Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
Living on the edge: a process for redesigning
campgrounds in grizzly bear habitat
M.S. Creachbauma,*, C. Johnsonb, R.H. Schmidtc
b
a
Shoshone National Forest, 808 Meadow Lane Rd., Cody, WY 82414, USA
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 landscape architects are often faced with management
contradictions. The multiple use mandate of the
NFS requires the Forest recreation planner to balance
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-307-344-2024; fax: +1-307578-1212.
0169-2046/98/$19.00 # 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII S0169-2046(98)00092-9
the health of intricate ecosystems with the everincreasing 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
270
M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
Fig. 1. North Fork scenic byway location.
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 productive 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
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 inadequate in informing visitors of potential danger. Most
important, the existing facilities do nothing to take
advantage of an incomparable opportunity for educating 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 capitalize 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 analyzed within the same Environmental Impact Statement (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 facilities in an area known to be frequented by grizzly
bears. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended 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 communities against grizzly bears, be cost prohibitive
271
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 communities 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 operated 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
Fig. 2. North Fork scenic byway developed recreation.
272
M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
273
Fig. 3. Three Mile Campground existing site condition.
recreation sites outside of the North Absaroka and
Washakie Wilderness boundaries. The Corridor supports a wide variety of recreational uses offering
spectacular views and a variety of cultural and historical 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 campground 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 Interagency Grizzly Bear Management Guidelines (Guidelines) (USDA, 1986c). The Interagency Grizzly Bear
Guidelines (USDA, 1986c) identify two of the three
major management objectives as: (1) Minimize Grizzly±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 process for Three Mile campground.
3.1. Habitat evaluation
Obviously the only way to completely eliminate
the potential for bear±human con¯icts in developed
274
M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
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 relatively 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 developments 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 developments, 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 planners generally have the skills required to establish and
monitor transect lines.
3.2. Bear behavior
Grizzly bears are highly evolved, intelligent animals. 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 preparing 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 Yellowstone avoided roadways by as much as 500 m in the
M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
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. According 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 perceive as a threat to their safety. A second type of
common bear±human encounter is much more dangerous. 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 encounter 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 situations 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
275
(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 campground 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 patterns 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 unavailable to bears (Herrero, 1985).
276
M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
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 information 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 speci®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 eliminate 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 campers 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 communal 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 campgrounds (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 Prevention Plan recommends keeping the option open for
electric fencing at heavily used campgrounds (BC
Parks 1994). Katmai National Park does not recommend 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 surrounded Mini-Glacier Campground. Bears on several
occasions became trapped within the fence were
very dangerous. It was removed sometime ago, primarily 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 Preserve'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 developed 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 telemetry data are not available.
2. The primary cause of bear±human conflicts are
surprise encounters. To lessen the chance of surprise 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
M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
277
4.1. Methods
examples of existing management and design strategies currently used in grizzly bear habitat.
The proposed deign criteria outlined above was not
shared with the design team participants. The information gathered was used to understand what background 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 participants.
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 vegetation, soils data, wetland locations, and historic visitor use patterns. Teams were asked to place campsites
for tenting, recreational vehicle use, restrooms, picnic
tables, trails, grills, ®re rings, bear proof trash receptacles, 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 ˆ600 .
Prior to beginning the charette the following common general criteria were `brainstormed'. The group
agreed that the design for Three Mile Campground
must:
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 evaluation methods. The packet also contained various
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.
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 Yellowstone 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 experience for the National Forest Service visitor. Rather
than focus on bear management practices, the biologists were asked to focus on facility design.
278
M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
Fig. 4. Comparison of design concepts by team.
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 typically 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 generally located centrally within the campground. Grey
water drains near the community zones were suggested 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
M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
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 campground vegetation removal was suggested by all participants. 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 compromise 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 locations 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 presentations. Charette participants were asked to brainstorm 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 particular 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
279
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 participants.
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 useful' 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 design
criteria
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 Management 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 eliminated. 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.
280
M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
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 campground.
f. If areas of high quality grizzly bear habitat
exist near the campground make recommendations 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 campground.
4. Recommend Campground Management Strategies
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 sightings of grizzly bears have been collected in the North
Fork Corridor since 1982. This time period encompasses several years of varying annual rates of precipitation. 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 frontcountry recreation areas west of Newton Creek (Hammond et al., 1989). Eighteen known grizzly±human
con¯icts and one illegally killed grizzly were documented 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 frequently 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. Primary grizzly bear access to Three Mile Campground.
M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
281
282
M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
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 Campground 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 community area should contain all elements within the campground 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 campground 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 parking 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. Highway 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 remainder 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
283
Fig. 6. Three Mile Campground site development concept.
M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
284
M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
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 constructed `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 suggested 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 campground 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 critical 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
M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
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 determine 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.
285
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
286
M.S. Creachbaum et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 269±286
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 statement. U.S.D.A. Nat. For.Serv. Shoshone National Forest, Cody,
WY.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1986c. Interagency grizzly bear guidelines. 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 guidelines 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.