.L., Gilbert, B.K., Squibb, R., 1993. The effects of

increasing human activity on brown bear use of an Alaskan

river. Dep. Fish. and Wildl., Utah State University, Logan.

Province of British Columbia., 1994. Bear±people conflict

prevention plan, BC Parks. MInistry of Environment, Lands

and Parks, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Reinhart, D.P., 1990. Grizzly bear use of the Cooke City, Montana

area. U.S. Natl. Park Ser., Interagency Grizzly Bear Study

Team rep., 17 pp.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1986a. Shoshone National Forest land

and resource management plan. U.S.D.A. For.Serv. Cody,

WY.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1986b. Shoshone National Forest land and

resource management plan final environmental impact state-

ment. U.S.D.A. Nat. For.Serv. Shoshone National Forest, Cody,

WY.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1986c. Interagency grizzly bear guide-

lines. U.S. For. Serv., Missoula, Mont.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1990. CEM: a model for assessing effects

on grizzly bears. U.S.D.A. For. Serv., Region 1, Missoula, MT.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993a. Grizzly bear recovery plan.

Missoula, Montana.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993b. Draft environmental impact

statement: the reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone

National Park and central Idaho. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildl. Serv.

Helena, Montana.

U.S.D.I. National Park Service, 1986. Bear management plan,

Katmai National Park and Preserve. U.S.D.I. Nat. Park Serv.

Katmai Nat. Park and Preserve, Alaska.

U.S.D.I. National Park Service, 1988. Final environmental impact

statement and development concept plan: fishing bridge

developed area Yellowstone national park, WY, Montana,

Idaho. U.S. Dep. Int., Nat. Park Ser., Yellowstone National

Park. NPS D-294.

U.S.D.I. National Park Service, 1993. Wildlife management 1993

report. U.S.D.I. Nat. Park Serv. Denali Nat. Park and Preserve,

Alaska.

U.S.D.I. National Park Service, 1994a. Draft development concept

plan and environmental impact statement for the Brook River

Area, Katmai National Park and Preserve, Alaska. U.S.D.I. Nat.

Park Serv., Denver Service Center, Denver, CO.

U.S.D.I. National Park Service, 1994b. Bear management guide-

lines Glacier National Park. U.S.D.I. Nat. Park Serv. Glacier

National Park, West Glacier, Montana.

U.S.D.I. National Park Service, 1994c. Yellowstone National Park

annual bear management plan. U.S.D.I. Nat. Park Serv.

Yellostone Nat. Park, WY, 54 pp.

Weaver, J.R., Escano, D.,Mattson, D., Pulcherz, T., Despain, D.,

1986. A cumulative effects model for the bear management in

the Yellowstone ecosystem. In: Conteras, G.P., Evans K.E.

(Eds.), Proc. grizzly bear habitat symposium. U.S.D.A. For.

Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207, pp. 234±246.

Wyoming Transportation Department, 1994a. Final environmental

impact statement: Cody to Yellowstone highway, vol. 1.

Wyoming Transportation Dept., Cheyenne, WY.

Wyoming Transportation Department, 1994b. Final Environmental

Impact Statement: Cody to Yellowstone Highway, Vol. 2.

Wyoming Transportation Dept., Cheyenne, WY.


living on the edge: a process for redesigning campgrounds ...people.tamu.edu › ~sshafer ›...

Documents