Atlas of Yellowstone: Second Edition 9780520976924

Citation preview

Atlas of Yellowstone SECOND EDITION

The publisher and the University of California Press Foundation gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the Ralph and Shirley Shapiro Endowment Fund in Environmental Studies.

Atlas of Yellowstone SECOND EDITION Senior Editor

W. Andrew Marcus University of Oregon

Cartographic Editor

James E. Meacham University of Oregon

Yellowstone Editor

Ann W. Rodman Yellowstone National Park

Production Manager/Cartographer

Alethea Y. Steingisser University of Oregon

Researcher/Cartographer

Justin T. Menke University of Oregon

Text Editor

Ross West

iii

University of California Press Oakland, California © 2022 by University of Oregon Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-0-520-37977-0 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-520-97692-4 (ebook) Printed in Singapore 30 10

iv

29 28 27 26 25 24 23 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

22

The Atlas of Yellowstone, Second Edition is for all those who have lived, worked, and found joy and meaning in Yellowstone

and

In memory of Barry Lopez who did so much to open our lives to the natural world around us

v

Contents University of Oregon

xi

For the People

Supporters

xiii

Essay: For the People

53

Acknowledgments

xiv

Road History

54

Preface to the First Edition

xvi

Development Old Faithful Canyon Lake and Fishing Bridge Mammoth

56 58 60 62

Architecture

64

Preface to the Second Edition Foreword

xviii xx

Yellowstone National Park Essay: Headwaters of an Idea

3

Roads and Trails

66

Essay: Imagining Yellowstone

5

Traffic

68

Yellowstone in the World

6

Park Visitation

70

Yellowstone in the Region

8

Who Visits the Parks

72

Greater Yellowstone Detail

10

Accessibility in the Park

74

Legacy of the World’s First National Park

12

Visitor Photography

76

U.S. National Parks

14

Tetons Climbing History

78

Protected Areas

16

Night Sky

80

Park After Dark

82

History Essay: The Yellowstone National Park Idea

21

Human Geography

Archaeology

22

Essay: A Geography of Change

87

American Indians

24

Political Boundaries

88

Sheep Eaters

26

Land Ownership

90

Catlin and the American Indian

28

Population

92

Flight of the Nez Perce

30

County Population

94

Exploration

32

City Population

96

Early Maps 1805–1814 1836–1865 1869–1872

34 36 38

Education

98

Hayden Surveys

Race and Ethnicity

100

Religion and Politics

102

40

The Economy

104

Jackson and Moran

42

Labor and Employment

106

Yellowstone Art

44

Income

108

Early Science History

46

Agriculture

110

Recent Science History

48

Market Access

112

vii

Physical Geography

Sagebrush-Steppe Habitat

186

Essay: The Landscapes of Yellowstone

117

Potential Wildlife Habitats

188

Elevation

118

Landscape Change

190

Cross Sections

120

Fire History

192

1988 Fires

194

Wildfire Risk

196

Landforms National Parks Park Headquarters Canyons and Domes Lava Flows and Glacial Erosion Overthrust Belt and Glacial Features

122 124 126 128 130

Geologic Evolution

132

Yellowstone Geology

134

Grand Teton Geology

136

Glaciers

138

Earthquakes

140

Yellowstone Deformation

142

Yellowstone Volcano

144

Quaternary Volcanics

146

Geothermal Activity

148

Geysers

150

Norris Geyser Basin

152

Yellowstone Lake

154

Drainage Basins

156

Rivers

158

Streamflow

160

Flow Regimes

162

Waterfalls

164

Precipitation

166

Temperature

168

Snowpack

170

Climate Change

172

Wetlands

174

Soils

176

Ecoregions

178

Vegetation

180

viii

Wildlife Essay: Yellowstone’s Importance to Wildlife Conservation

201

Migratory Landscape

202

Bison

204

Bison Movement

206

Elk

208

Pronghorn

210

Wolves

212

Wolf Movement

214

Wolf 911M

216

Coyotes

218

Grizzly Bears

220

Bear Movement

222

Cougars

224

Carnivore Interactions

226

Birds

228

Fish

230

Fish Management

232

Insects

234

Wildlife Disease

236

Thermophiles

238

Reference Maps Greater Yellowstone Reference Maps Bozeman Billings Rexburg

242 244 246 248

Cody Pocatello Lander

250 252 254

National Park Reference Maps Electric Peak Tower Junction Silver Gate West Yellowstone Canyon Village Lamar Valley Old Faithful Lake Village East Entrance Bechler Meadows Lewis Lake Thorofare Flagg Ranch Grand Teton Moose

256 258 260 262 264 266 268 270 272 274 276 278 280 282 284 286

Gazetteer

288

USGS Map Index

296

Counties

300

Place Names Greater Yellowstone Cultural Names Greater Yellowstone Physical Names Yellowstone National Park Grand Teton National Park

302 304 306 312

Vertebrate Species

314

Afterword and Sources Afterword

322

Sources

326

Index

336

About the Authors

343

ix

University of Oregon A World-Class Teaching and Research University For a second time, the University of Oregon is proud to support the creation of the Atlas of Yellowstone. We are honored and humbled to be a part of the 150th anniversary of this legendary place and to celebrate it via the production of this important and beautiful work. The University of Oregon is a national leader in environmental research, teaching, and leadership, in part because of our ability to draw on the research and educational contributions of faculty from a diverse set of schools and colleges. And, of course, our own work in the environment is motivated and inspired by our sense of place and the natural beauty of Oregon itself. This year, we have teamed faculty from many parts of the institution to develop a new environmental initiative, designed to encourage cross-disciplinary research and teaching within all nine of our schools and colleges. Our faculty have won grants for their stellar work on advancing the study of climate change, and we have created space for research that pushes the envelope in areas such as how racial justice plays out when it comes to the environment. Just as the Atlas of Yellowstone lays the groundwork for capturing stories of the natural and cultural world, so, too, does the University of Oregon by offering students particular insight, information, and solutions to the environmental challenges we face across the globe. And in our response, we see the University of Oregon as the perfect place from which to tell the Yellowstone story (and others!)—a place of firsts, a place where perspectives on humanity and the natural world come from many avenues of study, and a place that provides leadership in environmental stewardship for the world. The first edition of this atlas originally was conceived of as part of a class project by students in an advanced cartography course. They developed the first maps for the atlas, including those of the panoramic glaciers, the climate, the fire history, and the wildlife as just a few impressive examples. Under the tutelage of faculty and scholars, our students explored the vast treasure that is Yellowstone and came up with a variety of the most telling details. Some of those same students went on to careers in the cartographic divisions of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the National Geographic Society, and the National Park Service. Together, our institution’s work has contributed much to this second edition of the atlas, adding over 70 pages of new and reworked material to the latest edition. The Atlas of Yellowstone is also an example of how the University of Oregon integrates research and teaching to serve the state, the nation, and the international community. Our institution made history when it produced the first edition, marking the first time that a major atlas of a national park was created. And now, we play a role in creating an edition that marks Yellowstone’s 150th anniversary. This atlas is a remarkable work of collaborative scholarship, providing a synthesis and visualization of data. At the same time, the atlas is a major teaching tool. Whether you are a tourist visiting Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, a schoolteacher, a park interpreter, or a resource manager, the atlas portrays the often-complex stories of the Yellowstone region in ways that are both initially accessible and deep enough to reward extended or repeated investigation. In carrying out this research and teaching mission, the atlas provides a service to our schools at all levels, the residents of our nation, and the global community of those interested in the natural world and our place in it. These efforts will catalyze our growth for national leadership within a variety of fields, leveraging existing research and scholarly strengths that align directly to educational impacts for those who have an interest. As you turn the pages of this atlas, please remember how these stories and graphics came to be—through the vision and hard work of our university’s students, scholars, and faculty members collaborating on research and learning. It is at the core of what we do. On behalf of the University of Oregon, we hope you enjoy and learn from this wonderful resource. It is a tremendous accomplishment and a fitting tribute to everyone who helped make it possible.

Sincerely,

Michael H. Schill, President and Professor of Law

Patrick C. Phillips, Provost, Senior Vice President, and Professor of Biology

xi

Supporters of the Atlas of Yellowstone, Second Edition Sole funding to produce the Atlas of Yellowstone, Second Edition was provided by the University of Oregon as part of its commitment to exemplary environmental scholarship, teaching, and leadership. This atlas could not have been created without the tremendous contributions of time, energy, and thought from the employees of Yellowstone National Park.

Supporters of the Atlas of Yellowstone, First Edition The individuals and institutions listed below have made the creation of the atlas possible. We gratefully acknowledge their contributions.

Sponsoring Institutions University of Oregon Montana State University University of Wyoming Yellowstone Park Foundation/Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Contributing Organizations Allan Cartography Headwaters Economics

Buffalo Bill Center of the West Yellowstone Ecological Research Center

Friends of the Atlas of Yellowstone Individual contributions of $1,000 or more Dr. and Mrs. John L. Allen The Anders Foundation Valerie E. Anders and William A. Anders Josie Berry Mila Berry The Taylor Fithian family Mark A. Fonstad William F. Gary and Jane C. Gary The Gold family Geoffrey M. Jacquez and Lauren Wagner William G. Loy Memorial Scholarship Fund in Geography Ann Gerlinger Lyman and Ronald G. Lyman W. Andrew Marcus and Lisa N. Marcus Richard A. Marston James E. Meacham Jacqueline J. Shinker and Thomas Minkley Peter K. Simpson and Lynne L. Simpson Ross West and Barbara West Carolyn Miller Younger and Ralph W. Younger

xiii

Acknowledgments Hundreds of individuals helped make the Atlas of Yellowstone, Second Edition; we gratefully acknowledge their immense contributions of time, resources, and expertise. In the lists below we recognize individuals who contributed to this second edition as well as the first edition in 2012. Many individuals contributed to different sections of the atlas providing help that ranged from text writing to illustrations; their names therefore are listed in multiple sections below. All but a few dedicated staff members volunteered their time, and this salaried production staff put in long hours beyond the standard working day. None of the editors or contributors will receive royalties for this work; any proceeds will flow to the University of Oregon, which financed production of the atlas. The willingness of so many to work for free on this atlas is yet another indicator of how important Yellowstone National Park is to the lives of so many people. Two atlas team members deserve special recognition. Howard Williams, a GIS Specialist working within the National Park Service’s Yellowstone Center for Resources, has assisted every step of the way with data compilation and through his expertise on Yellowstone. P. William “Bill” Limpisathian, a PhD candidate and graduate employee of the University of Oregon InfoGraphics Lab provided superb cartographic renditions, and his insights on data and design solved several of the challenging problems we encountered on the project. Contributor names (without job titles) are listed in groupings based on the nature of their involvement.

Essays Senior Editor W. Andrew Marcus assembled a group of leading Yellowstone scholars to reflect on Yellowstone National Park. The thoughtful and engaging essays are one of the most important additions to this edition of the atlas. We are indebted to the following essay authors for their contribution: W. Andrew Marcus, Justin T. Menke, Alicia Murphy, Nina S. Roberts, Tobin W. Roop, William K. Wyckoff, P.J. White, and Cathy Whitlock. Two other wonderful essays found in the atlas are Jonathan B. Jarvis’s contemplation on U.S. national parks and Douglas W. Smith’s poignant writing on the harrowing life of wolf 911M. In addition, Jonathan B. Jarvis wrote the compelling overview Preface at the beginning of the atlas.

Contributing Experts Two or more topic experts typically contributed to each subject covered in this atlas. Sometimes the editors took the lead on topics within their areas of expertise, but most topics were developed in collaboration with other scholars. Experts’ professional affiliations are not listed as many have changed institutions or retired over the atlas’s multiyear production period. A large majority (but not all) of these experts were or are affiliated with the following institutions: Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, the University of Oregon, Montana State University, the University of Wyoming, Wyoming Migration Initiative, the Buffalo Bill Center of the West, Headwaters Economics, the Yellowstone Ecological Research Center, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Forest Service. The Sources pages at the back of the atlas lists the specific experts who contributed to each particular topic. The list below acknowledges the experts who contributed to different book sections.

Yellowstone National Park Stuart Allan, Story Clark, Robert Crabtree, Jonathan B. Jarvis, W. Andrew Marcus, Justin T. Menke, Paul Schullery, and John Varley.

History C. Melvin Aikens, Sarah Bone, Christine Brindza, Annie Carlson, Colleen Curry, Brian W. Dippie, Daniel H. Eakin, Christie Hendrix, Elizabeth Horton, David Joaquin, Ann Johnson, Craig M. Lee, Lawrence Loendorf, James E. Meacham, Alicia Murphy, Bill Resor, Hillary L. Robison, Tobin W. Roop, Paul Schullery, Rosemary Sucec, John Varley, James Walker, Katie White, Randall Wilson, and Lee H. Whittlesey.

For the People Bryan Boulanger, Lynn Chan, Rachel Dodgen, Leigh Anne Dunworth, Lori M. Gruber, Elaine Skinner Hale, W. Andrew Marcus,

xiv

Justin T. Menke, Alicia Murphy, Zehra Osman, Diane Papineau, Nina S. Roberts, Tobin W. Roop, John Sacklin, Alethea Y. Steingisser, Alexander M. Tait, Christina M. White, Lee H. Whittlesey, and Howard Williams.

Human Geography Stuart Allan, Bruce A. Blonigen, Dana Fernbach, Anne Fifield, Susan W. Hardwick, Donald G. Holtgrieve, Gene Martin, Alexander B. Murphy, Tom Olliff, Ray Rasker, John Sacklin, Paul Schullery, Peter K. Simpson, John Varley, Rick Wallen, and William K. Wyckoff.

Physical Geography Mark D. Andersen, Miles C. Barger, Patrick J. Bartlein, Gary P. Beauvais, Peter Bengeyfield, Pat Bigelow, Paul A. Caffrey, John Cataldo, Stephan G. Custer, Don G. Despain, Greg Dillon, Dan Dzurisin, Jamie Farrell, Mark A. Fonstad, Daniel G. Gavin, Jeffrey K. Gillan, Carrie Guiles, Henry P. Heasler, Mary Hektner, Steve Hostetler, Jefferson D. Hungerford, Cheryl Jaworowski, David R. Lageson, W. Andrew Marcus, Richard A. Marston, Grant A. Meyer, Jeff Mitzelfelt, Lisa A. Morgan, Peter Nelson, James M. Omernik, Greg Pederson, Kenneth L. Pierce, Charles R. Preston, Ray Rasker, Roy Renkin, Ann Rodman, Julie Rose, Paul Rubinstein, Vincent Santucci, Sarah L. Shafer, Patrick Shanks, Jacqueline J. Shinker, Lucas Silva, Ramesh Sivanpillai, Rebecca Smith, Eric Sproles, Alethea Y. Steingisser, Mark Stelten, Mike Stevens, Mark Story, Scott Story, Erik R. Strandhagen, Michael Tercek, David Thoma, Greg Vaughan, Kathryn E. Watts, Jennifer Whipple, Cathy Whitlock, Lee H. Whittlesey, Chuck Wicks, and Howard Williams.

Wildlife Ellen O. Aikens, Mark D. Andersen, Colby Anton, Pat Bigelow, Tami Blackford, Nate Bowerstock, Robert L. Crabtree, Paul Cross, Diane M. Debinski, Brian Ertel, Mary Ann Franke, Jim Garry, Chris Geremia, Jeffrey K. Gillan, Kerry A. Gunther, Mark A. Haroldson, Quinn Harrison, William P. Inskeep, Matthew J. Kauffman, Lynn Kaeding, Kathleen King, Todd M. Koel, Katy LeVan, Miles Maxcer, Timothy R. McDermott, Lauren McGarvey, James E. Meacham, Mary Meagher, Jerod Merkle, Connor Meyer, Arthur D. Middleton, Jeff Mitzelfelt, Erik Oberg, Glenn Plumb, Charles R. Preston, Ann W. Rodman, Julie Rose, Jessica Rykken, Hall Sawyer, James G. Schmitt, Chuck Schwartz, J.W. Sheldon, Douglas W. Smith, Daniel R. Stahler, Bruce Shambaugh, Alethea Y. Steingisser, Cristina Takacs-Vesbach, John Treanor, Kelli Trujillo, Frank T. van Manen, Lauren Walker, Rick Wallen, David M. Ward, P.J. White, and Howard Williams.

Reference Maps, Place Names, and Species List Stuart Allan provided text and cartographic oversight with Neil Allen for maps in the Reference section. Lawrence J. Andreas, Thaddeus A. Lenker, and Eric J. Meyer at Allan Cartography assisted on the production. All were proofed by staff members at Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Lee H. Whittlesey provided the text for the place name descriptions. Ann W. Rodman coordinated the compilation effort on the list of species.

Photography and Illustrations The stunning cover image, “Heart Spring and Lion Geyser,” is by Montana photographer Tom Murphy. Other individual photographic contributions came from: Nate Bowerstock, Alyssa Canova, Leigh Anne Dunworth, Daniel Eakin, Jay Fleming, Jacob W. Frank, J.R. Douglass, Neal Herbert, Kristin Hiatt, Craig M. Lee, Matt Ludin, Bonnie MacDonald, Doug McLaughlin, Linda Olson, Barry O’Neill, Bradley Orsted, Robert Peterson, Jim Peaco, Robert Ramaley, Diane Renkin, Dylan Schneider, Carl Schrim, Brett Seymour, Tom Short, Douglas W. Smith, Daniel Stahler, Greg Vaughan, David Ward, Rick Wessels, and Craig Whitman. An unknown German couple photographed the four atlas editors on the Authors page—a classic kind of Yellowstone experience. Photographic contributions from organizations include Xanterra, Frank and John Craighead and the Craighead Institute, the NPS Yellowstone Cougar Project, the NPS Yellowstone Phenology Project, the Smithsonian Institution, and the USGS Native Bee Inventory and

Monitoring Lab. We appreciate the assistance of Nathan Doerr and Mack Frost from the Buffalo Bill Center of the West for securing Yellowstone art images from their collection. Illustrations were finely rendered by Justin T. Menke on the Birds topic pages and the Wolf 911M graphic novel page. David Joaquin graciously provided the beautiful painting “Shoshone Camp” on the Sheep Eaters pages.

Cartography and Editing A veritable army of cartographers contributed to each edition of this atlas. Working in the InfoGraphics Lab under Cartographic Editor James E. Meacham and Cartographic Production Manager Alethea Y. Steingisser, graduate and undergraduate students played major roles in developing and designing the maps and topic page pairs. Justin T. Menke joined the team as a PhD graduate researcher. His contributions to conceiving content and designing and producing pages were so great that he joined the first edition authors as a coauthor on this edition. Throughout the project Joanna Merson, the InfoGraphics Lab Cartographic Developer, had a vitally supportive role providing expertise in GIS analysis and programming. The original idea for the first edition of the atlas derived from a class project in Advanced Cartography, taught by James E. Meacham in the Department of Geography at the University of Oregon in the winter of 2004. Each student’s final class project consisted of a topic page pair for the then hypothetical Atlas of Yellowstone. Student projects on climate, park geology, transportation, glaciers, vegetation, and wolves later evolved into content included in the present atlas. Undergraduate students in the class were Jacob M. Blair, Grace A. Burgwyn, Tory G. Caputo, Andrew R. Case, Justin R. Cooley, Berend L. Diderich, Joseph A. Fagliano, Bowen A. Garner, Michael J. Geffel, Jordan F. Glubka, Jay P. Grayson, Bonnie L. Hoskinson-Wiebe, Derek B. Kellenbeck, Rita L. Pick, Shun Ho Sham, and Justin T. Thomas. Graduate students in the class were Jonathan W. Day, Adrianna L. Hirtler, Jonathon L. McConnel, and Alethea Y. Steingisser. Some of these students continued working on the atlas as student cartographers with the InfoGraphics Lab. Listed below are other students who worked on the atlas editions and gained valuable experience in atlas design and production. These students have gone on to acquire jobs at top-level cartography and geospatial technology firms and agencies ranging from Apple to the Washington Post to the National Geographic Society to the National Park Service (and many more). Students who worked on the first edition were: undergraduates Steven M. Bassett, Brook S. Eastman, Julia J. Giebultowicz, Jesse L. Nett, Kristen M. Phelan, Eric R. Stipe, and Lauren F. Thompson; and graduate students Miles C. Barger, Matthew Derrick, Nick Martinelli, Jonathon L. McConnel, Benjamin W. Metcalfe, Alethea Y. Steingisser, Eric R. Stipe, and Erik R. Strandhagen. Second Edition student cartographers included: undergraduates Arielle Alferez, Bernard Cowen, Greg FitzGerald, Ian Freeman, Jacob Maurer, Julia Olson, Logan Shurtz, and Lucy Roberts; and graduate employees P. William Limpisathian, Nathaniel Douglass, Justin T. Menke, and Katherine Perry. We are indebted to everyone listed above for the quality of their work, for their willingness to suffer the slings and arrows of constant artistic and scientific critique, and for their good cheer in working under tight deadlines. Ross West edited all text throughout the atlas to ensure consistency of voice and style and cross check the accuracy of factual claims and quotes. He also played a key role in identifying issues with graphics that were near completion. Barbara West also provided valuable assistance in this work. We are indebted to them for the meticulous attention and devotion to quality they brought to the editing process. We are equally grateful for their good humor in receiving so many materials at the last minute in the face of tight deadlines—their graciousness in these circumstances made our work far more pleasurable.

National Park Service Staff This publication would not have been possible without the extraordinary contributions and support of the staff of the National Park

Service, in particular the Yellowstone Center for Resources (YCR). Jennifer Carpenter, former chief of YCR, made the expertise of her staff available on many topics in each of the sections. Neither the first nor this second edition would have been possible without the dedication, persistence and expert coordination in the park by Ann W. Rodman, the atlas’s Yellowstone Editor. She was the project’s ultimate bridge to the park and the best on-the-ground team member the project could have ever hoped for. Ann coordinated our connections with Park Service staff scientists and scholars. It is the contributions of the Park Service that have truly made the atlas an authoritative reference volume. Park staff who contributed their expertise were: Pat Bigelow, Annie Carlson, John Cataldo, Lynn Chan, Colleen Curry, Don G. Despain, Leigh Anne Dunworth, Brian Ertel, Nancy Finley, Chris Geremia, Carrie Guiles, Lori M. Gruber, Carry Guiles, Kerry A. Gunther, Elaine Skinner Hale, Mary Hektner, Henry P. Heasler, Elizabeth Horton, Jefferson D. Hungerford, Cheryl Jaworowski, Todd M. Koel, Lauren McGarvey, Jeff Mitzelfelt, Alicia Murphy, Erik Oberg, Zehra Osman, Roy Renkin, Hillary L. Robison, Ann W. Rodman, Tobin W. Roop, Julie Rose, Paul Schullery, Douglas W. Smith, Rebecca Smith, Daniel R. Stahler, Rosemary Sucec, John Treanor, John Varley, Lauren Walker, Rick Wallen, Jennifer Whipple, Christina M. White, P.J. White, Lee H. Whittlesey, Howard Williams, and Sue Wolff.

Institutions Providing Data and Expertise It was our pleasure to work closely with several nonprofit institutions that provided expertise, data, and other in-kind support. For their belief in this project and their willingness to commit time and energy to it, we are indebted to the Buffalo Bill Center of the West, Headwaters Economics, Montana State University, University of Wyoming, the Wyoming Migration Initiative, and the Yellowstone Ecological Research Center. The first edition would not have been possible without the collaboration of the Yellowstone Park Foundation, which has since evolved into the Yellowstone Forever organization.

Publication Assistance We are fortunate in having the University of California Press as our publisher for this second edition volume. Their experience in and commitment to publishing atlases has provided us a safe haven during a turbulent time in the world of print books. We particularly owe thanks to Kim Robinson who assisted the project for the first edition, Stacy Eisenstark, our Acquisitions Editor for this second edition, and Francisco Reinking, who has guided us through the prepress process necessary to reach the point of publication. The atlas indexing was completed by Kento Ikeda. We are deeply indebted to all of the individuals and institutions listed above. This atlas exists because of their generosity of spirit, their belief in the power of explaining the world through maps, and their commitment to telling the many tales of Yellowstone.

Financial and Administrative Support All funding to produce the Atlas of Yellowstone, Second Edition was provided by the University of Oregon as part of its commitment to environmental scholarship, student learning, and student engagement in real world research and projects. We are particularly grateful to Jayanth Banavar, Bruce A. Blonigen, Scott Coltrane, Jamie Moffitt, Sherri Nelson, Patrick Phillips, Michael Schill, and Brad Shelton, each of whom played major roles in making the funding available. The project is grateful for the supportive home provided in the Department of Geography by the faculty and staff.

W. Andrew Marcus James E. Meacham Ann W. Rodman Alethea Y. Steingisser Justin T. Menke March 1, 2021

xv

Preface to the First Edition Why create an Atlas of Yellowstone? In the early 1970s, famed British author and commentator Alistair Cooke was asked his views on the United States. He had traveled the country for two years and had put together a series of television shows called, simply, America. What he found left many people, including myself, disturbed. He observed that it is almost impossible to instantly identify a place upon exiting an airplane in America—for what you see is just miles of motels, second-hand car lots, hamburger stands, refuse, and litter. In short, what he discovered almost fifty years ago was that any individuality of place had disappeared and every place looked alike. He too was disturbed and made the point that it’s not only a question of recovering what is lost but it’s also a question of saving what is left. Reflecting, we could rightfully ask, “So how are we doing; is more being lost and anything being saved?” The Atlas of Yellowstone is a unique attempt to begin anew answering these questions and restarting this important dialogue. Happily, our readers will have to make their own judgments and draw their own conclusions. I don’t know if Alistair Cooke had the opportunity to visit America’s national parks and other significant wildlands during his two-year tour. I argue that if he had left his airplane at the gate of, say, one of our national parks he could very well have reached the opposite conclusion. Clearly, these areas are distinctively American, and, by definition and law, unique. Each has beauty and character beyond comparison. I suggest it is our nation’s wildlands where visitors—foreign and domestic—most readily and dramatically encounter and are enriched by the qualities of our nation. How very fortunate we are that we have places like the Greater Yellowstone with its mix of publicly owned park, forest, and refuge lands that impart such powerful feelings to its visitors. For one proof of this, if indeed any is needed, we can turn to economic science and conclude that over time, for at least a century and a half, visitors continue to be drawn to the Greater Yellowstone in ever greater numbers. By economic benchmarks, this supports the contention that people are attracted to beauty, character, and uniqueness. Naturally, regional businesspeople love this demographic trend and have established a myriad of goods and services to take advantage of the cash cow the Greater Yellowstone provides. Estimates of the value of the annual visitor onslaught vary widely but generally have a range of $1–4 billion annually, an impressive sum by almost any standard. Students of the Greater Yellowstone economy marvel about several aspects of this reality because it is reminiscent of the old fable about the goose that laid the golden eggs. One such facet is that the original price tag of this financial wonder was minuscule because the parks and forests were simply being moved from the federally owned public domain to federal parks, forests, and refuges. Later, additional lands were added to the Greater Yellowstone estate by private donations or purchased with monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is supported largely by royalties paid to the federal government from oil and gas leases on public lands. Of course, the people also have to sustain annual funding to manage and maintain these lands, and these funds are paid for by the U.S. Department of the Treasury along with user and concession fees. These publicly available figures invite financial effectiveness valuations, the best known of which is the cost-benefit analysis. At its simplest, and because the costs of originating the Greater Yellowstone were minimal, the annual upkeep and management costs of the government units of the Greater Yellowstone form the significant costs to society. In recent times, I estimate these costs are around $300 million per year, which are far, far less than the estimated $1–4 billion of annual benefits. Thus, it appears that the Greater Yellowstone has a very attractive cost-benefit ratio, is an excellent value for the taxpayer-owners, has obviously been sustainable in the past, and should continue for the foreseeable future. Fans of the Greater Yellowstone should be cautiously comfortable with this news because financial sustainability has been and remains a vital concept in current dialogues over the role of government in our society. As important as a favorable cost-benefit ratio and sustainable operations are to politicians and resource managers, they certainly aren’t the only measures that are important. A wise wildland scientist once said to me, “The only thing the national parks and other wildlands offer

xvi

humans is education, inspiration, and wonder.” I am pretty sure he used the word only as a tongue-in-cheek remark, for what else of any importance is there? It’s a wonderful ideal for any land or resource manager to have and fairly easy for the public to embrace. For many of us, knowledge is the principle that helps feed, stimulate, and nurture education, inspiration, and wonder. It is also generally acknowledged that science produces the finest knowledge. I think we all know deep within ourselves that knowledge is inherently valuable to humankind, but it is also exceedingly difficult to try to value. Throughout its history, the Greater Yellowstone has produced a wealth of fine scientific knowledge, and in fact it is one of the few large wildlands of the world that enjoys the lofty status of being data-rich. But being rich in scientific data doesn’t mean that the information is accessible to anyone besides other scientists, so a small cottage industry has started up in the Greater Yellowstone to help make that knowledge accessible. The Atlas of Yellowstone is surely the finest manifestation of scientific translation produced thus far by this movement because a worthy atlas requires a data-rich environment to even be contemplated. Add to that a sizable cadre of able science translators to produce the atlas and the result is a synthesis equally useful to the public and scientists alike. This allows us to be more sensitive to the multiple perspectives that the visitors to and people of the Greater Yellowstone bring to all conversations around the heritage and resources of this region. Often those conversations become acrimonious because of divergent understanding regarding past events. The Atlas of Yellowstone provides an important tool for moderating those disagreements by providing a baseline of data from which conversations can logically proceed. Indeed, some of the work from the atlas, such as the first-time maps of changes in bison migrations over time, have already been used by citizens and resource managers to provide a common basis for discussions at public meetings and before Congress. Much of the value of the atlas will derive from the methods that the editors are following to develop its content. They have strived to reach out to many different groups in the Yellowstone region, including the National Park Service and other federal agencies, major museums and universities, and citizens of the region. The atlas content is thus as wide-ranging as the people doing research in the region. At the same time, limiting each story (for example, the history of fires in Yellowstone) to a pair of pages maintains a tight focus on each story line and avoids the kind of mishmash that can result if too many voices speak at once. The tight focus and quality assurance are further maintained by the assignment of two experts to each story, insuring that the reporting and data meet high scholarly standards. I happened to have the good fortune to spend more than three decades in the science business of Yellowstone National Park. My manna was Yellowstone’s natural world, and its delivery vehicle was discovery science. I admit to always considering myself a mediocre scientist, but Greater Yellowstone had around 300 to 400 annually permitted researchers, many of them truly outstanding scientists, thus I compensated my shortcomings by talking with them regularly and in depth. In the field or over lunch, each of these scientists could tell an interesting, even exciting story about their work, but for a variety of good and not-so-good reasons, not often in their scientific papers. For science junkies like me, this was not only sad but it also deprived park managers of information they needed to manage well. Perhaps more important, it also deprived a substantial portion of the public the ability to be better educated about the Greater Yellowstone; it left them less inspired and disadvantaged many of an enhanced sense of wonder. I am confident and pleased that publishing the Atlas of Yellowstone corrects a longstanding deficiency in science translation and synthesis, and that all of us who enjoy perusing fabulous maps and poring over charts and graphs can anticipate hours of enjoyment and edification ahead of us.

John Varley June 09, 2011

xvii

Preface to the Second Edition Yellowstone and the Perpetuity Business To those of us who have served in the National Park Service, Yellowstone is the mothership, the golden buffalo, the trendsetter for the rest of the Park Service, and in some ways inspiration for parks and protected areas around the world. When Yellowstone National Park caught fire in 1988, the media carried nightly reports with visuals of raging wildfires, and the world watched and worried (although many of us knew that, ecologically, this was expected and would lead to a renewal of the park’s forests). When wolves from Canada were released into the Lamar Valley in 1995, conservationists around the world celebrated both the political courage and the idea that nature could be restored. When the 20 years of political fighting over excessively loud and stinky snow-machine use finally waned, we all gave a sigh of relief, exhausted. The United States can rightfully claim, with the establishment of Yellowstone National Park, the original idea that land could be designated for preservation “for the benefit and enjoyment of the people”—and not just current generations but future generations as well. The model set by Yellowstone’s success was repeated across other spectacular American landscapes, lending protection to Mount Rainier, Crater Lake, Yosemite, Death Valley, and Sequoia National Parks, to name only a few. But when the idea went around the world, as shown in the Legacy of the World’s First National Park map in this atlas, it came back in a different form. In other nations, the model of removal of indigenous people in order to create a national park was met with hostility, political opposition, and in some cases violent resistance. New models of national parks were created that embrace the indigenous culture and stewardship passed down through generations. Today, we are learning to incorporate those ideas into national park stewardship in the United States. The Yellowstone idea is coming full circle. When mountain man John Colter ventured into Yellowstone country in the winter of 1807–08, he was certainly not the first person there. These lands had been actively explored, hunted, named, traversed, and lived in for the previous 13,000 years. Long before the 1870 Washburn-Langford-Doane expedition campfire discussion at which the national park idea was reportedly born (an oft-repeated but incorrect myth), native people sat around campfires, shared buffalo and elk meat, roasted camas bulbs, and told stories of places called Bide-Mahpe or Mickkaapha. These people were the first stewards of the land and carried out that responsibility with a deep sense of respect. How do we know that? Because, after their thousands of years of management the quality of the wildlife and the landscape was such that it inspired our nation to call it a national park. And one of the first things we did, in the name of national park protection, was to remove the Native people from their homeland. Now we have been in charge of Yellowstone’s stewardship for almost 150 years or 1 percent of their time. So how are we doing? I often said in my public talks as the 18th Director that the National Park Service is in the perpetuity business. This was intentionally stated as a contrast to the boom-bust cycle that has permeated our capitalist economy and the relentless resource extraction from our public lands as if they were inexhaustible. To be in the perpetuity business means we must think and act for the long term, use the best available science, and fight against those who see our national parks only for the short and narrow economic benefit. As the last Kiowa woman looked across the Lamar Valley before her people were forced to leave, I doubt she was contemplating how she could convert her homeland into an economic engine. I do think she saw and knew things that we are just barely beginning to understand. We can learn a lot from those who came first when their knowledge is combined with the analytical tools of Western science. This second edition of the Atlas of Yellowstone puts before our eyes the stunning images, maps, and accumulated scientific knowledge that help us see and understand the beauty and complexity of the Yellowstone region. E.O. Wilson observed that the real problem of humanity is our “Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology.” Still, that technology allows us to see below the layers of soil and rock into the hot cauldron that pulses below Yellowstone’s meadows and forests. With seismic systems we track the cracked North American Plate upon which Yellowstone rides as it moves southwest at the speed of your fingernail’s growth. Scientists saw life in the intense heat of volcanic pools and converted that knowledge into the ability to sequence DNA, a process that allows us to find relatives (or serial killers), identify the genome of specific viruses like COVID-19, and create gene therapy treatments that have saved countless lives.

xviii

Advanced tracking devices let us trail along with herds of elk, migrating pronghorn, and solitary bears from the comfort of our office or even our living room. From that data, we better understand their “home range,” akin to the way your phone is tracking your yearly home range from grocery store, to school, to visiting with friends, to back home. The data gathered as these large animals roam tell us that Yellowstone National Park, at two million acres, is not big enough. It is a porous island in a sea of lands open to big game harvest and hunting, homebuilding, timber harvest, and resource development. It causes us to ponder and challenge why a grizzly bear crosses an invisible boundary line and transforms from the image everyone wants to capture on film to one that a few want to see in their crosshairs, or a wolf transforms from apex predator to persecuted varmint, or a bison transforms from iconic symbol of the West to brucellosis scourge. Such magic this boundary has, drawn by politicians some 150 years ago with poor maps and little ecological knowledge. Our new data leads us to try to collaborate at the landscape scale so that Yellowstone’s wildlife can roam across their traditional ranges unmolested, respected, and protected. That same data gives impassioned citizens the impetus to challenge projects that would impact the integrity of the ecosystem or threaten bears crossing boundaries from protected to unprotected lands. Satellites pass overhead and with a myriad of instruments map the ground, the geology, the vegetation, the fires, the hotspots, and the changes happening in our lifetimes. If John Colter had those maps in his travels, he probably would have avoided the area. The maps, images, and visuals in this atlas are stunning and require study, contemplation, and response. Like the paintings of Albert Bierstadt and Thomas Moran or the photographs of William Henry Jackson, they make us want more—to believe that these places actually exist, to see them for ourselves. And so they come, crowding the roads, filling the parking lots and visitor centers, pulling barely off the edge of the road to see what everyone else sees: a fox, coyote, bison, elk, moose, eagle, and, if lucky, a wolf or bear. They peer over the railing at hot pools and gush with the geysers, gathering with friends or family into digital images captured and shared across social media, enticing even more people to come. I have often wondered why it is that when we meet a fellow hiker on a park trail, they invariably smile and say hello, something that would be considered odd on the sidewalks of New York City. I like to think that meeting a stranger in nature brings out the best of us, a common bond as humans, an ancestry we share, and a call from our “better angels.” Along with biodiversity conservation, this is one more power of our national parks, perhaps one we undervalue. The Yellowstone idea was not just that this landscape be protected but that it be shared with all who come, so that they too may be inspired, moved, and motivated to protect the park, as well as the planet and our fellow inhabitants. And finally, decades of research and monitoring warn us that climate change is happening during our tenure, and we are the cause. Our rapacious appetite for energy derived from the burning of oil, coal, and other fossil fuels is warming the planet to unprecedented levels. The future of Yellowstone is in the balance of our decisions to wean ourselves from a destructive path. The decisions we make, domestically and internationally, over the next few decades will set the course. The first managers of Yellowstone also saw great changes and adapted. The real question of our turn at protecting Yellowstone is whether those who take over the park 13,000 years from now will still think the area merits the title “national park.” I hope so.

Jonathan B. Jarvis 18th Director of the National Park Service December 1, 2020

xix

Foreword The desire to produce a second edition of the Atlas of Yellowstone began early, well before we had finished the first edition in 2012. During that initial creation process we realized we did not have the time or funding to tell all the Yellowstone stories we wanted to tell. We wanted to do more with the remarkable wildlife stories emerging as GPS tracking technology revealed the complexity of animal lives, say more about the profound impacts of Yellowstone on national park architecture and culture, have more on American Indian history in Yellowstone, comment more on the movement from static preservation to ecosystem restoration, reveal more about the incredible geological discoveries coming out of Yellowstone, have more . . . Well, you get the point—we wanted to do more. As a result, the Second Edition is 72 pages longer and contains 50 percent new, or extensively revised, material. However, simply longing for more was not sufficient to bring about this expansion. The first major impetus to get us going was the approaching 150th anniversary of Yellowstone National Park. As the world’s first national park, Yellowstone has a global significance; its anniversary marks a history of durability and maturation that deserves serious contemplation. We wanted to explore the many ways in which Yellowstone has evolved, examine its contributions to culture and our understanding of natural systems and conservation practice, and reflect on its possible futures. In turn, we wanted this reflection to help others in the United States and around the world think more deeply about the roles, importance, and contributions of the many parks that have followed in Yellowstone’s path. The call to action provided by the 150th anniversary was not enough, however; we also needed partners and funding. Because of the close connections developed with Yellowstone National Park staff during the production of the first atlas, we soon learned we had the full support of the one essential partner—the National Park Service— needed to bring this atlas to life. Likewise, because of our previous positive publishing experience with University of California Press, we were confident that this critical partnership would continue. But funding was a giant stumbling block. It was only when the University of Oregon generously and amazingly stepped forward to fund the production of the atlas that we knew the second edition would come to life.

Similarities and Differences The first Atlas of Yellowstone had many elements that we wanted to retain. Chief among these was the deeply collaborative approach we used in creating it. This process included experts, undergraduate and graduate students, cartographers, photographers, artists, editors, administrators, publishers, and printers; all brought together under the geographic tent of atlas making. In particular, we wanted to carry on our longstanding tradition of having undergraduate and graduate students be a major part of the atlas-making experience. We gain as much from their enthusiasm and dedication to the project as they gain from the experience. Details about our process of atlas making are described in more depth in the Afterword, included at the back of this book. We recommend it to you for more information on the science, art, and logistics of creating Yellowstone atlases. We also wanted to continue to have the experts tell their own stories. We thus reached out to experts who contributed to the first edition as well as recruited new ones for updates and new materials. In all, more than 130 experts contributed to this version of the atlas. At the same time, we wanted to open the atlas up to materials that provided avenues of insight outside those received from experts. The Second Edition includes crowd-sourced tales of Yellowstone photography, the personal and poignant experience of Douglas W. Smith as he

xx

followed wolf 911M, and the individual tales of life and death told by many animals via their tracked locations, accelerometers, and critter cams. The Second Edition retains the four major themes from the first atlas: that Yellowstone is connected to surrounding areas, that it is dynamic and ever-changing, that humans are as much a part of Yellowstone as the wildlife for which it is famous, and that Yellowstone is extraordinary. At the same time, in acknowledgment of the 150th anniversary, we wanted to focus more on the park and its influence through a theme we called “Yellowstone’s reach.” Astute readers familiar with the first edition thus will note many more maps, topics, and pages in this edition focused solely on activities within the park—although even on those pages we always strive to acknowledge that the stories intertwine with events and places well outside the politically determined boundaries of the national park. This atlas also carries on the legacy of some of its progenitors from the InfoGraphics Lab in the Department of Geography at the University of Oregon. In particular, much of the layout style and the concept of the “page pair”—each story must be told in two pages—derived from the Atlas of Oregon, Second Edition published in 2001. As one would expect, we reused content from the first Atlas of Yellowstone, although even existing page pairs underwent updates and sometimes complete reworking (for example, the page pairs on Archaeology, Geothermal Activity, and Geysers). Perhaps most influential to the expansion of this iteration of the atlas was the experience we gained in producing the 2018 Wild Migrations: Atlas of Wyoming’s Ungulates. Working with wildlife experts and data for that volume gave us proficiency in interpreting and visualizing the massive amounts of information now coming from GPS tracking of animals; the tremendously expanded wildlife section of this atlas owes a great deal to lessons learned from Wild Migrations. There are thus common threads derived from our earlier atlases, but there are also some striking differences. In terms of content differences from the first edition of the Atlas of Yellowstone, the addition of 72 pages allowed us to delve far more deeply into some story lines, such as the cultural significance of Yellowstone, its remarkable geology, and the individual tales of wild animals. We also added completely new content such as Who Visits the Parks, Development at Lake and Fishing Bridge, and Norris Geyser Basin—to name just a few. Three other newly developed page pairs—Birds, Night Sky, and Park After Dark—evolved out of preliminary pages we worked on with Brooke and Terry Tempest Williams as part of a nascent Atlas of the Colorado Plateau. The addition of introductory essays at the beginning of each section is a significant change to this edition and an idea we took from Wild Migrations and our conversations with Brooke and Terry Tempest Williams. These short essays provide important and sometimes provocative context for the graphics-rich pages that follow. One of our golden rules of atlas making is that text supports the graphical telling of the story, not the other way around—we never altered graphics to make room for text. This makes the introductory essays all the more important as a means for gaining a broad overview and new perspectives regarding the following material in that section. In addition, we have two personal essays inserted into page pairs: one for the U.S. National Parks topic by Jonathan B. Jarvis, 18th Director of the National Park Service, and the other by Douglas W. Smith as he reflects on his time with wolves. Finally, the general page layout of the Second Edition is similar to the first version but with some notable changes in graphics. We made a conscious effort to include more full-page maps and other compelling imagery to better portray what makes Yellowstone

special and to draw the viewer into the area’s amazing stories. You will see more maps that bleed to the edge of the page (see Migratory Landscape), more photographs, more dramatic backgrounds (see Night Sky), and a one-page graphic novel about wolf 911M. It was a pleasure to bring these images to life; we hope you will enjoy them as much as we enjoyed their creation.

Events and Challenges Every atlas evolves during its making to reflect world and local events; this one was no different. A large portion of the production of the atlas took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, something that continues as we write these words. We are extremely fortunate to have completed most of our planned trips to Yellowstone to meet with experts before the lockdown started. We also owe a debt of gratitude to those experts who agreed to work with us entirely remotely—they did not know us in person and took it on faith that we would honor their expertise in crafting the pages. To a person, these individuals were forthcoming with their time, knowledge, and data. It is a sadness to us that we didn’t have that magical experience of sitting down with them around the table, asking the first question we always ask— “What stories do you want to tell?”—and sharing the camaraderie that comes from this kind of in-person collaboration. The Black Lives Matter movement also exploded on the scene in response to the killing of George Floyd during the making of this atlas. This movement heightened our desire to recruit an essay writer who could place the 150th anniversary of Yellowstone in the context of the momentous times we are in. We could not have been more fortunate than to have Nina S. Roberts write exactly such an essay to open up the For the People section. The Black Lives Matter movement also heightened our desire to have more content on who does and does not visit the parks, on access within Yellowstone, and on the many ways that indigenous peoples are part of Yellowstone. Sometimes we call out these topics explicitly, but most of the time we simply allow the text or a graphic to bring out these stories in ways that intertwine them with the very fabric of Yellowstone. Frustratingly, the 2020 U.S. census was slowed by many issues. To update our census-based materials, we turned to American Community Survey demographic estimates. You will therefore see many graphs and maps that display data from between 2010 and 2018, but generally not 2020. The 2020 election also occurred shortly before our deadline for turning in all materials, and the presidential election results were slow to be released due to all the difficulties around this particular contest. It was both a challenge and fun to try to pull together the Religion and Politics page with the most recent election data for the region. Many thanks in particular to Bill Limpisathian for helping to take that topic to the finish line. On a personal note, many of the atlas topics we covered were of more than just academic interest. The extensive wildfires across the Western U.S. in 2020 occurred while we were developing the Wildfire Risk page pair—all the while wondering if the fires just 20 miles away up the McKenzie River Valley might reach our homes where we were working remotely. The Accessibility in the Park page came directly from our lives with family members who are disabled. And each page pair represents lifetimes of scholarship and experiences of the contributors who shared their stories, their data, and their time to bring these atlas pages to life. Every contributor had many more stories to tell, each one fascinating. It was our privilege to sit around the metaphorical campfire with them and hear each of those tales of Yellowstone. We only wish we had the time and space to share all of them with you.

Closing thoughts Making the Atlas of Yellowstone, Second Edition has been an immensely fulfilling experience. The friendships and camaraderie within our team will last far beyond the printing of these pages. And the ability to take the first edition to the next level has been a gift; this Second Edition is much closer to what we had hoped the first edition would be. But all the tales of Yellowstone can never be told. We suspect that this is the last edition we will work on as a team; the next edition is for future generations. And that is exactly what a national park creates—opportunities for future generations to experience the preservation of a special space through new eyes, and bring to life new stories about its value and meaning. We all look forward to the next generation of storytellers, and the tales that they will tell. W. Andrew Marcus James E. Meacham Ann W. Rodman Alethea Y. Steingisser Justin T. Menke Editors, Atlas of Yellowstone, Second Edition March 1, 2021—the 149th anniversary of Yellowstone National Park’s founding

xxi

Headwaters of an Idea In 1872, a two million acre “tract of land . . . lying near the headwaters of the Yellowstone River” was “set apart as a public park . . . for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” This language, approved by the 42nd Congress of the United States, established Yellowstone National Park as the world’s first national park. The “head-waters of the Yellowstone,” as it turned out, was also the headwaters of an idea—an idea that such special places should be preserved for the benefit of all; an idea that Wallace Stegner called “the best idea we ever had. Absolutely American, absolutely democratic”; an idea that emerged from Yellowstone and quickly flowed across the country—and indeed the world. In the 150 years since, America has become a veritable land of parks. A National Park System emerged that is much larger than Yellowstone and its 62 national park siblings; it includes more than 400 natural and cultural sites that receive 330 million visitors a year. Even more visitors—some 800 million—access the thousands of state parks across the nation. Local parks further dot the landscape, serving members of the public close to home. Other federal holdings such as national forests, monuments, wildlife refuges, reservoirs, and designated wild and scenic rivers also invite public use and enjoyment. And that is just in the United States; worldwide, nearly 100 countries have national parks. Such a wealth of parkland would have been unfathomable in 1872. The establishment of Yellowstone National Park was an anomaly following the previous rush to transfer U.S. public lands into private hands. The General Mining Act opened public land to even more privatization and passed within months of the Yellowstone Act. The stark contrast between these two pieces of legislation illustrates how attitudes about the natural world were evolving. A small but growing movement was questioning longstanding antagonistic relationships with nature—instead of something to be feared or subjugated, wild nature was to be appreciated, even revered. And there was growing concern that unspoiled landscapes were rapidly disappearing, including some of the nation’s most spectacular places. From such concerns, came an idea—the national park idea. The idea necessarily involved enacting policy because, though the landscapes within national parks exist in their own right, their boundaries and management are human endeavors. The Yellowstone Act, the first national park policy, characterized two critical and lasting tenets of the park idea: parklands would be protected “in their natural condition,” and they would serve as places for public recreation. In the years since this legislative inception, the park idea, as a product of society, has adapted along with society. Just as the Yellowstone River changes course, the park idea has shifted along its course in history. Through the middle of the twentieth century, the primary measure of a park’s success was the level of visitation: higher numbers of visitors meant greater public benefit. More recently, the quality of the experience (including quality-diminishing factors such as crowding) has also been taken into account. Related to this shift, recreation has come to mean more than rejuvenation and entertainment—it is also about learning and engaging with the unique qualities of the park. This new perspective led to the ending of contrived spectacles such as providing feeding grounds for bears in Yellowstone and the nightly “firefall” of glowing embers pushed over Horsetail Fall in Yosemite. This new way of looking at parks also coincided with reinterpreted meanings of resource preservation. Beyond scenic preservation, parks now deliberately preserve ecological interactions—even by limiting visitor access and facilities. Park landscapes are understood as dynamic. No longer is wildfire suppressed at all costs. Rather than eliminating “bad” wolves in Yellowstone because they prey on “good” elk, the wolves are now recognized as an important part of the ecosystem. With a focus on ecology came the idea of parks as scientific and historical reserves, places to understand nature and human culture so they can be contemplated and protected. The idea of parks as islands protected within and limited by their boundaries has also progressed as outside threats increasingly permeate park boundaries—climate change, for example, impacts the entire

planet from Yellowstone to Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. National parks, because they often protect unique habitats, are disproportionately affected by climate change: Joshua Tree National Park may soon be without its iconic yucca and Glacier National Park may become glacier-less. And while parks serve as important refuges for plant and animal species, their lack of connectivity impairs this function. Recent initiatives seek to facilitate connective corridors between disjointed protected areas through public and private partnerships. The Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, for example, has such ambitions on a nearly continental scale. The idea of the parks as wild landscapes free of humans is also now questioned. The act that created Yellowstone National Park states, “all persons who shall locate or settle upon [the park] . . . shall be considered trespassers and removed.” This established a consequential principle of the initial park idea, that such places would be free from human habitation. Of course, at the time of its establishment, Yellowstone was inhabited and used by indigenous tribes such as the Sheep Eaters, Shoshone, and Blackfeet. Other American national parks were similarly inhabited, including Yosemite, Glacier, Grand Canyon, and Everglades, as were many worldwide. Later park legislation has integrated native populations. Natives’ rights to subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering on their traditional lands were enshrined in the documents that established the Alaskan national parks in 1980.

One hundred and fifty years ago, on March 1, 1872, “near the head-waters of the Yellowstone,” an idea emerged—“the best idea we ever had”—and the world’s first national park was born: Yellowstone National Park, headwaters of an idea. The idea of parks as purely physical entities is also evolving. Wallace Stegner, writing in 1960 to a congressional outdoor recreation commission, argued for a value in wilderness parks as simply an idea—they are “good for our spiritual health, even if we never [visit them].” A recent report estimated the total economic value of the U.S. national parks system at $62 billion—and attributes over half of that value to passive use, including an “existence value,” the benefit derived from simply knowing that national parks are protected. The report estimates that the very idea of national parks is worth $33.5 billion. Though parks can benefit those who do not (or can not) visit them, park managers are increasingly scrutinizing impediments to accessibility. Many parks, particularly those dedicated to preserving natural systems, are vast, physically remote areas that challenge accessibility; they can be costly to visit and difficult to navigate. Low-income visitors are dramatically underrepresented in U.S. national parks, as are minorities. Many people who do visit have disabilities that limit their quality of experience. To address some of these concerns, the National Park Service is working to bring parks closer to people—both physically with additional and connected parks and remotely through technology and education programs. The national park idea, as with all human conceptions, evolves as new understandings emerge; a great strength of the idea is its adaptability. Whatever failings the concept may have, the worldwide proliferation of parks during the 150 years since the Yellowstone Act suggests that the core tenets of the idea—that the world’s special places should be protected and appreciated by all—will survive the next 150 years. Justin T. Menke Assistant Teaching Professor of Landscape Architecture Ball State University Researcher/Cartographer, University of Oregon

3

Imagining Yellowstone March 1, 1872: Yellowstone National Park’s birth date. The world’s first national park changed remarkably over the next 150 years; the concept of a landed sanctuary “for the people” was tremendously malleable. But with modern rates of natural, social, and technological change far exceeding those of the first 150 years, will this malleable idea be stretched to the breaking point over the next 150 years? We certainly know that Yellowstone will continue to exist as a place. And that in 150 years this place will be much changed as ecosystems warp under the tension of rapid climate change, geologic processes continue to operate like they are on steroids, and ever more people swarm across its beauty. But what of the park that has done so much to define this place? What lies in its future? The National Park Service and its partners have, of course, many plans. Moving the park’s focus from static protection to ecosystem restoration, working more closely with American Indians on whose ancestral lands Yellowstone is located, improving accessibility, preparing for the consequences of climate change, extending educational programs beyond the park, managing operations and facilities sustainably—all these and more are ongoing projects that chart the park’s near-term future. Longer-term plans often seek to expand the park’s reach and impact. For example, the Y2Y Conservation Initiative and its more than 450 collaborating partners seek to preserve and link core habitats from Yellowstone to the Yukon. The National Geographic Society’s Beyond Yellowstone program works with public and private partners to promote species recovery and open migration routes from Yellowstone to Canada’s Grasslands National Park. And many private citizens and nonprofit organizations are working to extend Yellowstone’s reach with conservation easements and migration corridor enhancements around the park. But 150 years is a long time—might more radical changes occur? Perhaps corporate ownership of federal lands will prevail: imagine “Subaru’s Yellowstone—View Nature’s Wonders from a Subaru.” Maybe the park’s focus will take a cultural turn and American Indians or ranchers will steward the park’s lands in ways consistent with their heritages. Or might all humans be evicted to let Nature find it way? Unlikely, yes, but any one of these ideas or myriad others could germinate from activities already underway around the world. Indeed, the world and society have so transformed since Yellowstone’s founding that William C. Tweed, contemplating park futures for the hundredth anniversary of the National Park Service, found himself asking, “Can national parks evolve successfully in a world where nearly all of their founding assumptions have been proven wrong?” In this soup of possibilities, can we even say with certainty that Yellowstone National Park as currently conceived will exist 150 years from now? There is an enduring and widely believed legend about the founding moment of Yellowstone National Park. In this creation myth, members of the 1870 Washburn expedition to Yellowstone sat at a campfire by the confluence of the Gibbon and Madison Rivers. Discussion turned to what might become of this wondrous land. Great resorts at the thermal springs? Land claims among the expedition members to profit from their explorations? This fable is so real that it credits a specific person, Cornelius Hedges, with objecting: “There ought to be no private ownership of any portion of that region, but the whole ought to be set apart as a great National Park . . . and each one of us ought to make an effort to have this accomplished.” Everyone, it is said, was so moved by these words that they dedicated themselves to this cause, and the world’s first national park was founded two years later. I so wish this were true. I often imagine myself as one of those people at the campfire (in my private elaboration, there are just three of us). Would I have had the imagination, the prescience, indeed, the generosity, to say, “This ought to be set apart as a great National Park”?

I cannot know. What I do know is that 150 years after Yellowstone National Park’s founding, we are all still sitting at this mythical campfire, imagining what Yellowstone might become. Play this game with me. Imagine yourself tonight, gathered about the flickering flames, speculating about the future of this special place. Consider the other two people you want there, people of any race, gender, sexual orientation, level of ability. Treat yourself with exactly the food and drink you want. It wouldn’t surprise me if you sense a coyote watching from the shadows at the edge of the campfire’s light. What would you dream for? What would you wish? This “game” is real. People have been imagining the park’s purpose since its founding, and we continue to reimagine it today. As park managers are painfully aware, every visitor, vendor, scholar, local resident, employee, and politician has strong opinions on what Yellowstone National Park should be.

Ultimately what Yellowstone preserves—what any national park preserves—is opportunity. Opportunity to experience. Opportunity to learn. Opportunity to amend past wrongs. Opportunity to reinvent the very concept of what it means to be a national park. Imagining the future of this sacred space is far more than idle campfire talk. Four million visitors per year now visit the park. Even with no growth, 150 years from now six hundred million people will have visited this place, each bringing expectations and demands. There will also be generations of local inhabitants, now numbering five hundred thousand, most drawn by natural amenities supported by the beating heart, Yellowstone, at the region’s core. Can this place we know as Yellowstone survive as a park beneath this onslaught of material demands, political conflicts, and radical change? Yes. Because undergirding the Yellowstone idea is a core concept: preservation. We learned in the first 150 years that this is not preservation of a static landscape, a place where time is stopped. Ultimately, what Yellowstone preserves—what any national park preserves—is opportunity. Opportunity to experience. Opportunity to learn. Opportunity to amend past wrongs. Opportunity to reinvent the very concept of what it means to be a national park. The cacophony of voices opining about this jewel of a park are the very reason it will survive. Each voice will carry a passion for this place, a desire to make it better in ways special to them. They will all be sitting around the Yellowstone campfire, discussing how to use these lands. And because the lands have been preserved as a park, and because the park preserves the opportunity to improve, there will always be a persuasive voice of insight, generosity, and compassion— someone caring for the welfare of the Earth and its people for the next seven generations—who speaks up to say, “The whole ought to be kept as a great National Park, and each one of us ought to make an effort to have this accomplished.” And everyone will be so moved by these words that they will dedicate themselves to this cause. It will then come to pass that the public park that preserves Yellowstone in its natural condition for the benefit and enjoyment of the people—the park that preserves endless opportunities for the future—will endure for yet another seven generations. W. Andrew Marcus Professor of Geography University of Oregon

5

Yellowstone in the World

Yellowstone sits astride the spine of North America. Located at the transition from the southern to the northern Rocky Mountains and along the crest that divides the Great Plains to the east from the Great Basin and Snake River Plain to the west, Yellowstone is a singular landscape of contrast and change. At the region’s core lie the Teton Range and the geothermal wonders associated with the Yellowstone hotspot, areas so unique and beautiful they are set aside in national parks. It was Yellowstone that gave rise to the very idea of such parks, which now encircle and enrich the globe. Long before any park boundaries were drawn, however, indigenous peoples inhabited these lands, taking advantage of a tremendous diversity of habitats that range from sagebrush flats to dense forests to alpine meadows. The connection of American Indians to these areas remains today, with 26 tribes from Oklahoma to Washington having formal affiliations with Yellowstone National Park. Natural diversity and beauty attract many people to Yellowstone, driving the region’s amenity-based economies and rapidly growing population. This human activity along with global economic trends and climate change are altering the area’s renowned environment. The interplay of natural and human systems creates a restless, dynamic, and evolving Yellowstone. The national parks therefore do not preserve a static environment; rather, they set aside a place to observe and understand changes in natural and cultural systems, both within and outside the parks. Yellowstone’s constantly changing face, its interconnections throughout the region, and its relationship with humans are themes portrayed and explored throughout this atlas. These themes in their geographic 6 context are essential for a deep understanding of Yellowstone and its place in the world.

7

Black foot

R iv

Por tne

uf Pocatello

ve r

Ri

The Atlas of Yellowstone tells many stories across many different scales. At global extents, the tale of the first national park—Yellowstone—and its influence on the creation of other national parks requires maps of the entire Earth. The trade map for obsidian quarried by prehistoric peoples in Yellowstone calls for a national map, while a regional map best portrays the migration patterns of pronghorn antelope. Some stories even require zooming to microscopic perspectives, as is the case with thermophiles, the microbes that inhabit portions of individual hot springs. The spatial extent, time period covered, and scale of maps in this atlas are determined by the information necessary to tell a story and by available expertise and geographic data. These requirements lead to some common map extents, such as one displaying Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the surrounding national forests. This region captures a range of common ecosystem characteristics and is an area for which data are available from federal agencies. Alternatively, economic maps often display the 20 counties around Yellowstone National Park. Key economic data are collected at the county scale, making this a useful extent and resolution for displaying the interaction of the park and surrounding economies. The various kinds of information about Yellowstone and its connections to different parts of the world make it impossible to portray all these tales with a single regional extent or at any one time. The hundreds of maps, images, and stories in this atlas do share one element in common, however; they are all connected to the region’s heart, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks.

8

60620_p008-009_YellowstoneInRegion.indd 8

2020-11-10 9:02 AM

er

Yellowstone in the Region

R iv

er

Be

ar

9

60620_p008-009_YellowstoneInRegion.indd 9

2020-11-10 9:02 AM

Greater Yellowstone Detail R I R. OU

V

ISS

M

RI

Livingston

L L OW

el 3124

STONE

U

S

R

ER

N

E N

O

E

ST

A

O

OW

LL

A

B

S

A

R

K

O

R

T

A

I N

S

W Y O M I N G

ks

Fo rk

Yellowstone

River

A

Powell

N

G

E

iver rR

G

10243

N

M O N T A N A

11708

ma La

N

Mt Washburn

Pilot Peak

A

A

Hebgen Lake

Red Lodge

U

E

i Cody R

Yellowstone NP

R A N G E T E T O N

R

RIVE

el 6208

N

Riv Dubois

n d el 6944

Riv

W

T

er Pavillion

I 13745

I V

New

E

r

Pinedale

N

Popo Ag

G

ie

E

Wyoming Peak

en

G E R A N

11378

Forest

Grassland

Wetland

Regenerating forest

Cultivated land

Urban area

Gre

E R R I V

River

el 5357

A

Riv er

Hudson

Lander

R

el 7176

E R A N G

r

LT S A

Rive

D A H O W Y O M I N G

r Rive

r

k

R

Fo

Rive

E

I

R

Fremont Peak

D

13804

G E

G

r

Georgetown

N

Gannett Peak

N

N

I N G O M W Y

A

ys

Salt

R

R.

E

ck

KE

Gr e

U

ar

ve

20 mi.

V

Wi

r

A

O el 5760

Ri

Downey

S

ve

C R E T E A I N K S

R

SNA

Soda Springs Be

ho ne

E

R

Jackson O

N

E

I B

ot fo ck oir Bla serv Re

el 4464

Portneuf

Ri

R

R

r

Pocatello

O W L M O U

G

G

Ventr e

er Riv

s de isa ir Pal ervo s Re

A

Riv e

Sh

13770

C

Blackfoot

At lan Cr tic

N

Grand Teton

Ho ba

el 4497

Gr ey bu ll

Lewis iver R

rm

Wa

A

He nr ys

R

12605

Shelley

Blackfoot

A

Ammon

r

K

el 4704

ve

Mt Moran

Gros

IDAHO FALLS

Ri

O

Rigby

Meeteetse

er

R

el 6116

R

A

Grand Teton NP

os

S

Driggs

er

Burlington

Buffalo Bill Reservoir

B

Riv er

A

el 4865

VE

Riv

ke

ne

r

Sna

wsto

rk Fo Rive

11367

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway ek JACKSON Cre ic LAKE cif a P

River

s Fall

Rexburg RI

Eagle Peak

lo Ye l

Henrys

N

AKE

r ve

el 5088

Te t o n

S

M

lar

C

O

Y E L L O W S T O NE L AK E

St Anthony

10

H

Cooke City

10969

Henrys Lake

rk Fo

20 km

T

12799

Electric Peak

Dubois

0

O

A H O Island Park Reservoir

0

O

Granite Peak

R

I D

T

10921

N

M O N T A N A

R

Emigrant Peak

West Yellowstone

C E N T E N N I A L M O U N TA I N S

r

A R

B

Gardiner

Red Rock River

Rive

r ate illw St

YE

Ma

B

Y

I

River

RA

D

N

11166

G A L L A T I N

E

n

Lone Mtn

A

G

ati

dis

all

M

r ve Ri

Virginia City

RIV

G

on

G

Ru by

Boul der

Riv

er

R

E

Laurel

Columbus

iv e

el 4810

ER

BILLINGS

YE r

R i v er B ou

BOZEMAN

Big Timber

r ve

Belgrade

Ri

ferson River Jef

lds S hie

9665

RANGE

Whitehall

Sacagawea Peak

ER

el 5549

I

G

Butte

BR

D

lder

Walkerville

Broadview

Shrub or bare land

h nc

Be at

lec Po

rks

Powell

Pat

li Alka

Mt Ellis

Bozeman Hot Springs

Cr

man Boze

Ralston He a rt Cr

Shosh on e

Dee r

6772

ER

Cr

Fork

Cr

Sheep Mtn

son

River

Earthquake Lake

6548

Raynolds Pass 6829

He

6472

10196

Sawtell Peak 9866

0 0

Targhee Pass

ke

7072

g

West Yellowstone

10 mi. 10 km

Duck

Cr e

k For

Willo w

Mt Jefferson

Cr

ss ei

Coug ar

Thirsty

Cr

so

Henrys Lake

La

k ee

ek

di

s

Deer Mtn

Pinnacle Peak

Hebgen Lake

Targhee Peak

nr y

Cr

er Tow

Grayling

Cliff Lake

Pyramid Elk Lake Peak

er

Mt Hebgen

Cr

Cr

Ca ch e

di

Fork

Rive r

Cree k

iv

Grayling C r

South

G

Ve n t re

Hellro ar

C

es

L

RIV

E HOL

SON JACK

h Pant er

10 km

Ma

SNAKE

0

ins

Cr

10 mi.

Hebgen Dam

The maps on these pagesFaare Land Cover Database (NLCD). se ll derived from the 2001 National or This data set was developed by a consortium of nineHfederal agencies and is housed at the U.S. Geological Survey. The maps represent classifications based on Landsat satellite imagery (thirtymeter resolution) from three seasons combined with data on slope, aspect, and slope position for each ground location. The NLCD has twenty-nine classes of land cover; these have been generalized here into six categories. These divisions accurately portray overall patterns of land cover, although the map may be incorrect at individual sites.

NF60620b1_p10-11_GreaterYellowstoneDetail.indd 11

er

ys nr He

Big

s ro

RIVER

Mt Everts

0

nta

10 km

Cr Faw n

ou

10 mi.

Riv

M

0

la tin

Mt Leidy

Cr

Cr

al

a

u it o

G

Cr ite an Gr

osq

Cr

in

Yellow stone NP

Fa n

Spre ad

Horse Mtn

Palmer Mtn

Mammoth

Cr

Cr

M

Jardine

West Yellowstone, Montana 11,316

Sheep

6208

Ash Mtn

10959

Gra yli ng

Blacktail Butte

Jackson

Sheep Mtn

Gardiner

Electric Peak

tal Crys

8433

v La

in wl No

Teton Pass

Sawtooth Mtn

Monument Mtn

Fl a t

Wilson

Corwin Springs

Big Horn Peak

Cr

Mt Wallace

Monitor Peak

Lower Slide Lake

Moose Cr

Tra il

Y

r ne

M

Phelps Lake

ek re

t

W

R

Fox

Sliding Mtn

Miner

Moran

Moose Cr

Dome Mtn

Gn

r

g rim

Pil

J A CK S

Emma Matilda Lake

Cr

n

R.

Yellowstone NP

Sou t

Arizona

ON LAKE

Ow

RANGE

TETON

Two Ocean Lake

k For

Creek

Lava Creek

Cr

S

ee Cr

13770

ck Ro

k ee Cr

Arrow Peak

Creek

Whetstone Mtn

Jenny Lake

Grand Teton

i x mile

Cr

Leigh Lake

C ascad e C r

U

Pinyon Peak

11205

Cr

East

Emigrant Peak

NE

12605

Big

TO

Mt Moran

Y

h

ek Cre

WS

11360

Cr

nc

IN

Mt Cowen

Elbow

Pray

Chico Hot Springs

LO

Range Peak

ek Cre

Cree k

C

Be

T LA

GE

EL

Cr

e

Cr

Fork

r lte

l

Grand Teton NP

k

k El

Wol ve rin

C ou

Cr

Berry

se oo M

Teton

0

r

Huckleberry Mtn h

er

Rammell Mtn

e

Mt Hancock

Cr

Bi tch

ng

ve

N RA

Cr

GA

e

Ri

Dry

Emigrant

M i

ak

For k

Tom

Ri v

Cr

Sn

Ca rt

quette ar M

Cr Survey Peak

S

rby Da

Cr

ll Mi

r

er 10 mi.

k Cree

Swan

10 km

gh

Eightmil e

a

North

Jackson, Wyoming

Ra

Black Mtn

Pac ifi c

5088

Sul p h u

Cr

BN RR

Cody

Lewis

Cr

Cr 0

Le i

Mt Delano Mt McKnight

Mt Blackmore

Cedar Mtn

Yellowstone NP

th S ou

Cr

Pine Creek

Palisade Mtn

s

n

Falls

Boone

ep De

10154

Buffalo Bill Dam

0

Tra il

Cr

Cr

Sage Creek

tai

Buffalo Bill Reservoir

Palisades Peak

h P eak

Mt Ellis

ON

Livingston Peak

ek Cre

un

5369

ek Cre

alite Hy

ll ou g

Canyon Mtn

Wheeler Mtn

k ee Cr

McCu

Cr

Livingston

BNRR

Cre ek

Cree k

Big ar Be

e ak sn le

Mo

Canal

Cr ee

e

o ah Id

ak

Vocation

n

Cre ek

k

t

Ra tt

esn

Dr y

d oo nw Cr

ttl

tto Co

Ra

Tra il

R iv e r

n Mt

Heart Mtn

Pat O'Hara Peak

Tro u

Jac ks o

k

Cr

4810

O’H ar a

Cr ee

BOZEMAN

ar Be

O’ H

Bozeman, Livingston, and Gardiner, Montana

M ission

a ar

YE L L OW S T

Ferry

Cody, Wyoming Cla

11

2020-10-19 1:49 AM

E

Legacy of the World’s First National Park Northeast Greenland Greenland (Denmark), 1977

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge USA, 1960

Vatnajökull Iceland, 2008 Banff Canada,1885 Steller Sea Lion Protection Areas USA, 2002

Olympic USA, 1938

Picos de Europa Spain, 1918

Yellowstone USA, 1872

Sequoia USA, 1890

N O RTH A M ERI C A

Papahanaumokuakea USA, 2006

Pacific Remote Islands USA, 2009

Great Smoky Mountains USA, 1934

Pacífico Mexicano Profundo Mexico, 2016

Pacific Ocean

Kaieteur Guyana, 1929

Galápagos Ecuador, 1978 Central Amazon Conservation Complex Brazil, 2000

Atlantic Ocean

Marae Moana Cook Islands, 1911

SO UT H A M ER IC A Iguazú Argentina,1934 Rapa Nui (Easter Island) Chile, 1966 Vicente Pérez Rosales Chile,1926

The international press took little notice when the U.S. Congress created the world’s first national park in 1872—nor was there much fanfare in the United States. But despite lengthy growing pains, the national park movement flourished beyond the imaginations of its founders. By 2020, 62 national parks, plus an additional 359 national monuments, seashores, battlefields, and other special sites, celebrated the American landscape and experience. The 1872 Yellowstone Act called for basic land and resource preservation and the creation of “a public park or pleasuringground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” The Organic Act of 1916 established the National Park Service and required that national parks, monuments, and reservations

Torres del Paine Chile,1959

South Georgia South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (UK), 2012

Ross Sea Region Antartica (International), 2017

be preserved “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” This radical notion of perpetual conservation posed extraordinary challenges for preserve supervisors who, as they had no template for such stewardship, were forced to learn by doing. Today, park management continues to evolve and remains a hopeful blend of art, science, and politics. Still, as American writer Wallace Stegner observed, “National parks are the

best idea we ever had. Absolutely American, absolutely democratic, they reflect us at our best.” Buttressing Stegner’s assertion is the global proliferation of national parks and similar protected areas: 220,202 inland, 5,265 coastal, and 10,069 marine protected areas as of 2018. Yellowstone National Park has now existed for 150 years; its legacy of conservation has profoundly changed the world.

12

60620_p012-013_WorldsFirstNationalPark.indd 12

2020-11-10 9:03 AM

E Na

Inland and coastal protected areas

1,000,000 sq. mi.

Abisko Sweden, 1909

Marine protected areas

Yugyd Va Russia, 1994

E U ROPE

100,000 sq. mi. 10,000 sq. mi. 1,000 sq. mi. 25

2

31

4

8

8

1

1

6

5

10

1

11

2

4 2

1

1

1 (DC) 1

5

2 4

1

2

1 1

1

Yellowstone Research Permits, 1954–2018

Permit Categories, 2018 Other 4%

300

No data

Research Permits

200 100 0 1954 1960

1970

1980

Ecology 17%

1990

2000

2010

Physical sciences 31%

Microbiology 19%

2018

Biology 29%

Foreign Research Permits, 2018 Canada 1 Denmark 1 France 1

Germany Korea Luxembourg

Netherlands 1 Portugal 1

2 1 1

Adult lake trout only 2% of population in Yellowstone Lake Lake trout harm to cutthroat trout shown to affect eagles, ospreys, otters, and bears Cougars recolonizing northern Yellowstone, primary prey are elk Whirling disease discovered Lake trout removal begins in Yellowstone Lake

Wolves reintroduced

Receding ice patches reveal hidden archeological sites Research on effects of winter recreation on wildlife intitiated Interagency Bison Management Plan signed

Prehistoric rhino jaw found on Mt. Hornaday Spires in Yellowstone Lake discovered

NPS Climate Change Response Program initiated Heritage and Research Center opens

2000 Yellowstone Volcano Observatory established

Soda Butte Creek improved, native cutthroat restored

Begin mapping floor of Yellowstone Lake

Cougar numbers increase concurrent with wolf recovery Visitor access to Molly Islands prohibited UNAVCO installs first borehole strainmeter/sesimometer

Yellowstone mantle plume mapped

First park bioblitz

National Ecological Observatory Network site launched Sites from flight of the Nez Perce located NPS adopts benefits-sharing policy for research

2010

Atlas of Yellowstone

Hydrothermal Dynamics of Yellowstone Lake study begins

(first edition) published Discovery of new Yellowstone Lake New research on visitor biodiversity inventory use management begins thermal area near West Tern Lake

Archeological site revealed after Ear Spring geothermal eruption

25 years of wolf recovery and a stable population

2020

Discovery that bison engineer plant phenology, migrate accordingly

Stable cougar population, prey more on deer

49

For the People If I had to imagine a place where one can breathe in all of history, science, sociology, environmentalism, and culture at once, Yellowstone National Park is it. Canyons, mountains, rivers, geysers, amazing views—a thriving paradise of all that is sacred mingled with wilderness, scientific phenomena, remarkable life forms, and wondrous surprises. From 1872 to the present, millions of people have passed through the park, sharing space with the wildlife and a unique ecosystem established for the enjoyment of all Americans. Our national parks are often touted as “America’s best idea”—it seems one can’t get more American than exploring one of our greatest natural treasures. Yet these treasures have long been inaccessible to many, with a protracted history of being considered ‘white spaces.’ Although slowly changing over time, the large majority of stories and narratives I hear about park use and enjoyment are white narratives, just as the visitors and employees remain mostly white. The National Park Service is predominantly white, being one of the least racially diverse of all federal agencies; the percentage of Black and Hispanic superintendents and rangers remains stuck in the single digits. Even the temporary summer workforce is predominantly white. Visitation to national parks, especially our wilderness parks, is much the same. A 2018 visitor use survey in Yellowstone National Park showed 82 percent of the respondents were white and 17 percent Asian, leaving a scant one percent for all other people of color. Eighty-five percent of the respondents described their park experience as a positive one, with reasons for visits typically including scenery, wildlife, and thermal features. But what might these responses have been from a more diverse visitorship? Facing a sea of white faces, people of color often believe their access is limited and the experience to be daunting. What might their experiences in the park have been—if they were even there to be queried? The absence of people of color from many national parks, not all, reflects a history of overt racism and structural biases. For millennia indigenous peoples had used the lands of Yellowstone for hunting, fishing, gathering, obsidian mining, and as a place of spirituality. By the park’s creation in 1872, the area had already been claimed by the U.S. government; the park’s founding only further confirmed American Indians’ loss of access and sovereignty to these lands. No public debate ensued about the value of the park to native peoples. The concept of the national park as a “public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people” was assumed to mean a place where ‘civilized’ white people, usually with the wealth and time to go on expeditions, could explore Yellowstone’s secrets and beauty. Then came laws, regulations, and park managers, with white superintendents pledging to make the space ‘safe’ for all, a concept that left no space for indigenous inhabitants. A myth was perpetrated that American Indians did not occupy Yellowstone because these ‘primitive savages’ were scared by the geothermal activity—all this despite the large number of tribal sites, place names, and activities in Yellowstone. Natives, such as the Sheep Eaters, built their lives in this wilderness and lived close to nature. Some tribes would travel into the park in summer to hunt, fish, and grow food. The thermal waters were used for religious and medicinal purposes. Tribes migrated, traversing the challenging terrain. These people revered the land; they did not fear it. There is much talk about Yellowstone’s environmental features, but what about the ethnographic factors of great importance to Native Americans and other people of color? The only way to know how, what, and why is to consult with those groups. The tide of early intentional exclusion becoming intentional inclusion is turning, but that turn was a long time coming. It was not until 1996 that the first tribes requested association with Yellowstone; 27 tribes are now formally associated with the park. And in 2002 park managers—at the request of local tribes—began to meet periodically with tribal representatives to discuss resource management, conducting ceremonies in the park, and collecting plants and minerals for traditional uses. Yet the fact that tribes had to approach the park managers (rather than the other way

around) reinforced the sense that the park service was either intentionally exclusionary or, at best, passive about such issues. It is the myriad of acts and/or inactions like this, both big and small, that over the past century have strengthened the perception of barriers put in place by the National Park Service to people of color. The first and only Black National Park Service director to date, Bob Stanton, was only appointed in 1997—progress, yes, but a journey that proved perhaps more treacherous, exhausting and far longer than Lewis and Clark’s trek across 3,000 miles of unchartered territory in the 1800s. Even the roots of the environmental movement that helped create our national parks were fraught with racism. John Muir once referred to Blacks as “Sambos” in his naturalist essays and some of conservationist Madison Grant’s writings are odes to white supremacy. These are the roots of U.S. natural history. Is it any surprise that few people of color, other than Asians in general, visit Yellowstone and many other national parks? The National Park Service’s racial legacy is an ongoing discussion, particularly in light of recent events, including the Black Lives Matter movement. From the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act to the present-day homicides of countless people of color, social and economic unrest has triggered deep and uncomfortable discussions about systemic racism, from our urban centers to remote national parks.

Yellowstone, as the world’s first national park, must lead the way in addressing the history of exclusion and how to become a park for all people. And if park and conservation history tells us anything, what happens in Yellowstone— both good and bad—will be replicated around the world. A generation of people exists who, in the past, were unable to visit or feared visiting Yellowstone. Parks play a significant role in telling a country’s history; shutting out certain narratives from the parks paints a damaged and weakened picture of our nation’s soul. Deeply rooted problems must be eradicated, primarily by a commitment to bringing in fresh, diverse voices to occupy positions at all levels, from field rangers to senior executive staff. Drastic shifts in U.S. demographics are a wake-up call, but also a stark reminder for leaders and trailblazers to set their vision on the right path to stay relevant in the everevolving landscape. Yellowstone, as the world’s first national park, must lead the way in addressing the history of exclusion and how to authentically become a park for all people. Otherwise, its relevance will disappear. And if park and conservation history tell us anything, what happens in Yellowstone—both good and bad—may be replicated around the world. Yellowstone historian Paul Schullery observes, “We say that Yellowstone National Park was established on 1 March 1872, but in fact we have never stopped establishing Yellowstone. Whether as first-time visitors or as world-famous biologists, we continue to discover and explore it, and we also continue to create it,” a point he drives home in Searching for Yellowstone when he states, “the search for Yellowstone is as much a search for ourselves as it is a search for biological understanding.” Without an extended, unrestrained discussion of institutionalized racism incorporated within the wider scope of conservation, as well as the invaluable voices of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color and people with disabilities, Yellowstone will never reach its potential—a place for all as we “search for ourselves.” Nina S. Roberts Professor of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism and Faculty Director of Institute for Civic and Community Engagement San Francisco State University

53

Road History The current road system in Yellowstone National Park reflects a philosophy of blending with nature. The park’s first superintendent, N.P. Langford, directed early road construction; the general quality of these roads was poor due to the lack of funds and challenging settings. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assumed responsibility for the park’s roads in 1883. By the time Army engineer Lt. Hiram Chittenden left the park in 1906, Yellowstone had a good single-track wagon road system, the Grand Loop Road, and entrance roads. After automobiles were officially permitted to enter the park in 1915, roads began a transformation from dusty wagon ruts to paved surfaces. The National Park Service (formed in 1916) continued its association with the Army Corp of Engineers and promoted the phi-

losophy of harmonizing roads with their surrounding landscape. In 1926, the NPS and the Bureau of Public Roads agreed that the bureau would survey, construct, and improve the park’s road system. The original Grand Loop and entrance roads proved to meet public needs, and managers decided to reconstruct the existing roads. By 1936, 200 miles of road had been improved and widened from the 18-foot Army standard to 28 feet, and 19 major bridges had been constructed. World War II stopped road construction activity; it was not until after 1956 (with the Mission 66 program) that improvements were again undertaken. In 1988, the Federal Highway Administration began a three-decade road reconstruction program in the park.

Development of Roads and Trails, 1877–1905 Existing roads Primitive road Improved road

Changed during time period

0

Train depot Trail

Primitive road Improved road

1877

40 mi.

0

40 km

1878–1879

1880–1881

1883–1886

Cinnabar

Historical Yellowstone boundary

1887–1892

Cinnabar

1893–1894

Cinnabar

1895–1903

1904–1905 Gardiner

POSTCARDS BY FRANK J. HAYNES

Gardiner

At the turn of the twentieth century, visitors traveling in the park were conveyed by horses, wagons, bicycles, or stagecoaches. Their common complaint about the roads was dust.

The arrival in 1883 of the Northern Pacific Railroad to Cinnabar and its extension south to Gardiner in 1903 significantly expanded access to the park. Until automobile travel became more common after 1915, most visitors arriving at the North Entrance (shown here) came by train.

In the 1920s, many of the park’s roads remained narrow and unimproved, restricting traffic to one-way flow.

Road Building in Yellowstone, 1877–1921 Affiliation of Road Engineers Army Corps of Engineers 1883 Responsibility for construction and maintenance of park roads passes from the park superintendent to the Army Corps of Engineers Norris 1880

54

Park Superintendant

Civilian

1883 Sundry Civil Appropriations Act 1883 Railroad service begins to Cinnabar 1887 Army assumes control of Yellowstone

1902 Bridge built at Yellowstone Lake outlet

Craighill Kingman

Sears

Allen

Chittenden 1890

Anderson Burns

Young Erwin

Chittenden 1900

1908 Railroad completed to West Yellowstone

1903 Railroad completed to Gardiner

1916 Organic Act creates NPS

1915 Automobiles allowed in park Peek

Willing 1910

Knight

Schulz Fries

Verril

Burney 1920

Chittenden Map, 1895

Development at Old Faithful 1891 Parking lot

Punch Bowl Springs

Cliff Geyser

Other historical area Wagon road

d oa

R

Major road Secondary road

Giant Geyser

on

ag W

Boardwalk Building Trail Parking lot Footbridge Other historical Selected thermalarea

Grand Geyser

Wagon road features

Spasmodic Geyser

Major road Secondary road

Superintendent Norris’s cabin

Castle Geyser

Old Faithful soldier station

The development of the Old Faithful area helps tell the story of parkwide development trends. Early trails and wagon roads allowed visitors access to individual park features and attractions. Improvements to these transportation routes influenced the location of tourist lodging and other support facilities. As numbers and demands of tourists changed, so did development within the park. Concessioners, the primary provider of tourist facilities, created much of the built environment. The National Park Service also influenced development as the agency attempted to balance the values of use and preservation. At the time of the park’s establishment in 1872, only trails existed throughout the Upper Geyser Basin. It was not long after the first narrow footbridge had been built across the Firehole River in 1877 that a system of trails and other footbridges ran through the area. Charged with protecting the park in 1886, the U.S. Army established a presence on the Firehole River to guard thermal features from vandalism. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers improved the Upper Geyser Basin road system (as well as parkwide transportation networks) leading to the construction of facilities such as tent camps, a general store, and a photography studio. The Old Faithful Inn, one of the West’s most important icons of park architecture, opened in 1904, accommodating wealthier tourists. The advent of the automobile significantly altered tourism and development patterns within Yellowstone. Between 1916 and 1942,

Building

N

Morning Glory Pool

Boardwalk Trail Old Faithful Footbridge

Selected thermal

Shack Hotel

Maps are rotated 45º from features true north

Beehive Geyser

Old Faithful 0

Old Faithful

0.25 mi.

Maps are rotated 45º from true north

0.25 km

1910

1940 N

Morning Glory Pool

Punch Bowl Springs

Cliff Geyser

Morning Glory Pool Punch Bowl Springs

Wylie Tent Camp

Cliff Geyser ad

Ro

ad

Iron

Giant Geyser

e

Lin

Be

Giant Geyser

d

an

Gr

ree Spring C

lt

Lo

op

Ro

k Grand Geyser

Grand Geyser

Spasmodic Geyser

Spasmodic Geyser

Castle Geyser

Castle Geyser

Solitary Geyser

Solitary Geyser

Klamer’s store

Lower Hamilton’s Store Haynes photo studio

Geyser bath house (swimming pool)

Old Faithful Inn

Beehive Geyser

Beehive Geyser

Haynes photo finishing shop

Old Faithful Inn

Old Faithful

le

Fireho

Museum of Thermal Activity

Old Faithful

Barns

Old Faithful Lodge

Cabins

r Rive

Auto camp 0

0.25 mi.

Parkwide Development and Major Events

New building

Annual building footage 100,000 sq. ft.

0.25 km

Railroad connects to Gardiner Arch at North Entrance dedicated by President Theodore Roosevelt

3 2 1

First hotel in Yellowstone; McCartney’s Hotel at Mammoth YNP Protection Act establishes Yellowstone as first national park

0 First structure at Old -1 Faithful; footbridge -2 across the Firehole River

1872

56

Northern Pacific Railroad connects to Cinnabar (north of Gardiner)

First building at Old Faithful; Superintendent Norris’s cabin

Building removal Old Faithful Inn built

Union Pacific train service begins to West Yellowstone

U.S. Army begins administration

Civilian Conservation Corps begins working in YNP U.S. enters World War II

U.S. Army administration ends

Early Years 1880

Private automobiles allowed in YNP NPS established

Use through Development 1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1975

protection of the local resources by converting Old Faithful to a dayuse area where visitors would come and go quickly and efficiently. The day-use plan was reversed in 1985. Today, visitors can again stay overnight at Old Faithful, allowing time to explore the Upper Geyser Basin and wait for eruptions. An increasingly sophisticated understanding of human effects on hydrothermal processes now influences development decisions. A visitor education center was constructed in 2010, for example, using new technologies that are intended to protect the very hydrothermal processes the facility is meant to celebrate. The development history near Old Faithful reflects similar changes throughout the park and provides a physical record of evolving philosophies of how to best balance tourism and preservation. Parkwide Total Building Footprint, 1871–2020 3,000,000 Square feet

Mission 66 initiated U.S. enters World War II

2,000,000

1,000,000

Private automobiles allowed in Yellowstone

2020

2010

2000

1990

1980

1970

1960

1950

1940

1930

1920

1910

1900

1890

1880

0 1871

the annual number of visitors to the park rose from 36,000 to about 580,000; these visitors had widely varying tastes, schedules, and economic means—and, increasingly, their own cars. In response to this dramatically increasing influx, development of tourist services expanded greatly within the Old Faithful area. Overnight accommodations and meal services ranged from minimal to luxurious. Within the Upper Geyser Basin, the National Park Service built boardwalks and erected interpretive signs in an effort to protect thermal features from the onslaught of tourists. The number of visitors to Yellowstone rose to one million in 1948. In 1956, the National Park Service responded to the nationwide increase in park visitation by instituting Mission 66—a program to upgrade the nation’s park infrastructure and facilities by 1966. Yellowstone’s Mission 66 prospectus cautioned that development at Old Faithful (in particular the main access road that ran through the geyser basin) was encroaching on the thermal features and called for removal and relocation of the road. In 1963, the publication of the Leopold Report changed NPS philosophy to one of “natural regulation” with little manipulation of natural systems. During the next decade, many of the buildings, older structures, and camping areas at Old Faithful were demolished. This made room for a new bypass road, an urban-style overpass, and two large parking lots (completed in 1972). These changes were intended to increase

2020 Morning Glory Pool

Morning Glory Pool

Punch Bowl Springs

Punch Bowl Springs Cliff Geyser

Cliff Geyser

Giant Geyser

Iron

Iron

Giant Geyser

k ree Spring C

k ree Spring C

Grand Geyser

Grand Geyser

Spasmodic Geyser

Castle Geyser

Grand Loop Road

Grand Loop Road

Spasmodic Geyser

Solitary Geyser

Beehive Geyser

Old Faithful

Visitor Center

Old Faithful Lodge

Snow Lodge

le

le Fireho

r Rive

r

Rive

Upper Hamilton’s Store

Government area

Old Faithful

Old Faithful Lodge

Beehive Geyser

Old Faithful Inn

Fireho

Visitor Center

Solitary Geyser

Lower Hamilton’s Store

Lower Hamilton’s Store Old Faithful Inn

Castle Geyser

Cabins

Cabins Cabins

Mission 66 initiated

Old Faithful interchange and bypass road construction begins Grant Village expansion Overnight winter lodging opens in YNP

Snow Lodge opens Visitor Education Center opens at Old Faithful

National Historic Preservation Act

Balancing Use and Preservation 1950

1960

Focusing on the Ecosystem 1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

57

60620_p056-057_DevelopmentOldFaithful.indd 57

2020-11-10 9:08 AM

Development at Canyon Yellowstone’s first developed areas were located near spectacular natural features: Old Faithful Inn overlooks the geyser, Mammoth Hot Springs Hotel is steps from the terraces, and so on. This pattern held at Canyon as well. From the 1880s, development there crowded the rims between the Upper and Lower Falls. By the 1930s, rustic lodges, cabins, campgrounds, dining options, and other visitor facilities combined to provide immediate access to the extraordinary views of the canyon and falls. Development at Canyon represented significant financial investment by both the government and various concessioners. Early National Park Service managers realized that developments ringing natural wonders violated the purpose of the national parks by damaging scenic resources. In response, the NPS established sacred zones in which building was prohibited within one-eighth mile of a natural wonder; the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone was bounded by such a zone. With the intention of restoring the canyon’s pristine views, Yellowstone’s managers chose an area northwest of the Lower Falls to relocate development out of sight of the rims. Master plans from the 1930s set the stage for this shift (improvements included New Deal–era Civilian Conservation Corps crews replacing wooden stairways and platforms with beautiful rockwork that blended into the scenery). However, the Great Depression slowed visitation to a crawl, and Yellowstone virtually closed during World War II. Plans to remove facilities from the canyon’s sacred zone were put on hold as the nation focused on other priorities. During the prosperous postwar years national parks saw a dramatic increase in visitation, pointing up the inadequacies of aging infrastructure and facilities. Responding to public outcry, the National Park Service in 1956 launched an ambitious tenyear plan, Mission 66, to improve facilities for the modern era. In Yellowstone, the inaugural Mission 66 project was Canyon Village, where facilities were to be relocated away from the sacred zone. With up-to-date, streamlined architecture and loops of cabins surrounding a central lodge, this area was considered an ideal example of how to meet the needs of the automobile age. As concessioners moved into their new buildings, the old lodges, campgrounds, and stores were torn down. Today’s Canyon Village is a historic district and stands as testament to 1950s and 60s design and visitor management ideas. Over time and through careful management, the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone’s rim areas have been transformed into places for scenic drives, unobtrusive parking, hiking trails, and panoramic viewpoints.

Master Plan, 1933

Canyon Hotel

Master Plan with “Sacred Zone” Boundary, 1939

Canyon Hotel

Sacred Zone Boundary

Canyon Aerial View, 1941

Transportation Co. utility area

Canyon Hotel

Canyon Lodge

Lower Falls

Store

Cafe

Housekeeping cabins

58

Upper Falls

evelt

Historic building Nonhistoric building

ow to T

C a s c a d e C r e e k Tr a i l

er-R

oos

Canyon

S e r v ice

Area

Canyon Service Area Historic District

Canyon Cam pgr ound

rris Canyon Village Historic District

e Cas c a d

C reek

o to N

Can

Canyon

yo

n

Ri

m Tr ail

Road

Site of former cabins

Village

rth

Rim

Tr

ai

M

en

ile

H

ol

e

Tr a

il

l

Grand

Loop

No

Sev

on

R

il

i

m

a

ny

se

Tr

Ca

Hor

Canyon Inspiration Point

N o r t h

Wastewater Treatment Center Canyon Horse Corral Site of former Canyon Hotel

rt

Grand View

Rim

h

Drive

Lookout Point Red Rock Point

s cade

Y

Brink of the Lower Falls

Cr e e k

Lower Falls

Crystal Falls

C A N Y O N

O F

T H E

Artist Point

No

Ca

G R A N D

o ell

ws

to

ne

Riv

Y E L L O W S T O N E

Po

er

i nt

Su

blim

th Sou

Uncle

Ri

m

il Tr a

Lily Pad Lake

h u t S o

L a ke Tr ail n

Tom’s

So

uth

Rim

D

La

ke–

Rib

Cl e

C l e a r L a k e Tr a i l

Clear Lake

Brink of the Upper Falls

Forest

Upper Falls

Springs

Thermal Area

il

ke

n

La

Tr

a

Discovery Overlook

b

o

Site of former Canyon Lodge

e riv

ar

Point

Upper Falls Viewpoint

Tr a i l

Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone Historic District (north and south rims)

m R i

Uncle Tom’s Trail

e

to

Fis

C

Lake lea r

–Ri

bb

o

hi

ng

Wap i t i Lak e Tr a i l

Br

idg

0

e

Chittenden Bridge

60620_p058-059_DevelopmentCanyon.indd 59

0

59

1,000 ft. 200 m

2021-02-03 3:08 AM

Development at Lake and Fishing Bridge

Howa

w s t o n e l l o Ye

r d E a t o n Tr a i l

R i v e r

1930 J.E. Haynes Map

Wast

t

an

d

Lo

op

Ro

ad

By the 1930s, Lake and Fishing Bridge were fully developed, and hundreds of visitors flocked to the area to fish, hike, and camp. This led to many conflicts with wildlife attracted to the location’s rich natural resources.

Gr

Fishing Bridge

Fishing

Fishing Bridge

ph

Employee an

t

Ba

housing

an

d

W

e

Bridge Outlet of Yellowstone Lake

General Store 1939

Visitor Center and Museum 1931

Fo

rm

M o u n t a i n Tr a i l

er

ck

Gra

E

le

nd L oop

Road

RV Park

Thu st

mb

Cabins 1959

Cabins 1926

idg

e B ay

Lake Lodge 1928

to

Br

Lake V illage

Fish hatchery 1930 Lake Hotel 1891, 1903

Old boathouse 1927

0 0

60

0.25 mi.

Cabins 1940, 1941

General Store 1919

Y e l l o w s t o n e L a k e

0.25 km

60620_p060-061_DevelopmentLake.indd 60

2021-02-10 7:29 AM

Wastewater

year, connecting the East Entrance to the rest of the park. By the 1930s, Fishing Bridge was a popular destination. Visitors fished from the bridge, and hundreds stayed overnight in cabins and the large campground. A commercial district lined the road east of the bridge with stores, dining, a service station, and an auto repair shop. All this activity inevitably brought people into conflict with wildlife, grizzly bears in particular. In 1975, grizzly bears were given federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. Yellowstone had one of the few remaining populations of wild grizzlies and the Lake and Fishing Bridge area was at the heart of their territory. National Park Service managers realized that the Fishing Bridge development was not compatible with the park’s mission of preserving grizzly bears. Accordingly, in the 1980s park staff removed the campground and almost all visitor cabins. The RV Park, built in the 1960s, stayed but was limited to hard-sided vehicles to stop bears from entering tents looking for food. Only one retail store, the service and auto repair stations, and the Fishing Bridge Museum (a National Historic Landmark) remained. Grizzly bear conservation took precedence over visitor services in a visible commitment to natural resource protection in Yellowstone National Park.

Fishing Bridge, c. 1920

Fishing Bridge, 1956

PHOTO BY NPS / R. ROBINSON

Pelican

Cree

k

treatment

Humans have long been drawn to the clear blue waters of Yellowstone Lake; American Indians used the area 11,000 years ago. Verdant meadows between the many steams feeding the lake offer critical habitat for birds and wildlife; many elk calves spend their earliest days in the area’s tall grasses. Native Yellowstone cutthroat trout spawn in the streams each spring, providing protein for hungry grizzly bears. Pelicans, swans, ospreys, and a host of other birds nest nearby. The lake area is a complex and dynamic part of the park—development there is no exception. The Lake Hotel was the first major construction project on the shores of Yellowstone Lake. Built in 1891, it was initially a plain, clapboard, rectangular building that provided shelter for guests arriving by stagecoach. Over the next 60 years, local development waxed and waned with boat docks, employee housing, and other structures being built and demolished. Today, the hotel, lodge, cabins, store, and hospital serve as a small self-contained oasis amid the bustle of summer visitation. Early park leaders recognized that access to Yellowstone from the east was important. In 1902 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built the original Fishing Bridge. The road to the east was completed the following

PHOTO BY NPS

P e l i c a n

V a l l e y

View over Lake Village toward Fishing Bridge, 1980

to

Eas

t E ntr an

ce

PHOTO BY NPS / L. QUINN

Pelic an Cr eek N at ur e Tr ail

The 1980 photo shows the Lake Hotel and surrounding complex in the foreground and Fishing Bridge and the associated RV Park in the upper right. Cabins, some facilities, and the large lakeside campground seen to the left of Fishing Bridge in the 1956 photo were in the process of being removed by 1980 to protect important lakeshore habitat, especially for grizzly bears.

60620_p060-061_DevelopmentLake.indd 61

61

2021-02-10 7:29 AM

Development at Mammoth Development over Time

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

1886

Wakefield house and stable National Hotel Haynes studio Hotel Parade Ground HOTEL TERRACE Baronett cabin/ Post office Ma Ho tS pri mm ot ng h s

Norris blockhouse House Camp Sheridan

Built 1891 1891 1891 1891 1891 1891 1891 1894 1894 1895 1897 1897 1897 1902 1903 1903 1905 1909 1909 1909 1909 1909 1909 1910 1913 1913

Description Double officer’s quarters Post headquarters (superintendent) Guard house Commissary Quartermaster storehouse (supplies) Granary (grain for horses) Cavalry stable Double officer’s quarters Hospital steward’s quarters U.S. Commissioner’s house Cavalry stable Cavalry barracks (held 60 men) Non-commissioned officer‘s quarters Chittenden house Army Corps of Engineers offices Coal shed (later electrical shop) Post exchange (canteen, gym, barber) Bachelor officers’ quarters Double captain’s quarters Field officer’s quarters Double calvary barracks (200 men) Blacksmith shop Stables New guardhouse (jail) Hospital annex Chapel

1918

Yellowstone Park Transportation Company (YPTC)

YPTC Hotel add. Fort Yellowstone

Se p

M ou

1948 1948

ail

to

n

Tr Campground

Cabins

H

ow

ar

Ea

d

Hotel Dining Store

e r L o w

Haynes studio

M A M M O T H

Cabins

Mo Jup

H O T D r ive

Housing

2010

6576

New Blue Spring

ce

Historic district boundary Fort Yellowstone National Historic Landmark boundary

c e

Cupid Spring

r r a

r T

e

Up p e

Mission 66 housing

p U p

e

r Canary Spring

Boardwalks

0

500 ft. 100 m 0

60620_p062-064_DevelopmentMammoth.indd 62

n t a i n T r a il

Quartermaster quarters, shed, and stables

0

62

ulc h e r

Te r r a

Mammoth Hot Springs village has served as the location for Yellowstone National Park’s headquarters since the 1870s. The area today includes the Fort Yellowstone National Historic Landmark and the Mammoth Hots Springs Historic District, which stand as architectural illustrations of Yellowstone’s changing management and concessions development. Most early explorers and visitors approached the Yellowstone region from the north, making the Mammoth Hot Springs formation the first natural wonder they encountered. Just five miles from the north entrance, the village area quickly became a popular destination, offering rudimentary lodging and other visitor facilities even before the park was established in 1872. The flat expanse to the east of the springs, known as Hotel Terrace, was a natural choice for park headquarters. By 1883, when the railroad approached Gardiner, Montana, concessioners had built several hotels and bath houses, and the government had constructed a military-style blockhouse as well as employee housing. With rail service came a significant increase in visitation. To manage visitors and protect park resources, the U.S. Army sent troops to Yellowstone in 1886. Initially they stayed in a tent city named Camp Sheridan but years later constructed Fort Yellowstone. The parade ground became the front yard for both the fort and a succession of hotels and other visitor facilities. The National Park Service was established in 1916; two years later the Army withdrew. Meanwhile, concessioners were building their businesses: a transportation company, a father-son team selling photographs, a post office, and a general store, in addition to the existing lodgings. Each of these operations required support buildings such as housing, storage sheds, and stables. By 1918, the Mammoth area was a bustling village visited by most of the park’s 21,000 visitors. Visitation tripled the next year, and hit 260,000 ten years later, requiring rapid adaptations by both concessioners and park staff. Those adaptations often translated into construction as the park’s stewards attempted to find the balance between development and preservation, visitor experience and resource protection. After the heyday of development, new ideas about preservation resulted in a shift in park management. Superintendents acted to demolish old, unsightly buildings, and some concessions operations moved to Gardiner. As park employee demographics changed from single rangers to include more young professionals with families, the National Park Service responded by creating the Lower Mammoth housing area. The first loop of the subdivision-like development was completed in 1948, the end of the period of significance for the Mammoth Hot Spring Historic District. The current Mammoth Hot Springs area reflects the modern conservation ethic, with development limited to what is necessary to manage the park.

Fort Yellowstone Buildings

0

500 ft. 100 m

2020-11-10 9:11 AM

M

rdin

ce/Ga

r

ail R oa d Tr

ar G

Engineering 1936 Justice Center 2007

O

Be

ave

reek se C

ne

Guest cabins 1936 Dorm 1938

14

Dorm 1978

Rec. hall 1937

A

g

ue

Tr a il

M a m m ot h Mail carrier’s ’ house 1895

Clinic 1965

Albright Visitor Center

22

18

21

Of

fi c

Hotel 1937

er’

19

ow s R

Dining hall 1937

13

17 20

11 12

8

P a r a d e G r o u n d

1

Child’s residence 1920

7 Community Center 1963

2

Haynes residence 1930

10

Liberty Cap

ri

en

Creek

23

Dorm 1913

General store 1925

lb

ht

Av

Lava

Ca m pgr ound 15

Dorm 1936

to No rth E ntran

ro

H I L L

di

im

ld

Pr

er

r P o n ds T r a i l

K I T E

Haynes photo shop 1928

3 4

24

6

5

9 16 25

Nichols Executive house house 1885 1908

26

Palette Spring

C A P I T O L s c e r a r Te

Housing 1993,1995

6416

Mission 66 Housing 1959–1966

H I L L

r

H

Power house 1909

Housing 1935–1948

To

we r-R oo se

el

v

r a c e T e r

is

i n M a

orr to N

S P R I N G S

to

Mound and Jupiter Terraces

t

Fort Yellowstone viewed from Kite Hill, 1910

YC C Tra il PHOTO BY NPS

ng

60620_p062-064_DevelopmentMammoth.indd 63

2020-11-10 9:11 AM

Architecture

64

Mammoth Hot Springs

Norris

Tower-Roosevelt

Canyon

Madison Lake Old Faithful

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK

Fishing Bridge

Yellowstone Lake

(G) Grand Hotel (M) Mission 66 (N) Neo-Rustic sustainable (P) Parkitecture (NPS Rustic Style) (R) Rustic lodges and cabins

Lake Hotel

Today, vintage tour buses still drop passengers off under the porte cochère along the front of the Lake Hotel. Inside, large windows afford visitors magnificent views of Yellowstone Lake and the mountains beyond.

PHOTO BY NPS

Old Faithful Inn, 1962

PHOTO BY NPS / JIM PEACO

Old Faithful Inn Lobby

Architectural Examples Lake Lake Hotel (G) Lake Lodge (R) Old Faithful Old Faithful Inn (P) Old Faithful Lodge and cabins (R) Old Faithful Visitor Education Center (N) Canyon Canyon Lodge (M) Canyon Visitor Education Center (N) Tower-Roosevelt Roosevelt Lodge (R) Trailside Museums Norris Museum (R) Madison Museum (R) Fishing Bridge Museum (R)

PHOTO BY NPS / COURTESY OF XANTERRA

Yellowstone National Park’s earliest visitors were often the wealthy elite from the eastern United States or Europe—they had the time and money for travel to this remote wonderland. Early park concessioners responded by building large, luxurious hotels along the newly constructed Grand Loop Road, establishing what is sometimes called the “golden age” of impressively styled park architecture. The first grand hotel opened at Mammoth Hot Springs in 1883, after which concessioners set out to create a wilderness playground to attract wealthy clientele and built hotels at Canyon, Fountain Flats, Norris, and Lake. Of these, only the “Grand Old Lady” (Lake Hotel on the shores of Yellowstone Lake) still stands. Its bright yellow exterior served as a welcome beacon in the wilderness to those who bypassed a dusty day of stagecoach travel and approached via steamboat from West Thumb. Architect Robert Reamer expanded the hotel in 1903, when he refashioned the original unadorned structure in a classic Colonial Revival style. He added three-story Roman Ionic columns that support pedimented porticoes, dormers, a sunroom, and a porte cochère. While working on the Lake Hotel remodel, Reamer spent the winter of 1903–04 building the most important work of his career: Old Faithful Inn. This large, log building in the Rustic style was the first example of what became known as parkitecture. Built from local materials, including large boulders and gnarled logs used as bracing, the inn’s central four-story lobby is ensconced under a steep six-story gable roof. Red doors welcomed visitors into the breathtaking lobby, and custom rustic furniture graced balconies on each floor. The lobby’s massive stone fireplace provided warmth as guests danced to a live orchestra after dinner each night. Later, in the 1930s, Reamer designed a wing on each side of the original structure, increasing the hotel’s capacity. The Old Faithful Inn has become almost as iconic as its namesake geyser and to this day remains an attraction for visitors from around the world.

Old Faithful Inn’s interior displays a mass of exposed trusses, columns, and rafters which, in tandem with the branching timbers, gives the appearance of a gnarled forest. Filtered light from windows located high in the gable mixes with dappled light and shadows from light fixtures on the wood columns to create the effect of sunlight through a forest canopy.

PHOTO BY NPS / DIANE RENKIN

Old Faithful Lodge and Cabins

PHOTO BY NPS / DIANE RENKIN

Old Faithful Lodge and its surrounding cabins provided a less luxurious alternative to the sweeping grandeur of Old Faithful Inn and offering a lower cost option for families vacationing by car. At the lodge, visitors can check in, eat at the cafeteria, purchase gifts and paraphernalia related to the park, and have the opportunity to participate in activities such as evening talks. The cabins, which are available to this day, are simple and functional in style; some are primitive, meaning they have sinks but not private bathrooms. Both the lodge and cabins are constructed of natural materials to blend into the environment and provide an outdoor, rustic feel.

PHOTO BY NPS

Canyon Lodge, 1965

“Motor Lodge” epitomizes the car-centered, Mission 66 visitor experience that the Canyon Lodge served. The building (now replaced) incorporated natural materials and many windows to blend the interior and exterior experience—although in this case the exterior engagement was with a large bank of cars.

Old Faithful Visitor Education Center

PHOTO BY NPS / NEAL HERBERT

The first automobiles rolled through Yellowstone’s North Entrance in 1915, beginning the end of the age of stagecoach travel and initiating the “democratization” of Yellowstone. Automobiles allowed visitors to design their own itineraries and bypass concessioner tours, making visits more affordable. In response, concessioners abandoned many of their large hotels for a lodge-and-cabin system, with the first rustic lodge built at Roosevelt in 1920. This new design featured a large central building with food, registration, and lobby (the lodge) surrounded by single-family cabins. The cabins retained the parkitecture aesthetic and accommodated the individual visitor experience. While stagecoach groups traveled together and lodged under one roof each night, guests arriving by car could now stay in individual small cabins; they could socialize with others in a central lodge’s lobby, on its large porches, and across dining room tables while eating family-style meals. Some lodges had a recreation hall with a stage for entertainment. The lodges and cabins grew even more popular in the 1940s and beyond as Americans embraced a car culture epitomized by cross-country family road trips with stops at national parks. As visitation boomed following World War II, National Park Service managers realized that the parks, which had been neglected financially through the Great Depression and the war, needed significant upgrades. In 1956 a ten-year modernization project called Mission 66 began, in preparation for the National Park Service’s 50th anniversary in 1966. This service-wide program envisioned a new way for visitors to engage with parks by using Modern Movement or National Park Service Modern architecture, building new visitor education centers, expanding campgrounds, and moving development away from prime attractions to restore scenic vistas. Canyon Village was the flagship Mission 66 project for the entire Park Service; to this day, much of the development there reflects the Mission 66 ethos and design style. Locally sourced rock exteriors, sweeping low rooflines with dark beams, cedar-shake roofs, and banks of large windows characterized Yellowstone’s Mission 66 buildings. Intended to be utilitarian (rather than grand attractions in and of themselves), these structures reflected the area’s natural world in construction materials; their many windows blurred the lines between inside and outside. Mission 66 was a success in many ways, although not universally admired by National Park Service staff or the public. The Park Service Modern style, with its long, low angles and cheap construction, soon fell out of favor. Current Yellowstone construction harkens back to the parkitecture of old, but with an emphasis on sustainability. Buildings such as the Old Faithful Visitor Education Center, which replaced a Mission 66-era building in 2008, is LEED certified and provides views of Old Faithful without encroaching on the geyser’s footprint. Other examples are the lodges at Canyon, which replaced some Mission 66 cabins, and the Canyon Visitor Education Center.

The Old Faithful Visitor Education Center opened in 2008 and represents a new phase of park architecture that emphasizes sustainability. This new style reimagines the characteristic grand sweeping lines and materials of classic parkitecture like Old Faithful Inn but incorporates numerous design features that make it modern and far more energy efficient.

65

Roads and Trails Yellowstone National Park

Gardiner Electric Trail Peak

7365ft

Mammoth Hot Springs

Tra

Slough

Bi

Osprey Falls

gh

Pass

Tower Junction

or n

Sp

6270ft Tower Creek

Trail

ec Agate Creek

Observation Peak

iss

ge

Cac

he

il

a Tr

Mi

ller

Canyon Village 7734ft

7484ft

Trail

Creek

r Rive

rail k T

e Cre

Seven Mile Hole

Norris

Cougar Cabin

Rid

r ma La

Gne

en im

Trilobite Lake

Mt. Holmes

Cr

Tra il

Pass

k

n

k ee

6239ft

il

Faw

Northeast Entrance

Cre e

Sportsman

Tra il

5314ft

e Lak

a Tr

6847ft

6667ft M

n

tai

un

Mo

ary

Pelican Cone

i Tra

n

ica

Pel

Fishing Bridge

l

Va lle y

West Entrance

Wrangler Lake

il

Tra

Cygnet Lakes

il

Madison Junction

7784ft

Lake Village 7784ft Natural Bridge

Avalanche Peak

Tra il

Mallard Lake

Old Faithful

e ar of or Th

7795ft

CDT

ne

sho

CD

ry

Tra i

l

Boun da

Sho

7733ft Riddell Lake

T

Lewis Lake

er

v

Pla te

ch Be

Mount Sheridan

Heart Lake

a Tr

CD

il

Developed areas Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Major roads

Two Ocean Pass Trail

Fo

Beula Lake

Tr a

Trails

x

chs Pit

i Tra

ek Cre

il

ton

Union Falls

Trail au

l

e

Trail

le r

ek

Cre

Ri

Grant Village

e Lak

East Entrance 6951ft

West Thumb

7365ft

Lake

Summit

Yellowstone Lake

Cr

T

ee

k

Other roads 0

Tra i

20 mi.

l 0

30 km

Flagg Ranch 6818ft

John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway

Colter Bay Village 6821ft

Jackson Lake Lodge 6863ft

Moran Junction 6732ft

Jenny Lake Visitor Center

6804ft

Moose Junction 6509ft

66

Grand Teton National Park

Originally laid out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the late 1800s, Yellowstone’s road system provides access to the park’s major features. Approximately 466 miles of road are located in Yellowstone, while 217 miles of road (152 paved, 65 unpaved) are in Grand Teton and the Rockefeller parkway. In Yellowstone, approximately 310 miles of major roads connect entrances and popular features, including the “Grand Loop,” a figure eight of roads in the center of the park. Another 156 miles of secondary roads service developed areas, campgrounds, and picnic areas. These include administrative roads (closed to the public) that park staff members use to access infrastructure. Trail systems provide visitors with access to many backcountry features and foster a sense of the parks’ landscapes when Congress first set them aside. The trails vary in length from less than a mile to more than 30 miles, and visitors can spend a few minutes to many days exploring them. In Yellowstone, nearly 1,000 miles of trails are available (including over 15 miles of boardwalk, and 13 self-guiding trails) with 92 trailheads, while Grand Teton and the Rockefeller parkway offer 242 miles of trails. The road and trail profiles illustrate the terrain of the parks. Many of the road segments follow river valleys, possibly leading to a misperception about the gentleness of Yellowstone’s terrain. A review of profiles D, E, and F highlights the inclined shoulders of Mount Washburn and the Absaroka Range. Similarly, a trek from Cascade Canyon to Paintbrush Canyon (trail 4) in Grand Teton will tax all but the fittest hikers.

A. West Entrance to Old Faithful 30 miles

son

di Ma

West Entrance

A

sin s Pot iver r Ba ve Dri Paint eR yse Ge lat hol F n e i y r i a a Old in F t w nta Foun Mid Faithful Fou

n

io nct n Ju er diso n Riv a M ibbo G

er

Riv

7,000’

0

10 mi.

6,500

West Entrance to Moose

B

C

B. Old Faithful to Flagg Ranch 43 miles

2ft

826

er

in ont

C

10 km

1.5x vertical exaggeration

8ft

798 ion nct ide Div b Ju ge l a m t illa hu en st T nt V ntin We Gra Co

8,000’

eho

Fir

ivid

al D

ent

ass eek ig P cy Cr a Cra Del

iv le R

0

1ft

39 e8

ake

is L

Lew

7,500 Old Faithful

7,000

Flagg Ranch

6,500

C. Flagg Ranch to Moose Junction 40 miles

ke

Sna

er Riv 7,000’

Flagg Ranch

e a llag arin ay Vi ks Mlter B e e L Co

k ree d rd C roun Liza ampg C

e

anc

ntr

th E

Sou

ge e Lod odg ian eL unt Lak er o n Riv al M kso Jac nake Sign S

N.

n

Jen

ion

nct

e Ju

k y La

ny

Jen

itor

is eV

Lak

ter

Cen

ood

w ton

Cot

ek

Cre

Moose

6,500 6,000

D. Gardiner to Canyon Village

E

Gardiner to East Entrance

n

itte

Ch

42 miles

D

ven nra Du 859ft 8

oad

R den

s ring s Fall t Sp ver iver Ho iver dine r Ri ner R er e h t R n o r Un rd Gard Riv e m a n m G rd ling Ma Ga Boi

ail

ckt

Bla

8,500’

P

Canyon Village

8,000

rive

uD

a late

s

Pas

7,500

e elt Tre sev all fied r-Roo wer F e To Tow

ri Pet

7,000 6,500 6,000 5,500

Gardiner

5,000

E. Canyon Village to East Entrance 43 miles

Canyon Village

d Mu

ano

c Vol

s Pas an Sylv 530ft 8

n ctio Jun e s g d r Brid Rive api ys R ishing tone ard F ws o l LeH l Ye

8,000’ 7,500 East Entrance

7,000 6,500

F. Old Faithful to Fishing Bridge 38 miles

G

t 62f

eR

hol

Fire

H

Lower Grand Loop

F

t

82 en ek ass ntin ig P cy Cre Co a r C a L e D 8,000’

iver

ide

iv al D

1ft

839

st We

t

oin ek Cre ce P ica Pumi n r A

op t Lo eek e oin ge Cr llag y Brid ge Ba ke Vi La Brid Fishing

ll P

Gu

Bridge Junction

7,500

Old Faithful

7,000

G. Fishing Bridge to Norris 28 miles

ds

api

sR rdy

a LeH

nV

ano

yo Can

olc dV

Mu

e

illag

8,000’

Fishing Bridge Junction

bon

Gib

er

Riv

Norris

7,500 7,000

H. Norris to Old Faithful 30 miles

Gib

ws

ado

e nM

bo

Norris

ion

nct

b Ju

m Thu

asin

er B

eys

G ent

num

Mo

bon

Gib

t asin ve t Po er B Dri Pain eys t iver a G l n i F eR y ta wa hol tain Foun e d i r n i u F M Old Fo Faithful 7,000’

n

s

Fall

io nct liff son Ju er i fC Tuf Mad on Riv b Gib

6,500

1. Cache Creek to Thunderer

2

Trails

1

2. Mt. Washburn

3. Old Faithful to Bechler

4. Cascade to Paintbrush Canyon

11,000’

11,000’

10,000

10,000

9,000

9,000

8,000

8,000 7,000

7,000

3

North 0

10 miles

6,000

North 0

South 10

0

North 10

20

30

0

10

6,000

20

4

67

60620_p066-067_RoadsAndTrails.indd 67

2020-12-17 12:40 PM

Traffic Traffic Flow

Traffic Volume, 1995–2019

Gardiner 1,6

85

1,5

32

Mammoth

1,1

32

1

1 North Entrance, Yellowstone 150%

Tower Junction 6 ,4

Average Annual Daily Traffic Percentage of Total Relative to 2019 Annual Traffic by Month

82

1

1,9

2,2 94

Northeast Entrance

1995: 618 (65%) 2019: 950 (100%)

30% 25

125%

9

20

100%

15 10

75%

02

5

1,6

50% 1995 2000 2005 2010 2019

1, 31 2

Canyon

1,8

79

Norris

2 West Yellowstone

2,5

1,6

28

2,848

25

2,

Madison Junction

Firehole Drive

150%

6

25 20

1 ,9 4

2,06

Old Faithful

Lake Road

1,717

63

82

8

East Entrance

8

West Thumb Grant Village

1995: 830 (100%) 2019: 833 (100%)

25 20 15 10

75% 7 1 ,3 8

1 ,3 8 7

Flagg Ranch

Average Annual Daily Traffic 6

5

4

3

3, 09

2

1 ,8 4 5

788

Moran Junction

Jenny Lake 2, Visitor Center

4 ,1 3 5

9 72 5,8 01

18

3

1,155

4

Automatic traffic recorder

Moose Junction

4 57

10 5

50% 1995 2000 2005 2010 2019

Map data from 2003; traffic flow data not available for recent years for Yellowstone and Grand Teton

0

10 mi. 15 km

1995: 808 (68%) 2019: 1,189 (100%)

25 20 15 10

75%

5

50% 1995 2000 2005 2010 2019

0

J F M A M J J A S O N D

6 Moose-Wilson Entrance, Grand Teton 1995: 252 (56%) 2019: 451 (100%)

30% 25

125%

that roads can accommodate. Complicating traffic flows are the common, but difficult to predict, “animal jams” that occur when visitors stop to view wildlife. Miles-long traffic jams can result, leaving drivers further back in line fuming. Road construction, rapidly changing weather (it can snow any day of the year in the parks), and accidents can also affect traffic flow. July and August have the highest traffic volumes in the parks, with relatively little traffic from November through April. Traffic volumes outside the parks are more evenly distributed through the year, although July and August remain peak months.

J F M A M J J A S O N D

30%

125%

150%

7

0

5 Moose Entrance, Grand Teton

Closed seasonally

624

More than one million vehicles travel through Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks in the summer months, often leading to congestion. Average daily traffic counts range from as many as 8,473 vehicles at Jackson to as few as 828 at the East Entrance road into Yellowstone. Developed areas and popular destinations attract correspondingly higher traffic volumes. Variations in traffic flow can be relatively abrupt, as when visitors travel to Yellowstone Lake at Fishing Bridge but turn back rather than proceeding to the East Entrance. The parks’ two-lane road system, lower speed limits, and design emphasis on helping visitors enjoy the parks reduces the traffic volume

15

Open to wheeled vehicles year round

0 405

.5

150%

6

20

100%

1,575

5

6

97

1

Averages calculated over entire calendar year

1

1,5

25

100%

values in thousands of vehicles 2,

J F M A M J J A S O N D

30%

75%

2 ,0 9 7

Jackson Lake Lodge Jenny Lake Loop

1995: 827 (101%) 2019: 815 (100%)

125%

GR AND TETON NAT ION A L PA RK

0

4 U.S. 89, Inbound Traffic, Grand Teton 150%

Colter Bay Village

5

50% 1995 2000 2005 2010 2019

3

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY

J F M A M J J A S O N D

30%

100%

YELLOWSTONE N AT I O N A L PA R K

0

3 South Entrance, Yellowstone*

125%

1,514

3

5

50% 1995 2000 2005 2010 2019

150%

Grant Village Road 1,51

10

75%

77

1,7

3,852

15

Fishing Bridge 2,0

96

30%

125%

0

02

Lake Village

Old Faithful Drive

2,5

1995: 1,018 (61%) 2019: 1,673 (100%)

100%

2,4

438

15

J F M A M J J A S O N D

2 West Entrance, Yellowstone*

South Rim Drive

1 ,5 0 8

0

20

100%

15 10

75%

5

50% 1995 2000 2005 2010 2019

0

J F M A M J J A S O N D

7 Gros Ventre Junction, Grand Teton 150%

1995: 3,094 (70%) 2019: 4,410 (100%)

30%

125% 100% 75% 50% 1995 2000 2005 2010 2019

25 20 15 10 5 0

J F M A M J J A S O N D

* Closed to car travel in winter months

68

60620_p068-069_Traffic.indd 68

2021-02-03 3:11 AM

2591

1,4

0 4,20

777

3,035

2

1,40 6

1,034 13 1,2

43

10 5

50% 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2017

Shoshoni 2,5

150%

2,293

06

Riverton

1 ,56

1995: 2,969 (73%) 2015: 4,067 (100%)

07

25 20 15

100%

10

5 No data where line breaks 50% 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2017

5

1995: 2,790 (65%) 2017: 4,273 (100%)

30%

,

25

125% 11,38

Green River

J F M A M J J A S O N D

11 U.S. 26, east of Ririe

Farson 80

0

10

5 37

J F M A M J J A S O N D

30%

125%

Hudson

81

1,513

37,36

1,137

15

2,1

2,702

20

10 U.S. 20, north of Ashton

20

9

15

100%

Rock Springs

10

75% 1,1

5

50% 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2017

1

03

75

Evanston

Ogden

25

100%

1,005

1,

J F M A M J J A S O N D

30%

75%

2,7

1,600

1,404

Thermopolis

00

8

6

80

1,5

14

1,1

Lander

2,0

1,318

7,

Pavillion

4,310

Pinedale

8

Kemmerer

Logan

0

13

4,823

334

00

68

2000: 2,200 (91%) 2017: 2,408 (100%)

125%

150%

1,444

00

41

1,5

5,611

2,3 1,7

Dubois 1,

2

5

84

57

98

1,9

1,

928

00

9,555

0

Garden City

5

Worland

WYOMING

3

03

3,4

11,500

Meeteetse

3,

1 23 5, 8,473

00

93

GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK 2,2

150%

Manderson 2,263

10

4,042

3,912

2 ,42

0 4,89

2,136

52 1,6

90

84 2,0

24 2,0 3,400

1,305

23 4,8

3,8

4,368

6 3,83 63 5,4

,0

0

23

50

25,000

Basin

2,660

2,

12

0

Georgetown

11,33

4 6

Greybull

2,364

0

Jackson

10

9 U.S. 14/16/20, west of Cody

1,033

1,621

Burlington

33

15

75%

1,390

Soda Springs 00

91

5

30

16,000

3,

37 2,43

9

20

55

0

2,629

5,000

3 2,

Cody1,304

1,

4,016

8, 1

2,103

25

50% 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2017

Lovell 6,2

30%

75%

4

23

11

50

Powell

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK

Pocatello

9,69

1,

1,

3,737

4,

6

0 ,60

Ammon Shelley Blackfoot

Downey

100%

77

0 5,5

27

9

West Yellowstone

8,4

710

IDAHO

000

Cooke City

Gardiner

1995: 2,385 (79%) 2017: 3,023 (100%) 150% 125%

Red Lodge

Rexburg Driggs Rigby Ririe

0

12,

3

8 Highway 191, north of Big Sky

Laurel

10

St Anthony 5,40

2,300 20 0

3

Average Annual Daily Traffic Percentage of Total Relative to 2017 Annual Traffic by Month

9 ,96

Ashton

IDAHO FALLS 1,

2,

48

54

43

1,6

3,300

Dubois

Columbus

Livingston

1

9

15,0

4,5

38

8,127

BILLINGS

9,530

92

1,100

31

Big Timber

84

M O N TA N A 2,124

Big Sky

8

97

3,

10,3

5,6

1

25

Virginia City

Dillon

1

BOZEMAN

1,6

1,082

,98

Broadview

75

Belgrade

0

80

1,47

1,5

Whitehall

28

904

1

32

384

2,

9

53

15,7

8,724

Butte

559

70

75

Greater Yellowstone Traffic Flow, 2017

J F M A M J J A S O N D

12 U.S. 26/89/189/191, south of Jackson

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks are accessible by road. The nearest passenger train stop is across northern Montana. Bus service from nearby communities is limited. Visitors arriving at local airports typically rent cars to reach the parks. Commercial trucks are not allowed on park roads, except to support park and concessions operations. Outside the parks, large volumes of freight move along interstate highways. Railroads (the Montana Rail Link just north of Yellowstone and the BNSF Hi-Line in northern Montana) carry products such as grain and coal to the nation. The heavy rail traffic between Gillette and Casper, Wyoming, and points east largely reflects coal transport.

150%

Average Annual Daily Traffic 60

50

Havre

307,568

176,434

425,818

115,438

Bozeman

Cody

47,190

46,303

10

9

5

50% 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2017

Automatic traffic recorder

Public Intercity Transportation, 2018

Shelby

Shelby Whitefish

Sidney

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Annual Freight Tonnage, 2007

Havre

Wolf Point

Kalispell

Wolf Point

Great Falls Missoula

9,915

Lewiston

Helena Butte

Bozeman

Billings

13,264

Sheridan

Gillette

39,494

27,136

Jackson

94,303

Twin Falls

15

No data

Sheridan

671,777

Arbon Valley

1

440,465

West Yellowstone Hailey 8,226

1,943,338

5

20

100%

Billings

25,860

57,957

Boise

2,739

Helena Butte

Lewiston

Glendive

10

25

125%

Values in thousands of vehicles

3,851

4,201

Great Falls

Missoula

20

Wolf Point

Glasgow

3,237

30

30%

75%

Commercial Airport Enplanements, 2018 Kalispell

40

2001: 3,758 (59%) 2017: 6,412 (100%)

Nampa

383,178

Idaho Falls

161,019

Boise

87,031

11,811

Riverton

Casper

Twin Falls

Laramie 23,020

Gillette Idaho Falls Pocatello

Casper

Riverton

Rock Springs

Boise

17,188

Cheyenne 3,262

Greyhound stops Centennial Amtrak stations Greyhound intercity bus routes Discontinued Greyhound routes Amtrak passenger rail routes

Cheyenne

Rock Springs

Truck

Rail

Laramie

Cheyenne

100 50 10 1 millon tons of freight

69

60620_p068-069_Traffic.indd 69

2020-12-17 12:41 PM

Park Visitation In Yellowstone’s first decades, when the concept of a national park was still novel, managers realized that public support would be essential to the park’s survival. They aggressively promoted the park and developed its infrastructure. These efforts, along with increasingly convenient automobile travel and other factors, led to rising visitor numbers through the 1920s and 1930s and an upsurge after World War II. Since 2015, more than 4 million visits to the park have been recorded each year. Thousands more visit Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks online through websites and webcams. Visitation fluctuates from year to year in response to many influences—the economy, world wars, gas prices, and weather. The overall trend, however, has been upward: Yellowstone’s estimated annual visitation first exceeded 10,000 in 1897, 100,000 in 1923, 1 million in 1948, 2 million in 1965, 3 million in 1992, and 4 million in 2015. Both parks are primarily summer destinations. Well over 3 million visits are recorded in Yellowstone between April and November, while only around 100,000 typically brave the park between December and March. More than half of the parks’ visitors come in June, July, and August. Summertime tourists often make the parks a stop on a longer road trip; approximately two-thirds of Yellowstone’s visitors come in one entrance and exit through another. Vacationers arrive from across the country and around the world. In 2018, North Americans made up 77 percent of all visitors to Yellowstone, followed by visitors from Europe at 13 percent (led by Germany, France, Switzerland, and the UK) and Asia at 8 percent of all visitors (China accounted for 89 percent of all Asian visitors). Yellowstone is predominantly an automobile park. More than 92 percent of summer visitors in 2019 came in approximately 1.3 million private vehicles (cars, trucks, and recreational vehicles), compared to fewer than 10,000 buses. In 2018, visitors spent an average of three days in the park. The main gateway to Yellowstone is the West Entrance, through which almost half of summer visitors arrive. The entrance is adjacent to West Yellowstone, Montana, which has amenities for visitors staying overnight and making day trips to the park. The South Entrance provides access for approximately 20 percent of visitors, reflecting proximity to Grand Teton National Park; Jackson, Wyoming; the Jackson Yellowstone Summer Visitors by Mode of Transport, 1993–2019

239,832 Slough Creek Tower-Roosevelt

Pebble Creek

Indian Creek

West Entrance 1,690,180

Yellowstone National Park

Canyon

Norris

Madison

Lake/ Bridge Bay

East Entrance 447,657

Old Faithful Grant Village

Lewis Lake

South Entrance 818,978 Flagg Ranch

Entrance Use by Visitors

Southbound traffic 702,259

Grand Teton National Park

1,000,000 500,000

Jackson Lake Lizard Creek Lodge

250,000 100,000 50,000 10,000

Colter Bay Signal Mountain Jenny Lake Climbers’ Ranch

Moose Entrance 867,795 Granite Canyon 312,617

Moran Entrance 914,673

Overnight Accommodations 10,000 hotel/lodge users 10,000 campground users

Triangle X Ranch

Gros Ventre

3,422,235

Total visitors Automobile

Shoulder Season Visitation, Yellowstone

1 0

Northeast Entrance

Mammoth

RV Bus 2000

1995

2010

2005

2015

International

Visitor State of Residence

2018 survey

2016 survey

5%

4%

5% 4%

4% 8%

6%

5%

< 2% 2–4% 4–6% > 6%

5%

Alaska and Hawaii 2%

Percentage of annual visitors

Visitors (millions)

2

North Entrance 703,894

3,900,511

4 3

Summer, 2019

30

1980 2009 2019

25 20 15 10 5 0

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

The shoulder seasons (spring and fall months) have been increasingly popular with visitors in recent decades. May and September are busy, with more than 1.1 million people enjoying Yellowstone during those combined months in 2019. Even April and October have risen in popularity—especially in years with good weather. In 2019, more than 219,000 people visited Yellowstone in those months.

Ove visit

Private snow machines allowed in YNP Hebgen Lake earthquake

Yellowstone Annual Visitation, 1872–2019 Yellowstone National Park Grand Teton National Park

Over 1 million people visit Yellowstone

Northern Pacific Railroad Northern Pacific Railroad connects to Gardiner, Mont. connects to Cinnabar, Mont. Private automobiles YNP established Stage line connects Cinnabar railroad allowed in YNP terminal to Yellowstone

1872

1880

1890

1900

1910

National Park Service established U.S. in World War I

1920

U.S. in World War II

Great Depression

YNP expanded

YNP expanded

Grand Teton NP established

1930

1940

1950

1960

70

60620_p070-071_Visitation.indd 70

2021-02-10 7:31 AM

Winter, 2019 North Entrance 62,606 Mammoth

West Entrance 40,635

East Entrance 784 Old Faithful

South Entrance 12,596 Southbound traffic 10,030

Moran Entrance 44,792 Triangle X Ranch Moose Entrance 50,796

Plowed Groomed routes Closed

Backcountry Visitation

Overnight Users 100 250 500 1,000 2,000 Camping zones Camp sites Trails Roads Map data from 2009

Yellowstone Winter Visitors by Mode of Transport, 1993–2019 Visitors (thousands)

Visitors (thousands)

116,621 100 Snowmobile 61,664

50 Automobile

29,783 26,281

Snow Coach

0

2000

1995

2005

2010

2015

Visitors (thousands)

4,000,000

1,000,000

1990

2000

1990

2000

2010

2019

2010

Grand Teton Backcountry Campers 1979–2019

30

20

10

0 1972

3,000,000

1988 fires

1980

1980

36,292

2,000,000

1970

10

40

9/11 attacks

1979 energy crisis Oil embargo

16,935

2019

Highest recorded annual visitation 4,257,177

Over 3 million people visit Yellowstone

20

0 1972

In October 2013, a final rule was signed concluding more than 15 years of planning efforts and litigation to establish a long-term plan to govern winter use in Yellowstone. The current plan manages the number of groups, or transportation events, allowed in the park rather than the number of vehicles. It also promotes cleaner and quieter OSVs, allows guide companies increased flexibility to respond to visitor demand, allows for limited noncommercially guided snowmobile access, and has reduced environmental impacts on the park. Recognizing that a group of snowmobiles traveling together is comparable to a snowcoach in terms of impacts, a transportation event is defined as a group of up to ten snowmobiles or two snowcoaches. Snowmobile group size must average seven snowmobiles across the season (or eight if cleaner and quieter standards are met) and snowcoach group size must average 1.5 across the season with cleaner and quieter coaches. Transportation events are capped at 110 per day. This approach allows operators to respond to variable visitor demand across the season while limiting impacts to park resources.

Over 2 million people visit Yellowstone

Yellowstone Backcountry Visitors 1972–2019

30

150 Total visitors

ines

0

Road Surface

Granite Canyon 23,930

Hole Airport; popular travel routes; and population centers in Utah and California. Approximately 20 percent of visitors come through the North Entrance. Winter visitation is a fraction of summer activity at both parks. In 2019, fewer than 3 percent of visitors came to Yellowstone in the winter. Between mid-December and early March, access to the interior of the park through the East, South, and West Entrances is limited to travel by snowmobile and snowcoach (oversnow vehicles, or OSVs). Visitors entering through the North Entrance can proceed via wheeled vehicle through the Lamar Valley and out the Northeast Entrance or enter the interior via OSV. As of 2004 guides are required for all snowmobile and snowcoach visitors, and as of 2013 a limited number of snowmobile groups can enter with a noncommercial guide. Snowmobiles and snowcoaches in Yellowstone are by mandate some of the cleanest and quietest available. Such rules have allowed visitors to enjoy the park while also addressing the air quality, soundscape, wildlife, and safety concerns that arose in the 1980s and 1990s, an era of unlimited winter use.

1980

1990

2000

2010

2019

With 303 backcountry campsites available, Yellowstone offers opportunities for visitors to get away from the crowds. Only about 17,000 of Yellowstone’s four million visitors spent a night in the backcountry in 2019. People access the remote regions of the park on foot (hikes ranging from 1 to 30 miles); with mules, llamas, or horses; and by boat. Yellowstone and Shoshone Lakes have 54 boat-accessible campsites along their shores. In Grand Teton, backcountry opportunities abound, especially in the Teton Range. Designated campsites as well as camping zones where visitors may camp anywhere are available. All persons camping below 10,000 feet are required to use bear-resistant food storage containers. Both parks emphasize “leave no trace” principles and educate backcountry campers about bears.

2019

71

60620_p070-071_Visitation.indd 71

2021-02-10 7:31 AM

Who Visits the Parks Demographics of Visitors to National Park Service Units Compared to 2010 Census

Visitors to the 423 National Park System units numbered 327.5 million in 2019, suggesting the National Park Service is achieving its founding mandate to provide “for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” But which people? Compared to 2010 census numbers, visitors are disproportionately white, highly educated, higher income, and baby boomers. Asians, Blacks, people of other races, Hispanics, and younger, less educated, and lower income visitors access the park system in relatively low numbers. Racial and ethnic disparities vary regionally. Blacks are underrepresented everywhere. Asians are underrepresented outside the West and Hispanics outside the Southeast. Some sites counter these trends. Nicodemus National Historic Site, a town established by African Americans during Reconstruction, receives 37 percent Black visitation. Thirty-one percent of visitors to Manzanar National Historic Site, commemorating a World War II Japanese internment camp, are Asian. But such sites are few—the large majority of visitors to most Park Service sites are white. The Park Service is striving to diversify its employee base, culture, and park visitation. Actions include starting an Office of Relevancy, Diversity, and Inclusion, opening new cultural and urban sites, establishing new education programs and web sites, making parks more accessible for people with disabilities, and collaboration with thousands of partners ranging from Indian tribes to nonprofit groups. These efforts are gaining traction, but reaching all the people remains the great challenge to the National Park System retaining its relevancy and political support in the twenty-first century.

Excluding white, non-Hispanic National park system visitors

>$200,000 4%

6%

Asian

7% 12%

19%

12%

$75,000– $99,999

19%

$35,000– $49,999

Black Native Hawaiian 99% 95.1–99% 75.1–95% 50.1–75% 50%

Percentage of students >25% 5.1–25% 1.1–5% 0.1–1% < 0.1%

German 10–26% 5–9% 0.1–4% 0%

Black

Liberty 26%

American Indian and Alaska Native Percentage of students 5.1–25% 1.1–5% 0.1–1% < 0.1%

Percentage of students >25% 5.1–25% 1.1–5% 0.1–1% < 0.1%

American Indian Languages 10–25% 5–9% 0.1–4% 0% Big Horn 25%

Asian and Pacific Islander Percentage of students 5.1–25% 1.1–5% 0.1–1% < 0.1%

School enrollment patterns show the large white population and the small number of African Americans residing in the immediate Yellowstone area. The majority of American Indian students in Wyoming attend schools near the Wind River Reservation (the largest reservation in the state), on Crow and Northern Cheyenne reservations northeast of Yellowstone, or in urban centers. Latino high school students are widely dispersed in the region, reflecting family roots in agriculture, retail, and service-worker occupations. Asian and Pacific Island students are concentrated in towns that have historically provided opportunities in retail, education, and service occupations.

Other Languages 2.5–5% 0.1–2.4% 0%

101

Religion and Politics Religion

Primary Religious Denomination

M O N TA N A

IDAHO

- 60%

- 40%

WYOMING

- 20%

The religious makeup of the tri-state region surrounding Yellowstone is varied. Catholicism is strong nearly everywhere, being either the first or second largest religious denomination throughout most of the region. In Montana the primary and secondary positions alternate between Catholic and Lutheran, resulting from the region’s nineteenth-century German and Scandinavian immigrant base. Idaho is a center of Mormonism second only to Utah; southern and especially southeastern Idaho may be described as North Deseret. Mormon influence extends well into Wyoming and Montana. Although not as prevalent as Mormons, large numbers of Catholics in southern Idaho reflect a significant Latino farmworker population. Baptists and Methodists are the second most numerous denominations in some central and eastern Wyoming counties, resulting from migration along the Platte River into the area from the South and lower Midwest where adherents of these religious groups are much more dominant. The higher numbers of Pentecostals in northern Idaho represents the eastern edge of their regional importance in Washington and Oregon.

Catholic Latter-Day Saints

Religious Adherence

Lutheran

County Population in thousands (2005 data)

United Methodist Baptist Pentecostal

500

250

100

Other

Secondary Religious Denomination

25 35 45 55 65 75 85 %

County Population in thousands (2005 data) 500

250

100 50 25 10 5 1

Adherents are defined as members of religious bodies, their children, and participating nonmembers.

Denominational Strength, 2000 Idaho Catholic Baptist Methodist Lutheran Jewish Pentecostal LDS Christian Presbyterian Anglican Other

10.1% 2.1% 1.6% 2.1% 0.1% 2.3% 24.1% 1.2% 0.8% 0.6% 3.5%

Mont. 18.8% 2.6% 2.2% 7.4% 0.1% 3.1% 3.7% 1.0% 1.1% 0.7% 4.0%

Wyo.

Tri-state

U.S.

16.3% 4.9% 3.0% 4.4% 0.1% 1.5% 9.6% 1.3% 1.4% 1.8% 2.6%

14.1% 2.8% 2.0% 4.3% 0.1% 2.4% 14.6% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 3.5%

22.0% 8.4% 3.9% 2.9% 2.2% 1.9% 1.5% 1.5% 1.3% 0.8% 3.8%

All denominations 48.5% 44.7% 46.7% 46.9% 50.2% Population, 2000 1,293,953 902,195 493,782 2,689,930 281,421,906

102

50 25

10 5 1

Politics

2020 U.S. Presidential Election

Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have consistently voted conservatively since the mid-1960s. This tendency was a shift away from the region’s Progressive political character of earlier eras when Wyoming (then a territory) pioneered women’s suffrage in 1869 and the Progressive Party’s Robert La Follette took more than 35 percent of the three-state presidential vote in 1924. As shown by the bar chart, the region voted for Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal in about the same proportion as the nation, and went for Truman by a slight margin in 1948. Since the late 1960s, however, the three states have voted more conservatively than the nation. Ross Perot took more than 25 percent of the vote in 1992, compared to about 19 percent nationwide. The Yellowstone states fit in a wider pattern of Intermountain and Great Plains political conservatism in the later twentieth century. There are, however, local exceptions. Counties that recently voted more liberally are characterized by four voting blocks. The Butte and Anaconda mining counties of Montana reflect a local labor tradition going back more than a century. Towns where public universities dominate often vote more liberally, as with Bozeman (Montana State University) and Missoula (University of Montana), or lead to split votes, as with Laramie (University of Wyoming) and Moscow (University of Idaho). But Pocatello (Idaho State University) bucks this trend, as do many towns with smaller state or private colleges. American Indians predominantly vote Democratic. For example, Glacier County, Montana, which includes much of the Blackfeet Nation, voted 64 percent for Biden in 2020, while an adjacent county with relatively few American Indians voted 75 percent for Trump. Residents of state capitals tend to vote more liberally, although the effect is muted by the varied political perspectives in these locations. Finally, counties and towns that have outdoor amenity-based economies, like Sun Valley and Jackson Hole, are strongly inclined to support environmental protection.

County Population in thousands (2018 data) 250

100

50

25

10

5 1

2016 U.S. Presidential Election

Percentage of Two-party Votes Republican 2016 2020

70%

Trump Trump

Idaho Wyoming Montana Tri-state U.S.

65% 60% 55%

59% 68 56 60 46

64% 69 57 62 47

50% < 50% for either party

50%

Democrat 2016 2020

55%

Clinton Biden

60%

Idaho Wyoming Montana Tri-state U.S.

65% 70%

27% 22 36 29 53

33% 26 40 35 51

County Population in thousands (2016 data) 500

250

100

50 25 10 5 1

Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming Presidential Election Results

Share of Tri-state Vote

Trump

Democrat 0%

50%

Republican

Biden

Obama

Obama Bush

Bush

Clinton

Clinton Bush

Reagan

Reagan

Nixon

Nixon

Carter

Johnson

Kennedy Eisenhower

Eisenhower

Truman

Roosevelt

Roosevelt

Roosevelt

Hoover

Coolidge

Harding

Roosevelt

50%

Point indicates national popular vote Labeled candidate indicates national electoral winner

Independent 1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

103

The Economy

104

Total Personal Income by County, 1970–2018 Values in millions of dollars* $165

$5,810

$431

STILLWATER

PARK

MADISON

Key to graphs

$494

SWEET GRASS

$508

GALLATIN

Millions of dollars

$805

1000 $939 750 2018 500 value in 250 millions COUNTY 0 2010 1970

CARBON M O N T A N A W Y O M I N G

$1,593

CLARK

$486

$34 $1,038

$5,643

FREMONT

PARK $464

$252

MADISON

HOT SPRINGS

TETON

I D A H O

BONNEVILLE

TETON

W Y O M I N G

$1,725

$276

$504

CARIBOU SUBLETTE FREMONT

$495 $233 FRANKLIN

$837

BEAR LAKE

LINCOLN

this measure does not include private pensions and savings (for example, 401K retirement plans), it under‌estimates the true size of investment and retirement payments in the region. As the baby boom generation continues into retirement, more and more personal income in the region will come from nonlabor sources. Nonlabor income has been shown to stimulate other sectors of the economy, such as medical services, retail trade, and construction. Historically, farming, ranching, and the resource industries were more important in the region than they are today be‌cause the area’s economy was more special‌ized and less diverse. When farm and ranch income fluctuated, other sectors of the econ‌omy would fluctuate with them; the same was true for the timber industry and mining. These industries were, in a sense, the “horse pulling the cart.” Since the 1970s this image has become less apt, with new sectors entering the economy that have little or nothing to do with agriculture and natural resource development. An example of this change is the growth of service indus‌tries. In the past, service sector employment consisted primarily of grocery store clerks, gas station attendants, and other occupations typically associated with the production of a service. If the lumber mill laid off people, mill

*All values adjusted to 2018 U.S. dollars

workers would have less money to spend, and the service sectors would decline along with the timber industry. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the service sectors began to include new migrants working as financial consultants, software developers, and in other occupations still closely tied to goods production (for example, architects are part of the construction process) but decoupled from the traditional economic drivers in the region. Rather than being tied to the fluctuations of the local timber, mining, and agricultural sectors, these new service occupations are tied to economic forces outside the region.

Growth in Service Industry Jobs in GYA, 2001–2018 250,000 56% increase

200,000 Number of jobs

As in much of the West, resource development, agriculture, and tourism have played important roles in the economic history of the Greater Yellow‌stone Area. For gateway communities such as Cody, Wyoming, and West Yellowstone, Montana, tourism has long been the main‌stay of the economy. For communities more distant from the park, mining, oil and gas development, timber harvesting, farming, and ranching have been prime economic drivers. This began to change in the 1970s, 1980s, and particularly in the 1990s. In 1970 close to 30 percent of labor earnings in the region were from farming, ranch‌ing, mining, oil and gas development, and manufacturing (including the wood products industry); by 2018 these sectors accounted for less than 8 percent of total labor earnings. The sources of fastest economic growth have been the service and professional industries and nonlabor income, such as retirement and investment income. The service industries include sectors often associated with tourism and include components of retail trade, transportation (for example, tour buses and airlines), and amusement and recreation businesses (for example, fishing guides, private parks, and zoos) along with rela‌tively high-wage sectors, such as architec‌ture, engineering, software development, and legal and medical services. Because of advances in telecommunications, efficient delivery services such as FedEx and UPS, and the growth of regional airports, many skilled professionals formerly tied to jobs located in larger metropolitan areas are now able to live in relatively remote, rural locations offering an attractive quality of life. In the 1980s and 1990s the Greater Yellowstone Area was drawing increasing numbers of these new amenity migrants. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a new type of migrant was attracted to the area by its comparatively low infection rates. Because of advances in communications technology, and aided by the expansion of some airports in the region, it became possible, for example, to work as an engineer in Bozeman while the main factory or office was elsewhere with clients, suppliers, and colleagues located across the country or around the world. Fast-growing areas such as Gallatin County, Montana, Bonneville County, Idaho, and Teton County, Wyoming, offered a com‌bination of recreational, environmental, and cultural amenities; an educated workforce; and ready access to the outside world via transportation networks, particularly daily commercial air service. Nonlabor income sources accounted for 60 percent of the net growth in real personal income from 2000 to 2018 and represented half of total personal income in 2018 (compared to 41 percent in 2000 and 25 percent in 1970). Nonlabor income consists of in‌come from investments (dividends, interest, and rent) and government transfer payments such as retirement payments and Medicare. With significant growth in the stock market and the aging baby boom generation, these sources of income became a major driver for many counties. Because

$6,123

150,000

es S e rv i c

100,000 50,000

24% increase

Nons ervic es

19% increase

Government 0

2001

2005

2010

2015

2018

Personal Income by Labor and Nonlabor Sources, 2001–2018 Aggregated GYA Counties

Labor Income Sources

40%

Nonlabor income

20% 0 2001

2005

2010

15%

Other*

*3-5% each in 2018: Admin. and waste, transport. and warehousing, wholesale trade, finance and insurance; others 50%

40%

2015 2018

Services Income Sources

Percentage of Total County Personal Income from Nonlabor Sources, 2018

2005

2010

2015 2018

2010

41

76 45

42

Farm and ag. 2005

47

45 41 42 42

Manufacturing

Mining

0 2001

44

52

31

Construction

5%

53

50

2015 2018

Nonservices Income Sources

10%

58

47

46

35

45

2015 2018

Total Personal Nonlabor Income, 2018 Values in millions of dollars

Bear Lake (ID) $106.8 Bonneville (ID) $2,345.3 Carbon (MT) $238.7 Caribou (ID) $115.5 Clark (ID) $10.6 Franklin (ID) $175.0 Fremont (ID) $220.2 Fremont (WY) $778.4 Gallatin (MT) $2,386.5 Hot Springs (WY) $102.5

Millions of dollars

Labor income

60% Percent of total labor income

Percent of total personal income

Personal Income Sources 60%

Nonlabor Income

15,000

Lincoln (WY) $377.4 Madison (ID) $422.7 Madison (MT) $216.3 Park (MT) $427.2 Park (WY) $825.7 Stillwater (MT) $216.0 Sublette (WY) $234.4 Sweet Grass (MT) $95.5 Teton (ID) $196.2 Teton (WY) $4,429.7

Aggregated GYA County Income Labor

10,000

$13,920.6

Nonlabor

5,000 0 2001

2005

2010

2015 2018

Labor Income by Sector Government

Services

% < 20%

% > 20% 11

15 12

10

9 21 30

25 15 14 12

Millions of dollars

37

16 22

25

14

Values in millions of dollars Bear Lake (ID) Bonneville (ID) Carbon (MT) Caribou (ID) Clark (ID) Franklin (ID) Fremont (ID) Fremont (WY) Gallatin (MT) Hot Springs (WY)

23

40 29

3,000

$37.2 $415.1 $34.6 $40.7 $6.9 $48.0 $57.8 $378.2 $610.7 $40.7

% < 50%

Lincoln (WY) Madison (ID) Madison (MT) Park (MT) Park (WY) Stillwater (MT) Sublette (WY) Sweet Grass (MT) Teton (ID) Teton (WY)

$137.6 $121.5 $28.8 $45.3 $267.9 $26.9 $80.6 $11.7 $30.1 $230.5

1,000

Bear Lake (ID) $36.0 Bonneville (ID) $2,525.3 Carbon (MT) $92.5 Caribou (ID) $68.5 Clark (ID) $8.3 Franklin (ID) $111.4 Fremont (ID) $77.2 Fremont (WY) $470.5 Gallatin (MT) $2,743.5 Hot Springs (WY) $92.0

36

10,000

Lincoln (WY) $170.1 Madison (ID) $533.5 Madison (MT) $150.7 Park (MT) $238.6 Park (WY) $457.5 Stillwater (MT) $71.5 Sublette (WY) $96.9 Sweet Grass (MT) $34.4 Teton (ID) $129.5 Teton (WY) $1,230.4

Aggregated GYA County Income

$9,338.3

5,000 0 2001

2005

2010

2015 2018

Farm and Agriculture

% > 10% n/d

0.5

n/d

1

8

3 5

n/d n/d 0.0 0.0

14

0.8 7

15

36

0.1 18

Percentage of Total County Labor Income from Farm and Agriculture, 2018

Total Personal Income from Mining, 2018 Values in millions of dollars Bear Lake (ID) Bonneville (ID) Carbon (MT) Caribou (ID) Clark (ID) Franklin (ID) Fremont (ID) Fremont (WY) Gallatin (MT) Hot Springs (WY)

Millions of dollars

% < 10%

0.6

28

2015 2018

Mining Percentage of Total County Labor Income from Mining, 2018

0.1

46

39

52 2010

56

72

26

2,000

2005

56

34 64 61 72

$2,650.4

25

50

33

Aggregated GYA County Income

0 2001

32 65

51

Values in millions of dollars

% > 50%

65

Total Personal Income from Services, 2018

$0.1 $0.8 $4.8 $38.0 $0.0 $1.2 n/d $69.0 $20.2 $22.6

% < 5%

Lincoln (WY) $83.8 Madison (ID) n/d Madison (MT) $23.9 Park (MT) $4.3 Park (WY) $43.3 Stillwater (MT) n/d Sublette (WY) $126.0 Sweet Grass (MT) n/d Teton (ID) $0.0 Teton (WY) $13.9

2

6

2010

0.5

0.2 2

3

0.9 3

11 2005

0.8

18 2 2 0.4

$451.8

4

0.9

8

Aggregated GYA County Income

800 600 400 200 0 2001

-2

1

Total Personal Income from Farm and Agriculture, 2018 Values in millions of dollars

% > 5%

Bear Lake (ID) Bonneville (ID) Carbon (MT) Caribou (ID) Clark (ID) Franklin (ID) Fremont (ID) Fremont (WY) Gallatin (MT) Hot Springs (WY)

Millions of dollars

27

Percentage of Total County Labor Income from Services, 2018

Total Personal Income from Government, 2018

Millions of dollars

Percentage of Total County Labor Income from Government, 2018

2

2015 2018

$3.0 $15.2 $1.3 $7.9 $2.1 $24.6 $40.3 $14.7 $46.5 $0.9

Lincoln (WY) Madison (ID) Madison (MT) Park (MT) Park (WY) Stillwater (MT) Sublette (WY) Sweet Grass (MT) Teton (ID) Teton (WY)

$10.3 $18.7 $17.9 $6.7 $8.1 $10.5 $3.3 -$2.4 $3.5 $3.8

Aggregated GYA County Income 800 600 400 $236.8 200 0 2001 2005 2010 2015 2018

*All values adjusted to 2018 U.S. dollars

Travel and tourism related sectors account for 21 percent of the region’s total employment. These sectors include food services, accommodation, retail trade, passenger transportation, arts, entertainment, and recreation. Tracking visitor numbers on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands is difficult and imprecise. The most reliable numbers are from the National Park Service and can serve as a proxy for overall visitation trends. In 2018 Yellowstone National Park saw 4.1 million visitors and Grand Teton National Park saw 3.5 million, increases of 45 and 35 percent, respectively, over 2000. The NPS estimates that Yellowstone visitors stimulated 7,089 local jobs, while Grand Teton visitors stimulated 8,624 jobs.

Percentage of Total GYA Private Jobs from Travel and Tourism Related Sectors, 2017

Passenger transportation Retail trade

20%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation Accomodations and food services

15%

10%

17

24 33

19

40

16

16

20

45 12

24

GYA

Data does not include government jobs

Total Jobs from Travel and Tourism Related Sectors, 2017 Number of jobs (~ estimated) Bear Lake (ID) 230 Bonneville (ID) 7,274 Carbon (MT) 871 Caribou (ID) 167 Clark (ID) 0 Franklin (ID) 379 Fremont (ID) 253 Fremont (WY) 2,169 Gallatin (MT) ~11,410 Hot Springs (WY) 310

21

6

US

11

24

0

9 18 15

5%

0%

Percentage of Total County Private Jobs from Travel and Tourism Related Sectors, 2017 % < 20% % > 20%

14

Jobs

Tourism

Lincoln (WY) 644 Madison (ID) 1,647 Madison (MT) ~302 Park (MT) 1,593 Park (WY) ~2,202 Stillwater (MT) ~265 Sublette (WY) 318 Sweet Grass (MT) ~209 Teton (ID) 425 Teton (WY) ~8,134

Aggregated GYA Jobs from Travel and Tourism 40,000 38,802 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2001 2005 2010 2015 2017

105

Labor and Employment Prevalent Industry, 2001

Total Employed

Prevalent Industry, 2018

Employees by Industry

Industry Accommodation and food services

>5,000

40,000

Construction Educational services Farm

20,000

1,001–2,000

Health care and social assistance

501–1,000

Manufacturing

150,000 acres burned Wind gusts up to 50 mph

125,000

>36% of all acreage burned between Sept. 6–10 (~614,000 acres)

0 July 1

Passive Fire Management

July 15

Aug 1

Aug 15

Sept 1

Sept 15

Sept 30

Active Fire Management

The 1988 fire season began normally. As of June 23, only three acres had burned within the park, although the lightningcaused Storm Creek fire was burning eighteen miles northeast of the park boundary. In the final ten days of June, however, record-breaking temperatures in the 90-degree range at low elevations and in the 80-degree range at high elevations created conditions for rapid fire growth. As of July 1, the Fan fire and three fires that would later merge to form the Snake River Complex had burned 1,100 acres within the park. By July 15, twenty-two fires had occurred within the park and eleven were actively burning a total of 8,600 acres. The active

fires included the Falls fire, which would later merge into the Snake River Complex, and the Clover and Mist fires in the northeast. Three of the twenty-two park fires were human caused and suppressed; eight fires self-extinguished. Outside the park, the Mink fire was burning on 9,100 acres of the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Until July 15, natural-ignition fires burned without human interference in accord with a management strategy called “wildland fire use for resource benefit.” Such fires, however, were not ignored. Fire management personnel used active observation rather than active suppression; maps of daily fire growth, hourly weather observations,

and fuel and forest data helped analysts continuously monitor and assess fire behavior. Persistent extreme fire conditions prompted park managers on July 15 to start suppressing new fires and attempting to control existing ones, with emphasis on protecting structures and human safety. Despite these efforts, the fires grew. Long-duration, high-intensity crown fire was intermixed with lower-intensity ground burning. On July 22, the human-caused North Fork fire started outside the western park boundary and rapidly spread into the park, bringing the total park area burned to 18,000 acres. By August 1, thirty-six fires (four human-caused) had ignited within the park. Many smaller fires merged with larger fires, forming large complexes that covered 122,000 acres. Continued below-average precipitation through July and August, abnormally high winds, and large active fire fronts contributed to extreme fire behavior. On one day alone, August 20, known locally as “Black Saturday,” high winds caused more than 150,000 acres to burn—more park area than had burned in total over the previous century. Two additional human-caused fires (Huck and Hell Roaring) originated outside Yellowstone and burned into the park. Conditions remained extreme in early September. Between September 6 and 10, 36 percent of all the acreage burned within the park that season went up in flames. On September 11, after burning 1.1 million acres, the conflagration halted as plummeting temperatures and one-quarter inch of snow accomplished what nearly two months of vigorous firefighting could not. Major Fires

Fan

Hell Roaring

North Fork

Storm Creek Clover Mist

Fire Intensity Snake River Complex Silver Gate

Mammoth

Huck The large fires resulted in a pattern of unburned vegetation thoroughly intermixed with patches of canopy burn and mixed burn (a combination of canopy and ground burn). By one estimate, approximately 10 percent of the area within the fire perimeters was actually unburned.

West Yellowstone

Old Faithful

Yellowstone Lake

Mink

Firefighting Resources Firefighters

>25,000

11,700 military personnel and 9,600 firefighters at one time

Fire retardant

1.4 million gallons

Dropped by fixed-wing aircraft

Water

>10 million gallons Carried by helicopters in canvas buckets or slings

Firebreaks

802 miles

665 miles manually dug 137 miles bulldozed

Canopy Burn: Forest burned; bare, black branches remain; soil charred

Transportation

>100 fire engines >100 aircraft

Included 77 helicopters and 150 newly created helispots

Mixed Burn: Forest burned, some trees remain green and alive; some soil charring

Logistical support

>$120 million

$33 million were direct payments for services including gasoline, meals, lodging, rental items, and wages for nongovernment help. Most expenditures made in greater Yellowstone communities.

Flight hours logged

18,000

Nonforested Burn: Grassland and sagebrush areas burned; some soil charring Unburned: No burns detected at this mapping resolution

195

Wildfire Risk Townsend

Wildfire Likelihood Butte

Three Forks Billings

Bozeman Livingston

MONTANA Ennis Dillon

Big Sky

Salmon

Red Lodge Gardiner

Cooke City

Mammoth

Lovell

YELLOWSTONE N AT I O N A L PA R K West Yellowstone

Powell Cody Greybull

Spencer

IDAHO Ashton Mackay

Worland

G RA N D TETON N ATION A L PA RK

Rexburg Arco

Driggs Dubois Idaho Falls

Carey

WYOMING

Thermopolis

Jackson

Blackfoot

Richfield

Riverton Pocatello American Falls

0

Pinedale Soda Springs

Burley

Lander

Afton

0

20 mi. 20 km

Annual Wildfire Probablity 0

0.05%

1%

13%

Montpelier

Fire is a natural process affecting the 20 counties that make up the Greater Yellowstone Area. This vast region and its complex ecosystem coevolved with wildfire. It is also home to an increasing number of people— approximately 420,000 in 2018. The goal of successful coexistence of people and fire requires understanding the landscape, fire ecology, and development conditions that put homes at risk. This knowledge can help people make communities more wildfire resilient, reducing loss of life and property damage when fires do occur. A first step toward this goal is mapping the potential for wildfires at different locations. Researchers use computer simulations combining spatial data on vegetation, topography, and weather to run thousands of different ignition scenarios. The results are used to create maps showing the likelihood of fire occurrence. This likelihood can be expressed as a percentage. A one percent annual probability means that, on average, the chance of wildfire occurring at that location in any given year is one in a hundred. A 0.1 percent annual likelihood indicates that, on average, the chance of wildfire occurring at that location in any given year is one in a thousand, and so on. Some features in the Yellowstone region, such as lakes, high elevation crags, or basalt plains along the Snake River, have a

196

zero or near zero percent probability of fire. Other areas, such as the forested and lightning-prone portions of Yellowstone National Park, have high likelihoods of wildfire. Wildfire likelihood alone, however, does not capture all the components of risk. A fuller understanding also factors in data about fire intensity and potential consequences. Risk can be assessed for different features—human assets like homes and infrastructure as well as natural assets like timber resources and wildlife habitat. The maps to the right focus on potential risk to homes. The larger map shows hypothetical risk to homes as if one existed at every location on the landscape. The smaller maps focus on areas where actual homes exist near Jackson, Wyoming. (These risk maps do not incorporate fire resiliency measures implemented for specific homes or communities.) Fire risk maps enable residents and managers to assess risk in places where homes are present and sites where new homes might be built. For example, existing or potential future homes built in timbered areas, such as Big Sky, Montana, are more at risk from wildfire, while homes in the core areas of cities such as Bozeman, Montana, have a lower degree of risk because they are farther from the most fire-prone portions of the landscape. The highest number of homes exposed to wildfire are in the transi-

tion between wildlands and developed areas known as the wildland-urban interface, where risk varies based on the type and density of vegetation. Examining wildfire risk through multiple lenses provides homeowners and communities insights into the most effective ways to live safely in a fire-prone landscape. The three maps of the Jackson area indicate locations where fire risk is greatest, where houses could be exposed to danger directly by flames or indirectly by flying embers, and where consequences of fire to homes as a function of fire intensity would be the greatest. Each of these maps provides different information and might be put to different uses. Maps of risk to homes and exposure could help guide where to prioritize landscape-scale treatments to reduce burnable vegetation or fuels. The housing unit impact map, which incorporates the density of homes, could be used by insurance companies to assess potential financial risk, or it could help focus fire prevention measures if reducing overall property damage is a primary goal. These maps support informed conversations about actions, choices, and tradeoffs related to creating wildfire-resilient communities.

Risk to Homes (existing and hypothetical homes at all locations)

Wildfire Risk near Jackson, Wyoming Risk to Homes Lowest risk

Butte Three Forks

Highest risk

Moderate risk

MONTANA

GRAND TETON N AT I O N A L PA R K

Billings

Bozeman

Teton Village

Jedediah Smith Wilderness

National Elk Refuge

Big Sky

Ennis

Dillon

Moose

Red Lodge Gardiner

Wilson Jackson

Cooke City

Mammoth

Gros Ventre Wilderness

Lovell BRIDGER-

West Yellowstone

TETON

Powell

NATIONAL

Cody Spencer

FOREST 0

YELLOWSTONE N AT I O N A L PA R K

IDAHO

5 km Lowest

Highest

Exposure Type

WYOMING

G RA N D TETON N ATION A L PA RK

Rexburg

5 mi.

0

Moderate

GRAND TETON N AT I O N A L PA R K

Driggs

Moose

Dubois Jackson

Idaho Falls

National Elk Refuge

Teton Village

Jedediah Smith Wilderness

Blackfoot Riverton

Wilson

Pinedale

Pocatello

Lander

Afton

Soda Springs

Jackson

Gros Ventre Wilderness

BRIDGERTETON NATIONAL

Montpelier

FOREST

Malad City 0 0

75

Risk to Homes in GYA

2018 Population ≤ 50

Lower

20,000

Spencer, ID

Higher

70 40,000 Taylor, WY

65 Arapahoe, WY

65,000

Belfry, MT

Wildfire consequence

60

Lucerne, WY Fort Washakie, WY

Ralston, WY

Marbleton, WY

55

45

40

Churchill, MT

Dubois, WY Emigrant, MT

Thermopolis, WY Powell, WY

Grace, ID

Alder, MT

Bozeman, MT

Manhattan, MT Shoshoni, WY

West Yellowstone, MT

Franklin, ID

Ashton, ID

30

Big Sky, MT Gardiner, MT Jackson, WY Red Lodge, MT

Belgrade, MT

Parker, ID Teton, ID

35

Ethete, WY Driggs, ID

Meeteetse, WY Riverton, WY

Cody, WY

50

Daniel, WY

Ucon, ID

20 mi. 20 km

Assessing the potential for wildfires to cause damage at the community level is a function of many factors. Wildfire likelihood indicates the relative potential for wildfire occurrence. Wildfire consequence indicates how susceptible communities are to damage based on expected fire intensities. The likelihood of wildfire may be similar at two locations, but the consequence may be far more severe at one site if vegetation and topography contribute to a higher fire intensity in that area. Population indicates the scale of human assets at risk in a given location. Finally, wildfire risk to homes (graph and map above) provides a sense of how wildfire likelihood and intensity combine to place communities at risk.

Little or no exposure

Moderate indirect exposure

Directly exposed

Housing Unit Impact GRAND TETON N AT I O N A L PA R K

Moose

National Elk Refuge

Teton Village

Jedediah Smith Wilderness

Wilson

Jackson

Gros Ventre Wilderness

BRIDGERTETON NATIONAL FOREST

Idaho Falls, ID

Newdale, ID 25

Lower

Wildfire likelihood

Higher

Lowest

Highest

197

60620_p196-197_WildfireRisk.indd 197

2021-03-08 7:04 AM

Yellowstone’s Importance to Wildlife Conservation People in the Yellowstone area have been leaders in the conservation of wildlife for more than a century, making substantial contributions to species restoration, wilderness management, visitor enjoyment, and science. Prior to European American settlement, native people lived as part of the natural community with sustainable fishing, hunting, and gathering practices. After the mid-1800s, settlers decimated many large animal populations through market hunting, habitat destruction, and diseases spread from livestock. In response, government agencies, conservation groups, and sporting organizations began to reverse this trend by regulating harvests, protecting habitat, and relocating animals to restore declining populations. Yellowstone National Park was integral to these early efforts to protect and restore bison, elk, pronghorn, and trumpeter swan populations. More recent work has focused on restoring Arctic grayling, bald eagles, cutthroat trout, golden eagles, grizzly bears, peregrine falcons, and wolves. Today, the Yellowstone area supports intact native wildlife communities that inhabit a vast, heterogeneous landscape where they live with natural selection factors such as competition, disease, predation, and a severe environment, as well as the pressures created through interactions with humans. One of America’s finest principles is that wildlife populations are managed as public resources for enjoyment and use by all people, not just a privileged few. Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the surrounding national forests epitomize this ideal; the federal government works with tribal and state agencies, local governments, private groups, and citizens to preserve and sustain wildlife for all people in perpetuity. These efforts protect aquatic, microbial, and terrestrial life in one of the largest temperate ecosystems in the world. This region offers a singular kind of wildness with sustainable populations of large predators like black and grizzly bears, cougars, and wolves; and ungulates such as bighorn sheep, bison, deer, elk, moose, and pronghorn. Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks encompass about 2.5 million acres, of which 86 percent is managed as wilderness where human disturbance is minimized. Five national forests surround the parks and total more than 15 million acres, nearly half of which is wilderness where most development and motorized access is restricted. As a result, the majority of resident animals live in relatively undisturbed conditions. Park historian Paul Schullery noted that one of the greatest values of Yellowstone is inspiration, providing the “opportunity for us to be awed and learn from nature making its own decisions.” Wildlife consists of untamed, free-roaming animals that live in an environment not dominated by humans and whose behaviors, movements, survival, and reproductive success are predominantly affected by their own daily decisions and natural selection. The parks and national forests promote an environment where the behaviors of wildlife generally are unrestrained, and where visitors can enjoy and be impressed by them. At a time when wilderness is less accessible to our increasingly urban society, we should not underestimate the value of the Yellowstone area and the ease of access to its iconic wildlife for even the most urbanized citizens of the world. Many visitors fondly remember these experiences for the rest of their lives and with their votes, donations, and other contributions enhance our nation’s commitment to conservation. Scientific discovery is another of Yellowstone’s enduring contributions to wildlife conservation. A long tradition of monitoring and research has yielded important information leading to improved management decision-making regarding the conservation and restoration of wildlife. In the early years of the park, research focused on developing best management practices for wild, wide-ranging animals and the restoration of imperiled species such as bison and grizzly bears. More recently, biologists have ventured into the restoration of ecosystems by suppressing nonnative species, restoring top-down processes such as predation by apex carnivores like wolves, and restoring bottomup processes like herbivory by large aggregations of bison and other ungulates, which in turn modifies the grasslands they depend on.

This research is considered so significant that Yellowstone National Park established the Center for Resources in 1993 to advance knowledge of the ecosystem, support sound natural resource management, and communicate knowledge and discoveries to the public. The center is staffed by scientists who collaborate with other agencies, universities, and nongovernmental organizations to answer important questions and make informed recommendations about management. This approach has led to an incredible proliferation of scientific investigations and education about wildlife, habitats, and ecosystem processes. Over time this research has helped biologists address many complex conservation and restoration issues with innovative approaches ranging from nonintervention to active transformation that are emulated around the world. A few examples include catch-and-release fishing, rewilding food-conditioned bears, protecting and restoring key migration corridors, restoring native fish and large predators such as wolves, allowing fire to persist as a natural disturbance process, and rehoming wild bison to tribal lands. Work conducted in the Yellowstone region has also contributed to new models for collaborative wildlife management. Managing wildlife in the 20-million-acre Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem takes commitment and collaboration across many boundaries and jurisdictions, as well as close working relationships among agencies, private landowners, and nongovernmental organizations. Successful conservation in the Yellowstone area stems from the longstanding efforts of concerned landowners and involved citizens. These people and like-minded groups value sustainable populations of wildlife, preservation of habitats, and the maintenance and restoration of key ecological processes such as migration.

Yellowstone National Park has been a leader in developing many wildlife management practices, including catch-and-release fishing, rewilding food-conditioned bears, protecting and restoring key migration corridors, restoring native fish and large predators such as wolves, allowing fire to persist as a natural disturbance process, and rehoming wild bison to tribal lands. The wildlife section of this atlas highlights the continuing role of Yellowstone biologists and their collaborators in advancing wildlife conservation and the restoration of ecological processes. Current projects are evaluating how multiple predators influence the reproduction, survival, and movements of ungulates as these animals try to reduce their risk of predation. Biologists also are examining changes in food webs, vegetation communities, and biodiversity over time with a recovered large-predator community. Another inquiry is investigating how repeated grazing by large groups of bison engineer the landscape to support continued growth of new grass through the summer. In other work, researchers are attempting to restore viable populations of Arctic grayling, common loons, cutthroat trout, and golden eagles, while monitoring for nonnative diseases, invasive aquatic species, and the effects of a warming climate on wildlife. In addition, they are attempting to reduce human disturbances and wildlife deaths by preventing animals from obtaining human foods and maintaining safe separation distances—efforts made more challenging with recent increases in park visitation. These endeavors will continue to perpetuate the wildlife of Yellowstone, one of the world’s truly great treasures. P. J. White Chief of Wildlife and Aquatic Resources Yellowstone National Park

201

Migratory Landscape The proximity of mountains and plains, the arrival of snow in the high country, the wave of vegetation that follows snowmelt each spring; these are the ecological realities that ungulates such as bison, elk, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and mule deer depend on to migrate and prosper in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. (While most ungulates in this area migrate, some stay on winter ranges year round.) Ungulates were making their seasonal migrations before the area was a hunting ground of the region’s many Indian tribes, when it was first mapped by western

explorers, at the founding of the national park, and ever since. These remarkable migrations were not a consideration in establishing Yellowstone as the world’s first national park. Members of early U.S. government expeditions had their imaginations captured by the area’s geysers and thermal features. When Ulysses S. Grant signed the park into existence in 1872, it was primarily to preserve these wonders. It is almost an accident of history that the protected lands surrounding Yellowstone now support so many ungulate migrations. Vast expanses of land were designated as

forest reserves in the late 1800s and early 1900s, later to become national forests. The 1964 Wilderness Act conserved some of the high-country summer habitat used by migrating animals. Winter ranges have never been fully protected but instead exist on a mix of public and private lands. Ironically, the conservation promise of Yellowstone fell short of protecting the entirety of the migrations. Still, many migrations remain intact today, underpinned by large private ranches and tribal lands that provide functional migratory habitat and winter range.

May 24, 2016

July 3, 2016

Spring Migration and Green Up

Low

April 6, 2016 YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK

Departs May 5

Elk winter range

Elk winter range

Plant biomass

High

Arrives June 2

Elk summer range

7,100 ft.

GRAND TETON NP

Arrives May 9

Mule deer summer range

Pronghorn summer range

Pronghorn summer range

Jackson

Arrives June 10

Departs April 7 Pinedale

Lander

Pronghorn winter range

Pronghorn winter range

7,300 ft.

Stopover location

Mule deer winter range 7,400 ft.

Migratory ungulates “stopover” to feed on high-quality forage to replenish the fat they lost over winter

Departs May 14

Mule deer winter range

Spring Migration Duration

Pronghorn 32 days Mule deer 27 days Elk 28 days

Fall Migration and Snowpack September 29, 2016

October 21, 2016

Elk summer range

December 17, 2016 YELLOWSTONE

Elk summer range

8,750 ft.

NATIONAL PARK

Elk

Departs Oct. 19

Arrives winter Nov. 18 range GRAND TETON NP Departs

Oct. 26

Mule deer summer range

Pronghorn summer range

9,100 ft.

6,600 ft.

Pronghorn summer range

Mule deer summer range Departs Oct. 5

Pronghorn summer range Arrives Oct. 30

Pronghorn winter range MT ID 0 0

202

WY 20 mi.

20 km

Fall Migration Duration

Pronghorn 4 days Mule deer 72 days Elk 30 days

Arrives Dec. 16

Mule deer winter range

Migration routes Mule deer Pronghorn Elk

AB

Moose Bighorn sheep

SA

RO

KA

BE

AR

RA

TO

OT

H

M

NG

TN

Custer Gallatin N.F.

S

E

MADISON RANG E

Bison

Custer Gallatin National Forest

Custer Gallatin National Forest

MONTAN A WYOMIN G

BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest Shoshone National Forest

CEN

TENN

NS IAL MT

Caribou-Targhee N.F.

Yellowstone National Park

Yellowstone Lake

CaribouTarghee N.F.

KA

Grand Teton N.P.

E

TETON

RO

Jackson Lake

NG

PLAIN

SA

RIVER

RA

RANGE

AB

SNAKE

Shoshone National Forest

Wind

CA RI

W

BO

U

IN

River

RA

D

Indian

E

VE

NG

Reservation

RI

BridgerTeton National Forest

R RA NG

E

60620_p202-203_MigratoryLandscape.indd 203

ING RANGE

20 km

CaribouTarghee National Forest

W YO M

0

20 mi.

GE RIVER RAN

0

UintaWasatchCache N.F.

S A LT

GREEN RIVER Bear Lake

BASIN

W Y O MI N G

In the 1960s, noted wildlife researchers Frank and John Craighead worked with park biologists to capture and collar thousands of elk across winter ranges inside Yellowstone. They fit the animals with colored neckbands to trace where they ended up later that summer. The first migration maps the researchers drew were basic, essentially connecting dots between winter and summer ranges. More detailed maps have been made possible with the introduction of radio collars and, since about 2000, GPS technology. Often working in close collaboration, state wildlife management agencies, the National Park Service, and researchers from other federal entities have made the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) one of the world’s most intensively studied migratory landscapes. Research has revealed that while the migrations may begin on summer range within Yellowstone or Grand Teton National Park, they often extend 50 to 100 miles beyond even the national forest boundaries. These movements challenge the current conceptualization of the GYE as being comprised only of the federal lands. Considered in terms of its migratory ungulates, the GYE extends deep into private, multiple-use lands in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Although tracking of IDAHO ungulates in the GYE has been extensive, the resulting UTAH maps still represent only a fraction of the migratory (and resident) herds in the region and the critical habitats that sustain them.

Fossil Butte N.M. RED D E S E RT

2021-02-25 3:53 AM

Bison Bison Range, 1500–1880

Bison once dominated North America. Between 30 and 60 million animals roamed the continent from Florida and northern Mexico to Maine and Canada’s Northwest Territories. Bison were a keystone species; they engineered ecosystems as they moved and grazed in immense groups creating habitats for diverse assemblages of plants and animals. Bison also sustained the economies and cultures of Plains Indians. European colonizers decimated the vast herds during the western settlement of North America beginning in the mid-nineteenth century. The continental bison population plummeted to a mere 200–400 by the turn of the twentieth century. A remnant of wild bison lived within Yellowstone National Park when it was created in 1872. Poachers reduced this population to about two dozen animals by the late 1890s, which led the park to begin one of the nation’s first efforts to restore an endangered species. Yellowstone acquired 21 bison from the privately owned Goodnight and Walking Coyote herds and brought them to Mammoth Hot Springs in 1902. The park established a “Buffalo Ranch” in the Lamar Valley with fenced corrals, pastures, and hay fields—home to the reintroduced bison beginning in 1907. The reintroduced herd grew rapidly, and managers integrated them with native animals. Some calves were captured from the native herd and assimilated into the breeding program at the Buffalo Ranch. During summer, the reintroduced bison were driven from the Buffalo Ranch to the high elevation plateaus separating the Lamar and Pelican Valleys where they intermixed with

1500

1870

1880

1

3 4

Omaha

5

Oakland 2

Bison Conservation Herds 1. McKay Alloway herd 2. Goodnight herd 3. Walking Coyote herd 4. Frederick Dupree herd 5. Buffalo Jones herd

Transcontinental railroad

Key Events in Bison Restoration 1988–89: First large removal of bison as they exit the park’s northern boundary (569 bison removed) Mammoth

1902: 21 bison from Goodnight and Walking Coyote herds brought to Mammoth

Buffalo Ranch

La

m

st

Va

on e

R.

ar ar

le

lley

Pelican Va l l e y

eho

Va

Fir

Hayden Va l l e y

y

1936: 36 bison from Buffalo Ranch released in Hayden Valley

Lam

ow

1936: 640 Bison in or around Buffalo Ranch

lle

ll Ye

Bison Conservation Herds, 2003

1907: Bison brought to Buffalo Ranch from Mammoth

Riv

er

1902: 23 bison wintering in Pelican Valley 1936: 136 bison wintering in Pelican Valley

1936: 35 bison from Buffalo Ranch released in Firehole Valley

Yellowstone Herd

Yellowstone

er

Ri ve

r

Lake

B

Stocked with Yellowstone bison Not stocked with Yellowstone bison

hl ec

Sn ak

Not shown: 12 bison conservation herds in Canada and Alaska that are unrelated to Yellowstone.

e

Ri

ve r

Bison Population in Yellowstone National Park, 1901–2019

Ranching

204

Bison translocated to Firehole and Hayden Valleys

Reoccupation of historical range

Bison winter range expands, crosses park boundaries

Brucellosis management

Ecological process management *No data collected for years with 0 values

2019

2010

2000

1990

1980

Bison population at low of 366

1970

Bison restoration begins

1930

1901

0

Brucellosis first detected at Buffalo Ranch (Lamar Valley)

1920

1,000

1910

2,000

Yellowstone contains only U.S. bison to survive in the wild

1960

4,000 3,000

Park begins comprehensive bison management planning with Montana

Management strategy shifts toward reducing bison population to improve range conditions and lessen risk of brucellosis

1950

5,000

Severe winters and high population force large migrations across northern park boundary

A combination of management reductions and 3 severe winters results in high mortality

Bison counted Bison removed

1940

6,000

Interagency Bison Management Plan finalized

Expansion of Bison Range, 1970–2006 1970–1979

1982–1986 Breeding range (July–Aug) Fall-winter range (Sept–May) Bison movement from breeding areas to winter range

1987–1991

1992–1995

2000–2006

Seasonal Distribution of Yellowstone Bison General patterns of movement during fall and winter, 2015–2018 MANAGEMENT

MT WY

ZONE

Mammoth

La

m ar Va lle

Canyon Village

y

Norris Madison Junction

Hayden Va l l e y

West Yellowstone

Pelican Va l l e y

T

Fishing Bridge Ye l l o w s to n e Lake

Old Faithful

WY

West Thumb

ID

ID

le

ley

eho

Va l

Fir

M

the native herd. During winter, the native herd tended to return to the Pelican Valley; meanwhile, managers gathered the reintroduced animals and brought them back to the Buffalo Ranch. Over time, these groups fused to form the northern herd. Some of the animals from the reintroduced herd were moved to the Hayden and Firehole Valleys in 1936, creating the central herd. The bison from both release sites quickly learned to migrate to the high elevation portions of the Hayden Valley during the summer to breed. The central herd migrated to the Firehole Valley during winter, although some animals likely stayed in the Hayden Valley all year. Yellowstone used roundups to control numbers within the park until 1968 when managers decided to let nature determine the size of the bison population. Numbers increased rapidly from about 500 animals to about 3,000 by the late 1980s. Bison relearned lost migrations as the population increased in size. Northern herd animals migrated incrementally farther west along the Yellowstone River, reaching the northern park boundary near Mammoth Hot Springs by the late 1980s. Northern herd animals wintering in the Pelican Valley began moving west and integrating with the central herd. Central herd animals migrated farther over the years, reaching the park boundary near West Yellowstone by the late 1980s and near Mammoth by the late 1990s. Bison migrating out of the park created one of the most complicated wildlife management controversies of our time. People raised concerns about disease transmission to livestock, damage to property, and competition with cattle for grass. The conflict led to a court-negotiated settlement between the federal government and state of Montana (the Interagency Bison Management Plan) that set a target population size and designated areas outside the park where bison could roam. Nearly all migrating bison were initially driven back into the park or rounded up and sent to slaughter; over time, aggressive management brought more tolerance for bison. Today, the bison population fluctuates around 5,000 animals. They graze and move across more than one million acres of the park and now can roam over more than 75,000 acres beyond park boundaries. Bison are one of the main reasons people visit Yellowstone. The herds restore once lost ecosystem function by grazing and moving in large numbers. Native American tribes now harvest hundreds of migrating bison outside the park each winter. Yellowstone has begun a transfer program to return bison to tribes as an alternative to sending them to slaughter. Yellowstone successfully restored the only large, migratory herd to North America and, by doing so, continues to lead efforts to conserve free-roaming bison in the modern world.

0 0

Breeding range (July–Aug) Fall-winter range (Sept–May)

10 mi. 10 km

Bison movement routes Bison management zones

205

Bison Movement Migration Strategies

Ungulates are hoofed grazing mammals known for migrating long distances. Many ungulates, such as mule deer, elk, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep make finely choreographed movements between two distinct and often distant ranges. In autumn, Yellowstone ungulates migrate from their high-elevation summer ranges to their relatively low-elevation winter ranges to avoid the deep snow that accumulates during winter. In spring, they migrate back to their summer ranges following the green wave (the vernal progression of vegetation to higher elevations as snows recede). Bison are not strictly limited by the forces of nature that dictate other ungulate migrations such as snow depth and vegetation green up. Bison forge their own paths. Unlike smaller ungulates, bison do not preemptively migrate in autumn to avoid the deep snow of winter. Being the largest land mammal in North America (bulls may weigh up to 2,000 pounds), bison use their enormous size to plow trails through deep snow. They are also equipped with a natural snow shovel, a massive head with two large horns, well suited for digging beneath snow to uncover forage. Therefore, bison are able to remain at higher elevations where snow accumulates and play the winter; that is, they balance the energy required for traveling through snow to lower elevations with the energy required for digging beneath snow to acquire food.

North Migration Yellowstone bison range MT WY

Late winter WINTER RANGE

Lamar Valley

Early winter

SUMMER RANGE

M T ID Yellowstone Lake

YEL L OW STON E N ATION A L

0

PA R K

20 mi.

0

20 km

Central West Migration

Central North Migration

Yellowstone bison range

Yellowstone bison range Yellowstone River Valley WINTER

MT WY

MT WY

RANGE

SUMMER RANGE

Late winter

Hayden Valley

ID

ID

Firehole River Valley

T

T

Early winter

Firehole River Valley

M

M

WINTER RANGE

SUMMER RANGE

Stopovers

Hayden Valley

Yellowstone Lake

Yellowstone Lake

Culling Bison in Yellowstone cross park boundaries in mild versus severe winters. The total bison population currently averages near 5,000 animals. Around 1,000 animals migrate to winter ranges near the northern park boundary. This number can nearly double in deep snowpack years. Near the western park boundary, fewer bison migrate to wintering areas and snow has less of an effect on movements.

Winter Severity and Bison Population

Winters on adjacent graph

5,000 20 in.

3,000 10 in.

1,000

20 18

0 20 1

0 20 0

0

Bison culled 19 9

19 8

1

Bison

Bison population

augment or start new herds. Managers try to balance hunting, roundups, and allowing some bison to migrate out of the park. Keeping this balance has helped increase tolerance for Yellowstone bison on critical winter ranges outside the park while reducing conflicts.

Winter Severity and Migration Out of the Park North 1,212

Bison count areas

West Culled 600 400 200 Mild winter 2009–2010

0 Severe winter 2010–2011

Bison

206

Bison are hunted outside the park predominantly by Native American tribes exercising treaty rights with the federal government. Managers round up other bison to limit numbers outside the park and stabilize the population. Some of these animals are slaughtered with the meat distributed to Native American communities. Others are transferred to tribal areas to

Snow water equivalent depth (peak seasonal value at Canyon)

Outside Yellowstone National Park there is far less tolerance for bison compared to other migrants such as elk, mule deer, and pronghorn. Conflicts arise over potential disease transmission from bison to livestock, damage to property, and competition for grass with cattle. To reduce these conflicts, eight federal, tribal, and state agencies collaborate on the Interagency Bison Management Plan which sets range and numerical limits for bison outside the park. Some bison migrating out of the park are culled to keep the population from growing. Bison migration out of the park is affected by population size and snowpack. Relatively few bison leave the park when the population is less than 3,000; as the population increases, more bison migrate out of the park. Similarly, fewer bison

Bison 365

During peak forage

Low

Not during peak forage

Spring

Fall and Winter

March

September

Plant biomass

High

3/14

Cooke City

3/12

Gardiner 3/9 Mammoth

Cooke City

Gardiner

3/15

Mammoth 9/29

3/31 Tower

Junction

Tower Junction

La m ar er Riv

A snowstorm may cause bison to begin their annual migrations toward winter ranges. This is typically not a direct movement; instead, the animals may linger in between their summer and winter ranges for weeks or months as the snow deepens. Bison will remain near their summer ranges all year if the snow remains shallow. Another difference with other ungulates is the way bison behave in the spring. Newly emerging plants provide highly nutritious foods to ungulates in Yellowstone; nearly all these mammals align their spring migration with the onset of the green wave, following it during their entire migration. Bison, however, follow the wave at first, but then, letting it pass them by, they lag behind. What allows bison this freedom is that they are aggregate grazers: they congregate in groups of hundreds or even thousands of animals, moving and feeding together. Their intense grazing creates lawns of dense, short, nutritious vegetation—essentially turning back the clock of the green up and making the spring last longer. In addition, bison make soil nutrients and water more available to plants, which lets the vegetation grow for more of the summer. Most other ungulates tend to use distinct, often relatively small, summer and winter ranges. When it comes time to migrate, these animals usually move along narrow migration corridors in one direction from winter to summer ranges and vice versa. Bison travel in a less clearly delineated manner; they cover around one thousand miles each year, even though the furthest extents of their seasonal ranges are generally less than 60 miles apart. Bison have vast summer and winter ranges. Grazing lawns are spread across these areas, and bison move to repeatedly graze these lawns throughout the year. For example, a bison herd may graze a lawn in a valley bottom and then travel up a river corridor or over a mountain pass to graze another lawn. After grazing the new lawn, they will return to a grazing lawn on the valley floor. These movements result in bison migrations being longer (in both distance and duration) and less direct than the migrations of other ungulates. Nowhere else on Earth do bison roam in numbers comparable to those found in Yellowstone. The park setting provides a unique opportunity to study the behavior of wild, free-roaming bison. Yellowstone bison are the last representation of how millions of their ancestors once traversed and shaped the grasslands of North America.

In early 2013, Bison 365 begins migrating with the green wave from the low elevation areas north of the park to Mammoth. She arrives at the Blacktail Deer Plateau just in front of the wave by the middle of the month.

9/13

Grazing lawns stop growing by late summer and she moves to her high elevation areas of the Mirror Plateau and Pelican Valley long after the green wave has passed. With the first snow, Bison 365 returns to lower elevation areas of the Lamar Valley.

April

9/7

October

4/11

4/24 10/17

4/30 4/1

10/12

10/6

10/23

10/31 10/2

The green wave intensifies and moves east across northern Yellowstone. She moves back and forth between the northern park boundary, Mammoth, and the Blacktail Deer Plateau seeking out areas that are near peak green up.

Prior to snow accumulating, she moves to stopovers across northern Yellowstone and returns to the Lamar Valley.

May

November

11/17 5/24

5/31

5/2

11/26

Bison 365 remains in the Lamar Valley and nearby areas as snow begins to accumulate.

Bison 365 continues to move in sync with the wave of spring to the Lamar Valley.

June

December

6/20

12/30 6/8 12/5 6/13 6/26

She lets the green wave pass her by as it moves from the Lamar Valley to higher elevations. As she falls behind the wave, she returns to grazing lawns spread across the Lamar Valley and nearby areas.

She begins migrating to stopovers between the Lamar Valley and Mammoth as snow grows deeper.

0 0

Seasonal Activity Late winter March

Return for calving April

May

June

Breeding July

Dispersal Aug

Sept

10 mi. 10 km

Winter Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

207

Elk

tin

lla

Ga

Ra

Ma

NORTHERN HERD

Be ar

ok

a

Ra

ar

to

ng

ot

h

M

ou

e

n

in

MONTANA WYOMING

s

G

Current range Historical range

PARADISE VALLEY Ab HERD s

ta

BLACKTAIL HERD

MADISON VALLEY HERD

di so ng n e

Ra

ng

e

Greater Yellowstone Elk Herds Spring Migration

lly ve ra nge Ra

Yellowstone National Park provides summer range for 15,000 to 25,000 elk from at least six herds, most of which winter at lower elevations outside the park. These world-renowned herds attract many visitors for wildlife viewing, photography, sport hunting adjacent to the park, and other activities that add revenue to the local economy. Yellowstone was the main source of elk for species restoration efforts in the United States during the early twentieth century. Elk play a key role in the Yellowstone ecosystem. They account for approximately 85 percent of kills made by wolves during winter and serve as an important food source for black bears, grizzly bears, and cougars. At least 12 species of scavengers, including bald eagles and coyotes, also rely on elk for food. Competition with elk for resources may influence the diet, habitat selection, and population characteristics of other hoofed mammals (ungulates) such as bighorn sheep, bison, moose, mule deer, and pronghorn. In addition, elk browsing and excretions can have significant effects on vegetative production, soil fertility, and plant diversity. Changes in elk numbers and distribution affect surrounding plants and animals. The largest elk herd in Yellowstone winters on the grasslands and shrub steppes of the northern range, which extends along the northern boundary of the park and into Montana. Northern Yellowstone elk inspired one of this country’s most productive, if sometimes bitter, debates on wildland ecosystem management. For more than 50 years, this dialogue focused on whether there were too many elk—and too much damage associated with their grazing and browsing. Between 1930 and 1968, park staff members

CLARKS FORK HERD

Centennial Mtns

Yellowstone Lake

CODY HERD

w

O

IDAHO

SAND CREEK HERD

WYOMING

YELLOWSTONE N.P.

M

GRAND TETON

l

tn

Cr

s

ee

k

N.P.

WIGGINS FORK HERD

G

s

ntre

Ri ve

r

ge Ran ing e ang er R

Ra

ng

e

removed some 26,000 Yellowstone elk due to concerns about overgrazing, while hunters outside the park removed another 45,000 animals. As a result, elk counts decreased from approximately 12,000 to fewer than 4,000. After the culling program ceased in 1969, and with a much-reduced harvest outside the park (fewer than 210 elk per year), the population grew rapidly and rose to about 12,000 by the mid-1970s and 19,000 in 1994. The recovery of grizzly bears, cougars, and wolves shifted the debate from concerns about too many elk to speculation about a future with too few elk due to predation and hunter harvest. The winter count of northern Yellowstone elk had decreased to

Ve

d

ro

in

om

25 mi. 25 km

iv t R

0

Wy

0

Sal

ou ib ge n

C R aa r

W

JACKSON HERD

near 17,000 when wolves were first reintroduced in 1995. The count decreased by 1998 following a substantial winter kill and harvest of more than 3,300 elk outside the park. Counts varied from 11,500 to 14,500 elk between 1999 and 2001 but decreased to fewer than 7,000 by 2007. The primary factors contributing to this trend were wolf, cougar, and bear predation and, outside the park, hunting by humans. The population dynamics of northern Yellowstone elk appear linked to snowpack. Snow levels affect the timing of when migrating elk cross the park boundary and are exposed to human harvest and determine if elk abandon traditional winter ranges and relocate to lower-elevation areas outside the

Northern Yellowstone Elk Counts and Removals, 1922–2018 Elk counted

20,000

Elk removed

No data

2010

2018

16,000 12,000 8,000 4,000 No data

0

No data

No data

2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 1922

1930

1940

1950

Removals from management culling, live translocation, and hunting

208

1960

1970

1980

Removals within YNP cease; hunting outside YNP continues

1990

2000

Wolves reintroduced

park. Elk migration outside the park was proportional to snowpack between 1989 and 2006, and harvests reflected these fluctuations. Snowpack also influences elk vulnerability to wolves, with kill rates rising during severe snow conditions. Most of this predation occurs on the portion of the northern range inside the park, where wolf densities are higher than outside the boundary. Of the elk that migrated outside the park between 1995 and 2002, the number killed by hunters exceeded estimates of the number killed by wolves. But this ratio reversed in 12 of the following 14 years, mostly due to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks reducing the number of hunting permits for antlerless elk—cows and calves (animals less than one year old)—by more than 99 percent during that period. This change essentially eliminated harvest of antlerless animals as a factor decreasing elk numbers. Both adult cow survival and calf recruitment are important drivers of population trends, and mortality sources are often age specific. For example, in northern Yellowstone adult cow elk have both high annual survival and pregnancy rates throughout their prime years (ages 2–14), which influences population growth. Alternatively, carnivore predation on newborn calves, and hunter harvest on antlerless elk that usually targets prime-age cows, can both reduce calf recruitment. Ultimately, the future demographic trends of Yellowstone elk will be influenced by a combination of large carnivores, humans, emerging diseases, and changing climate.

Northern Herd Elk Predations

Elk Killed by Wolves, 2000–2019

Elk 1502 and Elk 1601 Predation by large carnivores accounts for a significant part of Yellowstone elk mortality, with the small, the old, the weak, and those in treacherous surroundings at elevated risk. Adult cow elk select winter and summer ranges that allow them to balance predation risk with access to forage and habitat that promotes survival for themselves and their calves. Sometimes, individuals’ choices lead to long life (e.g. elk 1502 killed at age 18). Other times, choices result in earlier deaths than predicted. Elk 1601 was killed by wolves at age seven, likely because she delayed fall migration, making her vulnerable in the deep January snows of interior Yellowstone.

Elk 1601

Collared adult female elk predations, 2000–2019 Killed by wolf Killed by cougar Killed by bear

7-year-old female Winter range

Late Nov. 2017– Mid-May 2018

Winter distribution of northern Yellowstone elk

Elk 1502 killed by cougar

Stopover

March 16, 2016

May 20–24, 2018

Arrives at winter range

Early Oct. 2015

Summer range Late May 2015– Mid-Sept. 2015

Late migration Jan. 17–24, 2019

Hunting related Capture related

Stopover

May 28–30, 2018

Vehicle Wolf

Predator

Human

18-year-old female

Jan. 30, 2019

Cause of Death in Collared Adult Female Elk, 2000–2019

Natural

Elk 1502

Elk 1601 killed by wolf

Yellowstone Lake

Cougar

Delays fall migration

Grizzly

Oct. 2018–Mid-Jan. 2019

Malnutrition Unknown Natural Unknown 0%

5%

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Arrives at summer range

Age of Death in Adult Female Elk Killed by Wolves and Hunters

June 1, 2018

Killed by hunters

12%

0

Killed by wolves

0

10 mi. 10 km

8% No data

Percent elk killed within each cause*

16%

4% 0

0

Elk 1125 A Tale of Survival 2

4

6

8 10 12 14 Elk age at death

16

18

20

*Data includes 624 elk killed by wolves (1995–2011) and 6,862 elk killed by hunters (1996–2009)

Pregnancy Rates of Adult Female Elk by Age 100%

PHOTO BY BONNIE MACDONALD

No data

Elk pregnancy rate

ate gnancy r Elk pre

0

0

2

4

6

8

10 12 Elk age

14

16

18

Elk 1125 was first captured and radio-collared near Hellroaring Creek in March 2011. Aged at 16-years-old at capture, she was born in the summer of 1994, seven months before the first wolf was reintroduced to Yellowstone. She wintered in northern Yellowstone and migrated south to summer north of Yellowstone Lake. In January 2020 she was killed by wolves near Geode Creek; at more than 25 years old, she was one of Yellowstone’s oldest known-age elk. Her story is one of resiliency and

success, as she navigated an entire quarter century of wolf, cougar, and grizzly bear recovery and abundance. Killed by wolves Jan. 27, 2020

Winter range

Summer range

20

209

60620_p208-209_Elk.indd 209

2021-01-11 5:27 AM

Pronghorn The story of pronghorn in northern Yellowstone highlights the importance of the national park in preserving a species, then learning about that species through a variety of management approaches and studies, and, finally, in restoring the species to an area. Historical accounts indicate pronghorn were plentiful and widespread in the Greater Yellowstone Area before European American settlement. Animals in the upper Yellowstone River drainage migrated between higher-elevation summer ranges in what is now the national park and lower-elevation winter ranges in Montana. However, market hunters and poachers decimated pronghorn and other wildlife in the area during the late 1800s. In response, the federal government sent a detachment of cavalry in 1886 to the recently created Yellowstone National Park to enforce regulations and prevent poaching.

Current range Historical range

BE

A

BS

A

O

TH

A

Red Lodge

S

M O N TA N A WYOMING

NG

Summer range

RA

Historical winter range

Historical summer range

E

Historical migration route

K

TO

TN

Winter range

RO

AR

M

MADISON RAN G

E

PA VA R A LL DIS EY E

Pronghorn Migration

Cody

Yellowstone National Park AB

SN AKE

SA

RO K

RIVER

A

Idaho Falls

C

A

R

A

Grand Teton N.P.

TETON

R ANGE

PL AIN

N

G

E

Summer range

Jackson

Summer range

R

IB

Soldiers herded migrating pronghorn back into the park to prevent people from shooting them and constructed four miles of wire fence near Gardiner, Montana, to keep the animals in the park. They also began cultivating alfalfa inside Yellowstone’s northern boundary to feed pronghorn and elk during winters. By 1920, these actions had eliminated pronghorn migration to winter ranges farther north in the Paradise Valley of Montana. Likewise, pronghorn migration between the Hayden Valley in central Yellowstone and the Madison Valley west of the park ended by 1922; pronghorn have not used this area since that time. Aided by protection and husbandry, pronghorn populations in northern Yellowstone increased, leading managers to cull more than 1,100 animals from the 1940s through the 1960s because of worries about overgrazing. But by the 1970s, managers became concerned about pronghorn viability due to decreasing numbers and the poor quality of winter range, which fencing truncated at the park’s northern boundary. A precipitous decline in birth rates and dropping population in the 1990s, perhaps because of the degraded winter range, made the situation more acute. Then in 2000, biologists detected a group of 17 pronghorn 30 kilometers north of the park in the southern Paradise Valley. Radio collar data and genetic information indicated this small herd contained pronghorn from Yellowstone that had made this migration despite numerous intervening fence barriers. Biologists realized that increasing pronghorn movement and gene flow between the national park and southern Paradise Valley would improve the animals’ long-term viability in the northern Yellowstone area. In 2010, the National Parks Conservation Association began working collaboratively with landowners and federal and state agencies to remove or modify fences in critical bottlenecks and restore the historical migratory patterns of pronghorn north of Yellowstone National Park. Beyond the park border, private lands preserve open space

O U RA

NG

W

Historical Observations, 1806–1881 IN

D

E

RI

VE

RA NG

S A LT

OMIN

E

RIVER RANGE

G RANGE

Winter range

Winter range

WYOMING

RIVER

BASIN

Number estimated from period accounts “Thousands”

Winter range

500−1,000 0 0

210

Lander

GREEN

Kemmerer Logan

R

WY

Summer range IDAHO U TA H

Pinedale

20 mi. 20 km

100−500 10−100 Less than 10

April 13, 2019

IS

E

VA

LL

EY

and play an important role in providing crucial wildlife habitat. Traditional livestock fences on these lands can be a barrier for migrating pronghorn (unlike deer or elk, pronghorn do not easily jump fences, preferring instead to crawl beneath). The National Parks Conservation Association worked with volunteers to remove obsolete fences or make fencing wildlife-friendly to improve habitat connectivity for migrating pronghorn while also meeting the needs of landowners. As a result, the number of pronghorns dispersing from the park to winter ranges in the southern Paradise Valley increased to more than 120 by 2014 and total pronghorn numbers exceeded 500 in 2017. Given this success, the National Parks Conservation Association initiated efforts in 2016 to work with landowners and

PA

RA

D

Gardiner Basin 476 total

Yellowstone National Park

Fence Removal and Modification Projects, 2010–2019 1

1 mile of fence (same scale as map)

State Trust

7-9 Conservation Easements

V

A

L

E

Chico

Y

11,12

E M I G RANT

Projects 24–42

16

43 45 47

DOM E

Private

MT N

State

17-19 20-23

49-51

1,000 ft.

0

300 m

Absaroka-Beartooth

Corwin Springs

24-42

Wilderness

43 45 47

Pronghorn 6

49-51

2018 movements

0 00

0

6,

00 5,

1,

00

Gardiner

5 km

0

0

52,53

0

5 mi.

4,

52,53

YE LL O W S TO NE NAT IO NAL PARK

0

00

Conservation Easements

State Trust

0

11,12 13-15

3,

k

89

0

ee

Removed Modified

7-9

BLM

00

om

M

in

Cr er

e R

0

T

48

46

Ye l l

20–23

44

to n

ow

s

17–19

Miner

Project (ordered north to south) 1 2,3 4,5

P E AK

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks

13-15

24–42 See inset

Fences Removed or Modified, 2010–2019

llo

89

L

Ye

10

ws

to

ne

NATIONAL FOREST

State Trust

540

6

2,3

4,5

r

Creek

E

S

ve

Big

A

I

Ri

CUSTER GALLATIN

R

P A

D

PHOTO BY NPS / NEAL HERBERT

Fence modification Total: 7.5 miles

0

Fence removal Total: 11.1 miles

Pronghorn Bucks in Lamar Valley Emigrant

2,

Carbella area 73 total

agencies to remove and modify fences in critical bottlenecks in the Madison Valley west of Yellowstone and reestablish historical pronghorn migrations to the Hayden Valley. Over the past decade the National Parks Conservation Association has removed or modified more than 39 miles of fencing north and west of the park to restore the historical migratory pathways of Yellowstone pronghorn. Combined with similar efforts to maintain migrations between the Grand Teton National Park area and the Green River valley to the south, these projects will restore pronghorn movements and foraging strategies that remain in only a few places across North America.

00

2019 Pronghorn Counts

Fence length (feet)

Hunting prohibited in the park, poaching continues

1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400

Yellowstone National Park established Thousands of pronghorn killed yearly in and around park

Population reduced to as few as 200

Lacey Act prohibits hunting or removal of wildlife from park

1880

1890

1900

Historical migration north of park reestablished through fence removal and modification spearheaded by the National Parks Conservation Association

Feeding, protection, and predator control increases population Migration north out of the park ends Pronghorn use of Severe winters, dispersal, and starvation diminish population

Pronghorn use of Hayden Valley and Swan Lake areas ends

U.S. Army begins feeding pronghorn

200 1870

Prong horn coun ted

Pronghorn Conservation and Management in Yellowstone Population 2,000

1910

Antelope Creek basin ends

1,144 pronghorn culled due to concerns about overbrowsing Culling ceases, population fluctuates naturally

Montana oversees public pronghorn hunts in Gardiner basin, 2 to 58 animals harvested per year Herd of 17 pronghorn range in southern Paradise Valley—first sustained return to area since early 1900s

Population increases with favorable conditions, higher predator harvest outside park

Montana resumes pronghorn hunting in the Gardiner basin

Pronghorn removed 1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

211

Wolves Yellowstone Wolf Packs, 2019 Core range

Wolf observation

Periphery range

GA

Mammoth

LLA TIN AB SA

m

RO

ar

KA

Va

RANGE

La

lle

West Yellowstone

Plateau

en yd y Ha alle V

Madison Junction

Fishing Bridge

Central Plateau

Ye l l o w s t o n e Lake

Old Faithful Madison

West Thumb

S hos hone Lake

Plateau

Pitchstone Plateau Tw o O c e a n Plateau 0

1900

1923: Last known Yellowstone wolf den destroyed near Tower Fall

1910

1920

Wolves routinely removed in western U.S.

212

Pack

population control mechanism in areas with an abundance of wolves. Yellowstone’s wolf population suffered a significant decline in 1999 associated with an outbreak of canine distemper virus, or CDV. The packs recovered and by 2003 reached a record level of 174 wolves in 14 packs. Half of these animals lived on the park’s northern range—representing only 11 percent of Yellowstone’s total area. The population crashed in 2005, a decline of 30 percent due once again to CDV. A quick recovery resulted in

10 km

Adults

Pups

8 Mile

9

8

Phantom Lake

4

7

Junction Butte

10

8

Cougar Creek

6

0

Wapiti Lake

10

9

Mollie’s

6

4

Lamar Canyon*

3

4

Bechler*

2

2

2

0

Other wolves *No data points, unable to estimate territory size

52 adults 42 pups 94 Total wolves in 2019

1975: Wolf restoration process in Yellowstone begins 1960s: Canadian wolf populations increase in B.C.; reports of wolf sightings increase in YNP and tri-state area

1914–26: A minimum of 136 wolved killed in Yellowstone 1926: Last wolf killed in Yellowstone

Pre-1870: Gray wolves common in northern Rockies

10 mi.

0

Yellowstone Wolves, 1900–2020

1925: Viable wolf population gone from Montana

Mirror

E

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) roamed Yellowstone when the park was established in 1872. Following this time, humans systematically eliminated wolves from the park, killing the last remaining individual in 1926. Before 1995 there were occasional reports of wolves moving through the Yellowstone area, but no wolf populations were established. This condition met a key criterion for the reintroduction of wolves under the Endangered Species Act. Reintroduction began in the mid-1990s with 41 animals: 31 from Canada (Alberta in 1995 and British Columbia in 1996) and 10 from northwest Montana (1997). Biologists acclimated the animals to local conditions in one-acre pens for ten weeks, then released them in selected locations. The wolves thrived in the park, some of the best wolf habitat in the world. Abundant elk, deer, and bison provided food and supported population growth of roughly 17 percent per year from 1995 to 2005. Initially packs clashed as they established territorial boundaries, but within months the wolves settled into fairly well-defined ranges, mostly in the park’s northern reaches. Wolves soon expanded their territories throughout the park, reaching relatively high densities for the species; they now inhabit most areas with available year-round prey. Fiercely territorial, wolves fight to protect or expand their range. Squabbles end up in boundary shifts, displacements, and often death, which may serve as an important

NG

Canyon Village

Norris

RA

y

Historical range Current range

1950s: Wolves heavily controlled in Alberta and B.C., eliminating migration to Mont. and Wyo. Sightings rare in YNP’s tri-state area

1974: Gray wolf listed as endangered; recovery is mandated under the Endangered Species Act 1974–1977: Minimum Mont. and Idaho wolf population estimated at 17–23

1930: Government predator control programs result in elimination of western U.S. wolf population

1930

1940

1973: Endangered Species Act passes

1950 Wolves absent in Yellowstone

1960

1970

1988: Four wolf packs documented in western Mont. 1986: “Magic Pack” wolves in Glacier National Park are the first to den in the western U.S. in 50 years Early 1980s: Wolves begin to recolonize area north of Glacier National Park

1980

1990

Yellowstone Wolf Population, 1995–2019 Yellowstone total

200

Yellowstone Wolf Reintroduction, 1995

Northern range wolves

Number of wolves

Wolves Released in Yellowstone, 1995 Pen

Rose Creek Pen

100

Soda Butte Pen

(3 wolves)

M M M F M M

20

20

15

10 20

20

20

05

00

95

19

19

(5 wolves) 0

Pup Survival, 1995–2019 100

Pups born Surviving pups

Number of pups

80

Color

Age

Wt. (lbs)

Black and silver Black Black Light gray Black Gray

Pup Pup Adult Adult Pup Pup

77 80 98 98 75 72

Pup Adult Adult

77 98 122

Adult Adult Old adult Adult Pup

92 122 113 89 75

Rose Creek Pen

Crystal Creek Pen

(collared wolves originating in Yellowstone)

Sex

Crystal Creek Pen

F F M

(6 wolves)

Red gray Black Light gray

Soda Butte Pen

60

F M M F M

40

19 20

20

20

10

20

05

00

95

20

0

19

15

20

Gray Black Gray and black Gray Black and silver

Wolf Location

Wolf Mortality Cause

Percent of deaths

(wolves collared in Yellowstone, 1995–2017) 30% Human Natural

Wildlife biologists reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone from Canada in 1995 and 1996. They carefully selected release sites for a combination of accessibility (for easy feeding and protection by rangers) and remoteness (away from stressing road noises). Suitable locations also needed a water source as well as vegetative cover for comfort and shade. Biologists released most of the animals in Yellowstone’s northern range, prime wolf habitat with year-round road access and an abundance of elk.

20%

10%

0%

Int Con t ra sp rol a ec ct i Na es ( ion Int tu wo ers ral lve pe un s) cie kn s ( ow no n nwo l Di f) M sea aln se u Ot trit he ion rn at u Un ral kn ow n

Ot he

rh

um an Ve hic le

ng lling ki al gal g Ille Le li kil

Wolf Mortality Age (known wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1995-2017)

Yellowstone wolves 12 year olds Wolves outside Yellowstone 10 unknown 8 6 4 2 50

30

10

0

10

30

50

Prey Selection (detected wolf kills, 1995–2017)

Elk Prey Age

80%

Newborn Unknown Calf

Yearling Adult

10%

ow n Un

2004: 332 wolves in 31 packs in the GYA; 169 in Yellowstone

1992: Lone wolf shot 3 miles south of Yellowstone boundary; the first killed close to the park since 1926 1992: Montana wolf population increases to 45 wolves

Most packs living in Yellowstone have an old individual or two, or a wolf past its prime. Packs with these older members have proven more likely to win a territorial battle (unless badly outnumbered), possibly because of better strategy in fighting, or knowing when not to engage. These older wolves are a key characteristic of a protected population and may be vitally important to the social functioning of the pack as well. How long will the current relative stability in Yellowstone’s wolf population last? Elk have been similarly stable over this period. Perhaps the species have reached some kind of equilibrium. Scientists have learned that over long stretches of time nature is usually stable. Most disturbances cause short-term change, which has typified human impacts on natural systems (hence our common interpretation that disturbance is the norm). Ecosystems and animals, however, respond to longterm, persistent change—the best current example of such being climate change, which will force natural systems to adapt, including the wolf-elk system in Yellowstone.

kn

r he Ot

se M oo

er De

on Bis

Elk

0%

171 wolves in 11 packs, but in 2008 further CDV transmission caused more death and a steep decrease in the wolf pup survival rate. After the disease abated this time, the population did not bounce back to previous levels, suggesting some other limiting factor. Elk, the primary prey of wolves, were no longer as abundant as they were at the time of reintroduction, nor were they as vulnerable (most of the weak elk had been culled by wolves and another newly restored predator, cougars). In recent years, the park population has been somewhat stable at around 100 wolves in 10 packs. (CDV was detected in the park again in 2017 but no major mortality was associated with its presence.) Because wildlife laws shield wolves in Yellowstone National Park from human hunting (the primary cause of wolf deaths outside of protected areas), packs inside the park tend to be larger and of higher average age. Pack size has averaged about 10 wolves (1995 to 2019), slightly larger than packs living on human dominated landscapes. Wolves in the park die at an average age of four to five years, though many are living longer—a rare individual may live a decade.

1994: Environmental Impact Statement completed for wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone and central Idaho— more than 160,000 public comments submitted. 1995–96: 31 Canadian gray wolves relocated to Yellowstone

2002: States begin process for delisting wolves from the Endangered Species List

2010: Gray wolves added again to the Endangered Species List due to litigation

2005: Canine distemper virus kills more than 1/3 of Yellowstone wolf pups; park population drops to 118 wolves

2011: Wolves delisted again in Mont. and Idaho; wolf hunts resume outside of YNP 2012: Wolves delisted in Wyoming

2008: Gray wolves removed from the Endangered Species List; canine distemper causes another steep decline in wolf pup survival

2013: Mont. limits quota of wolves harvested north of YNP 2014: Wyo. wolves once again listed as endangered; Idaho and Mont. wolves remain delisted

1997: 10 wolf pups from northwest Montana released in Yellowstone

1990 Recovery efforts to reestablish wolf population

2000

2010

2017: Wolves are delisted in Wyoming by U.S. Court of Appeals decision 2020: 25th anniversary of wolf reintroduction to YNP 2020: U.S. Department of the Interior removes gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act

2020

Wolves restored

213

Wolf Movement An old Russian proverb says, “Wolves are fed by their feet,” and modern science supports this insight with information gathered using advanced tools from DNA testing to satellite tracking. These carnivores (Canis lupus) once roamed most of the northern hemisphere before loss of habitat and extermination programs greatly contracted their range. At one time the North American gray wolf’s range extended as far south as through most of Mexico; today, they exist mostly in Canada and Alaska, with significantly reduced areas of habitation in the contiguous United States and only a slim band of territory in Mexico. The average wolf in Yellowstone National Park travels at a rate of about 5 miles per hour—an easy trot that can be maintained for long periods. A wolf can cover more than 40 miles in a day and reach a maximum speed of about 35 miles per hour. Wolves living in Yellowstone (about 100 animals) are intensively studied. Each year, park researchers capture a small portion of these wolves and fit them with radio or GPS collars. These devices gather data on individual wolves and also monitor the population as a whole, allowing researchers to see how wolves affect other animals and plants within the park. A Yellowstone pack’s home range averages 165 square miles and may be nearly 650 square miles for interior packs. Movement across a territory tends to be greater in summer than in winter. Animals that provide wolves their food (elk, deer, and bison) can spread out across the entire park in summer, expanding the wolf’s range. Conversely, during winter prey animals congregate at low elevation where snow is not as deep. When hunting in these confined areas wolves don’t have to travel as far to acquire the food they need to survive. Wolf life is broken into two annual periods: pup rearing (summer) and movement as a pack (winter). Using tracking data from one collared wolf in each pack, the movements of four of Yellowstone’s wolf packs are traced here, with dark lines representing a week of activity, lighter lines a season. Three of the packs live in northern Yellowstone, and these packs generally have smaller ranges due to greater prey availability. In contrast, Mollie’s pack moves from the park’s interior to its northern reaches summer and winter. In short, wolves travel to eat; if prey animals are few and far between, their predators must travel more. Another reason wolves travel so much is that most of the time they are not successful at capturing prey. Spurred by a need to acquire a large quantity of meat (averaging around 7 pounds per wolf per day) they hunt a great deal, though their success rate during attempts at predation is only between 5 and 15 percent. Wolves maintain exclusive territories, or turf. Each pack, essentially a family, defends its turf from other wolves, communicating with neighboring packs by scent-marking and howling. The barriers between packs are not impermeable, however; crossover, or cheating, sometimes takes place. Like many

214

Pack Movements, Winter 2015–2016 Seasonal movement Movement, March 1–7, 2016 Observed predations, March 1–7, 2016 1012M died on March 14 0.9-year-old male pup killed by Junction Butte pack

Junction Butte

8 Mile

Wolf 994M

Wolf 1005F

Prospect Peak

Wolf 996M

Mollie’s

Wolf 1014M

YELLOWSTONE N AT I O N A L PA R K

Ye l l o w s t o n e L a ke

Pack Movements, Summer 2016 Seasonal movement Movement, July 1–7, 2016 Observed predations, July 1–7, 2016 970F died on April 30 6-year-old alpha female killed by Prospect Peak pack

8 Mile

Wolf 1005F

911M died on September 15 6.4-year-old adult male killed by Prospect Peak pack

Prospect Peak Wolf 996M

Junction Butte Wolf 994M

YELLOWSTONE N AT I O N A L PA R K

Mollie’s

Wolf 1014M

Ye l l o w st o n e L a ke

creatures, wolves will try to get away with something if they can; they will encroach over territorial lines if members of the home territory are not around to repulse the incursion. Mollie’s pack, for example, forayed onto the territory of the Junction Butte pack. The cost of cheating and getting caught can be high; the leading cause of death for wolves within the park is death by other wolves. All three kills depicted here are within home territories; that is, trespassing wolves did the killing. It may seem counterintuitive that wolves would be on the offensive in another pack’s turf, just as it would seem unlikely that such an attack would succeed. But research conducted in Yellowstone indicates that what is most important in wolf-wolf battles is pack size and pack

composition. Regardless of battle location, bigger packs usually win, as do packs with more experienced adults. Old males are very important when it comes to wolf confrontations; their experience and wisdom can often determine the outcome of a fight. Wolves make use of preferred travel routes, often journeying by way of territory where movement is relatively easy. Keenly aware of their environment and of ways to conserve energy, wolves adjust their movements in relation to roads and natural corridors such as rivers that allow for less arduous passage. While wolf travel patterns are far ranging, there are places they avoid, often because these areas lack prey or fail to offer suitable denning habitat.

Outcomes for Dispersed Wolves, 1995–2018 Pack inside park Formed pack Pack outside park Formed Joined

Joined pack Unknown

Returned to pack Went missing Died outside park Died inside park 0

10

20 30 Number of wolves

40

In Yellowstone, wolves leave their natal pack (disperse) on average at about two years of age. A few return home, but most either form a new pack or join one that is already established. Outcomes of dispersal vary: some wolves live (brown bars), some die or go missing (gray bars). In general, success rates are low with significantly more deaths outside the park than inside. Of the sizeable number of wolves labeled as missing, it is likely that most died.

Dispersed Wolves y

Legally shot while chasing cattle

Movement with pack Dispersed movements 995F 1.9-yo female 968F 1.6-yo female 910M 7.2-yo male 1014M 3.2-yo male

di

se

Va

lle

Evening Mar. 22, 2016

ra

Legally shot by hunter

BE

Pa

Morning Nov. 21, 2015

AB

SA

RO

KA

AR

TO

O

TH

M

RA

N

G

Mar. 20, 2016

O

U

N

E

TA

Red Lodge

IN

S

Turns back

Mar. 8, 2016

Leaves park Nov. 16, 2015

Gardiner

MONTANA

995F Leaves Junction Butte pack

Joins Cinnabar pack

WYOMING

Mar. 2, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Leaves park Mar. 10, 2016 La

968F Leaves Junction Butte pack

m

Nov. 15, 2015

ar

Va

910M Leaves 8 Mile pack

ll

July 14, 2016

ey

Mar. 13, 2016

West Yellowstone

1014M Leaves Mollie’s pack

Joins Wapiti Lake pack date unknown

July 18, 2016

Cody

Yellowstone Lake 0 0

Born in the park in April 2014, female wolf 968 dispersed as a yearling but made several exploratory trips before she permanently left her natal pack. She traveled north onto land that had a lot of human activity, something she was unused to. While in the park her encounters with humans were benign, outside the park they were not—she was legally shot on November 21, 2015, when she was only a year and a half.

Yellowstone Wolf

25 km

6 Legally shot by hunter Nov. 21, 2015

Leaves Junction Butte

Leaves Junction Butte

1 Feb. 11, 2015 PHOTO BY NPS / JACOB W. FRANK

Wolf 968F Leaving the Park

25 mi.

3 April 12, 2015

Leaves Junction Butte

5 Nov. 15, 2015

MT WY

Returns to 2 Junction Butte March 20, 2015

Returns to 4 Junction Butte July 10, 2015

YELLOWSTONE N AT I O N A L PA R K With Junction Butte pack

Dispersed movement without pack

215

Wolf 911M

Douglas W. Smith Senior Wildlife Biologist Yellowstone National Park

216

911M Movements

In wolf pack

2

Blacktail Pack

Leaving His Birth Pack Leaves Blacktail pack Dec. 29, 2013

Travels alone

Dec. 29–Feb. 6, 2014

In group

Alone

April 2010: Born into the Blacktail Deer Plateau pack with five other pups to 693F (female) and a gray male

data point 1 First with Blacktail pack Dec. 13, 2013

Early 2012: With Agate Creek pack females (no longer with Blacktail pack)

YELLOWSTONE N AT I O N A L PA R K

2012–Fall 2013: With Junction Butte female until her disappearance

Blacktail Pack

Yellowstone Lake

Finding a Group Briefly rejoins Blacktail pack

Feb. 15, 2014

Alone

2014

3

Late 2013: Rejoins Blacktail pack

1 December 13, 2013: Fitted with

Feb. 6–12, 2014

Leaves Blacktail pack and joins 755M/889F group

Spring 2013: Fathered pups including two collared females, 907F and 969F

GPS collar; location data begins

2 Early 2014: Travels alone

Briefly rejoins Blacktail pack

Group

3 Feb 11, 2014: Leaves Blacktail pack for last time; joins 755M/889F group

4 March 22, 2014: Forms group with 970F female

5 Two weeks with Junction Butte pack

Group

Forming a Group

Briefly travels with Junction Butte pack

group 4 Forms with 970F

5

Mar. 22, 2014

April 28–May 13, 2014

6 December 16, 2014: Replaces 890M (his

2015

younger male sibling) as alpha male of Junction Butte pack with mate 970F

Spring 2015: Likely fathered some of the 12 pups in three litters born to the pack (including a 970F litter); 8 pups survive (an exceptionally high number)

Finding a Pack Continues traveling with mate 970F

May 14–Dec. 16 2014

Replaces 870M

6 as Junction

Butte alpha Dec. 16, 2014

Junction Butte Pack

Every year I sit alone with a wolf. The wolf doesn’t agree to this as I catch it as part of a research program on wolves in Yellowstone National Park. The wolf is sedated, but we still sit together, alone, looking out at the great park. The incessant, drowning-out noise of humanity gets turned off. I cherish these moments—the quiet beauty all around, the wolf’s presence. It almost seems as if the wolf is talking to me. A look into wolf eyes will make you think very deeply about life. I have caught so many wolves I cannot remember if I sat alone with 911. For the purposes of this story I will say I did. I also can’t remember what those eyes said to me, but I do remember what happened afterward. He was born in April 2010 to the Blacktail pack with five other pups. If it was a typical litter, several of these pups would have died that first summer. 911 made it though and matured quickly, as most wolves do. He left his natal pack, as most males do. Leaving is risky because dispersing wolves die at a higher rate, but the payoff can be worth it. He found a female and started a new pack called the Junction Butte pack. He led his pack for several years. By all appearances he was a strong leader. He did not lead alone, however; his mate, female 970, co-led with him, and he likely deferred to her, as most male wolves do. He bred and lived with 970 for a couple of years. Then she died and their pups did too. This was the beginning of his troubles. Suddenly he began looking bad. It was clear something was wrong. In poor shape, he still had to hunt for his pack, and he found an elk and attacked it. Why 911, alone and injured, decided to attack this elk, is unknown. Driven by something eons old, he only knew forward—keep fighting. Survive. Some saw the battle. It was painful to watch. A classic confrontation between predator and prey. Surprisingly, he prevailed. Then the unthinkable. A rival pack wandered in, eight wolves; they saw the meal, and they saw that only one wolf defended it. They claimed the dead elk then attacked him. Sixty-six minutes after killing the elk alone, he was dead. As we always do, we hiked in to necropsy his body. It was in terrible shape. The jaw was broken in two and it had been like that for months. I surmised he was kicked by an elk or bison, and that was what led to his decline and death. What would it have been like to live with such an injury? The pain must have been awful. How did he carry on? So each year I wait, wait for that time I get to sit alone with a wolf. I strain to understand what this life might be like. Those eyes. I have looked into a lot of wolf eyes and think I know some of their stories. When I remember 911, I wonder what story his eyes would have told if I had looked into them on his last day.

7 December 3, 2015: End of radio collar location data

2016

Rise and Fall as Alpha

Winter of early 2016: Suffers rear foot injury Spring 2016: Suffers shattered mandible (jaw) injury

Junction Butte alpha

Dec. 16, 2014–Dec. 3, 2015

Last location data point Dec. 3, 2015

7

Killed by rival wolves Sept. 15, 2016

8

April 30, 2016: 970F (his mate) dies along with their pups Summer 2016: Health worsens; often not traveling with pack

8 September 15, 2016: With broken jaw and injured leg, kills cow elk alone; later killed by rival Prospect Peak pack while standing ground over elk carcass; 6 ½ years old at death

Illustrations and text by Justin Menke. Source photos for illustrations (in story order): 1. NPS / Doug Smith, 2. NPS / Barry O’Neill, 3. NPS / Dan Stahler, 4. Bradley Orsted, 5. Doug McLaughlin, 6. NPS / Dan Stahler, 7. Craig Whitman, 8. NPS / Dan Stahler, 9. Doug McLaughlin, 10. NPS / Jacob W. Frank , 11. NPS / Jacob W. Frank

217

Coyotes historical ranges, coyotes have filled in—as predators and scavengers—and are now the apex predator in approximately 45 percent of the continental United States. Predators play critical roles in stabilizing ecosystems, and throughout North America coyotes provide an essential component of system stability. It is coyotes’ storied adaptability—switching from one food source to another—that equalizes predation pressures and dampens population oscillations in other species, from small mammals to ungulates. Ecologists are beginning to understand that ecosystems without predators are more vulnerable to destabilization and degradation, and that both generalist and specialist predators are important in stabilizing these systems. Because coyotes have been historically treated as “varmints” (and hunted, trapped, snared, poisoned, and bountied with unregulated take across North America), their ecology in this vast region has been generally understood through the lens of a disrupted set of adaptations to intense human exploitation. Yellowstone, in contrast, represents a fully protected, intact, and natural ecosys-

Coyote Distribution

Current range 1900–1939 Probable pre-European range

Coyote Packs, 1995 During prewolf period Slough Creek Little America

Ye

Lamar Canyon Crystal Bench

Bison Peak

Amethyst Creek

llo

wst

Druid Peak Fossil Forest

o n e R.

The coyote (Canis latrans), a North American midsized carnivore, occupies an ultrageneralist niche with respect to resources, occurring in habitats as varied as deserts, plains, and mountains, as well as in urban and suburban settings. As humans have eradicated large carnivores throughout their

tem, providing rare and valuable insights into coyote social ecology. With a clear understanding of integrated ecological processes—for example, predator-prey dynamics—in an essentially undisturbed landscape, managers can more effectively oversee the species involved. In Yellowstone, coyotes and wolves coexisted until the early 1920s, when gray wolves were extirpated as part of a predator management program. When wolves became locally extinct, coyote numbers increased, and coyotes partially filled the vacant ecolog-

Soda Butte Norris Peak

Coyote Packs, 1998–2000 During wolf colonization period 1998

1999

2000

sto n

sto n

sto n

low

low

low

l Ye

l Ye

l Ye

0

e Rive r

e Rive r

e Rive r

0

4 mi. 6 km

Core range Full range of all coyote packs

Coyote Packs, 2004–2006 During wolf saturation period 2004

2005

ll Ye

Rive r

e Rive r

Study

1937–1940

A. Murie (Ecology of the Coyote in the Yellowstone)

1945–1950

Robinson and Cummings

1951

Craighead (Grand Teton)

1970–1976

Bekoff (Grand Teton)

1970–1976

Camenzind (Grand Teton)

2009

Lamar Valley Coyote Population, 1990–2009

Twenty-year northern range study ends

Total coyote population

Year

one R. lowst Yel

sto n

sto n e

ow

ow

ll Ye

Coyote Research, 1937–2009

218

2006

Palmer Drought Severity Index

70

Normal Moderate drought Severe drought Extreme drought

60 50

2001–2004: Historic 100-year drought

40 30 20 10 0 1990

1995 Prewolf Period 1989–1995

2000 Wolf Colonization Period 1996–2002

2005 Wolf Saturation Period 2003–2007

2010

ical niche. After lengthy and heated debate, the gray wolf was restored to Yellowstone in the mid-1990s. Forty-one wolves were acquired and released in the park where they established a robust population. Wolf restoration provided an opportunity to evaluate the effects of this apex predator on its relative and competitor, the coyote. Prior to wolf restoration, a long-term ecological study of Yellowstone coyotes had established a clear understanding of coyote social structure, food habits, and general ecology. In the years from 1996 to 2002, as the colonizing wolf population rapidly grew, coyotes responded to the change. After 2003, the wolf population no longer increased, settling in as a re-established component of the system. Yellowstone wolf restoration can be characterized in three general phases: prerestoration (wolves absent); wolf colonization (rapid increase); and wolf saturation period (wolf population no longer increasing). Wolves are dominant lethal competitors with coyotes, accounting for 40 percent of the adult coyote mortality in Yellowstone. Since wolf restoration, coyote numbers in Yellowstone have dropped; coyotes are

Across the continent, coyote range expansion in the past 130 years has been concurrent with broad wolf population reductions. It has also coincided with large-scale habitat alteration, loss of migratory ungulate populations, and expansion of human landuse practices such as agriculture that favor smaller generalist predators. In areas where wolf populations have been reduced or extirpated, coyote numbers typically increase. Coyotes are avatars of adaptability, the ultimate generalist and survivor among the carnivores. From an ecological perspective, coyotes also serve as barometers of ecosystem disruption; as a rule, the more social, long-lived, and stable coyote populations are, the healthier their ecosystem. Take away their prey base, den sites, travel routes, and home ranges, and they will persist, though with adapted habits and social interactions. Coyotes forsake their highly social pack structure (common in pristine settings where they are not killed by humans) for the transient, highly mobile, extremely opportunistic behaviors typical of the animal across most of North America.

largely absent from areas of highest wolf density, such as around wolf dens during summer. Yet the remaining coyotes also benefit from wolves, finding increased scavenging opportunities at wolf-killed ungulate carcasses. Coyotes also use areas of greater human concentration (trails, roads, structures) for refuges from wolves, which tend to avoid humans. Coyotes are highly social. In Yellowstone, they occur in packs of as many as 13 individuals, typically a mated pair and offspring from previous years. These large social groups sometimes hunt and travel together but often forage individually, regrouping daily for social interaction and howling sessions. This aspect of coyote ecology had not been well understood in studies from other regions where human exploitation disrupted coyote social structure. Interestingly, coyotes on the northern range of Yellowstone were the subject of one of the world’s first truly ecological studies of predators, that of naturalist Adolph Murie. His study, published in 1940, presented a presciently modern overview of the role of predators serving an essential ecological function.

Lamar Valley Coyote Packs, 2007

gh

ek Cre

Slo u

Bison Peak 8882

Lamar

Ri

ver

Prospect Peak

Slough Creek

Crystal Creek

RD

Junction Butte

Jasper

2

Jackson Ridge

5

Jasper

4

Prospect Peak

2

Slough Creek

3

GR AN D

LO OP

4

Soda Butte

E

Jackson Ridge

N R

I

Soda Butte

D

E

Little America (not shown)

M

G

3

I

R iver

Junction Butte

C

ST

Cr ee k

Druid

E

R NO

te

4

Druid

Amethyst

E NC RA T EN

Bu t

Crystal Creek

S P

TH EA

4

RD

4

Bison

one owst Yell

Amethyst

Druid Peak 9583

Bison

Adult coyotes

So da

2007 packs

5

Total adults

40

Total pups

33

0

2 mi.

0

Dietary Composition

Cache Cr.

3 km

Food Availability

1990–1992 Scat Analysis Jan. Carrion

Elk 22% Other 3% Snowshoe hare 5% Ground squirrel 3%

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Percentage of diet 85%

Elk

Voles 42% Pocket gopher 25%

Feb.

Elk calves Ground squirrels Voles Pocket gophers Snowshoe hares 0%

219

Grizzly Bears North American grizzly bears once roamed from northern Alaska to central Mexico and from the Pacific Coast to western Missouri. Bear numbers and range decreased dramatically following European American exploration and settlement west of the Mississippi River. Ranches, farms, and cities encroached on grizzly habitat; people shot, trapped, and poisoned bears to protect cattle, sheep, and poultry from depredation. Important bear foods such as salmon, bison, and elk became harder to find as humans built dams, market-hunted wild game, and introduced livestock. By 1975, grizzly bears had been extirpated from Mexico and all Historical and Current Range 1850

1922

Present

Local extinction date indicated

1889 1933

1890 1854

1923 1924

1979

1880

1935 1931

but 2 percent of their historical range in the lower 48 states. Bears remain abundant in Alaska and large parts of Canada, with stable populations except in a few areas of rapid human settlement and development. Farther south, human population growth along with fragmentation, alteration, and destruction of grizzly bear habitat present ongoing challenges. However, with grizzly bear range expansion over the past decade, grizzlies now occupy 6 percent of their former range in the lower 48 states. The population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is the southernmost in North America; these bears play an important role both in maintaining species genetic diversity and overall ecosystem health. Yellowstone-area grizzly bears received federal protection as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 1975. State and federal wildlife and habitat management agencies have worked to reduce human-bear conflicts and human-caused bear deaths and to increase cub production and survival. The range occupied by the bears has grown from approximately 15,000 square kilometers in the 1970s to 68,000 in 2018. The number of females producing cubs and the total number of cubs produced annually has increased since the mid-1980s. The significant growth in bear numbers and range indicated biological recovery, and the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed the bears from threatened status in 2007 and again in 2017. However, in response to lawsuits filed by bear advocacy groups, federal judges ordered the bears returned to threatened status in both instances. The population remains listed as threatened in 2021. Grizzly bears are omnivores and consume a wide variety of plants, animals, and insects. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, grizzly bears prefer concentrated highenergy foods such as the carcasses of large mammals, elk calves, spawning cutthroat trout, army cutworm moths, and whitebark pine seeds. Spending up to six months hibernating in winter dens, the bears must use their more active days ingesting a full year’s food supply. Preferred bear foods are seasonal in nature and fluctuate in abundance from year to year, which is why grizzly bears require large home ranges to meet their energy needs. Prime spring habitat includes elk and bison wintering areas where bears scavenge winter-killed animals and areas of early plant growth offering succulent vegetation. In summer, bears favor elk calving areas, streams with spawning cutthroat trout, and high-elevation talus slopes where they eat large quantities of army cutworm moths. Preferred fall habitat contains cone-producing whitebark pine trees. Grizzly bears obtain the fat- and protein-rich whitebark pine

1890

Sow and Cub Population, 1973–2018 140

3.0

Females Cubs Mean litter size

120

2.5

Present range Historical range

Historical Observations Grizzly bear

Bear, unspecified

1806–1881

1.5 60 1.0

40

0.5

20 0

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Female Grizzly Bears with Cubs Sighting

Bear recovery zone

1979–1981

Park historian Lee Whittlesey and colleagues compiled historical accounts of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Area from1806 to 1881.

220

2.0

80

National forest

Wilderness area

1998–2000

National park

2016–2018

0.0

Mean litter size

Number of bears

100

Grizzly Bear Food Sources

Elk

Griz zly

be

Whitebark pine

Whitebark pine

a r dis tri

n tio bu

seeds by raiding red squirrel food caches. In years of low seed production, grizzly bears forage more extensively on plant roots (such as biscuitroot and yampa) and eat more meat. Grizzly bears scavenge wolf-killed elk and bison during the spring, summer, and fall. Grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem die from many causes including old age, starvation, drowning, avalanche, and den collapse, as well as being killed by other bears, wolves, or humans. A larger proportion of dependent young bears (cubs and yearlings) than adult bears die from natural causes. Among adults, 85 percent of documented deaths are caused by humans— management removals of bears involved in conflicts with people, defense of life by private citizens, mistaken identification by black bear hunters, poaching, vehicle strikes, and electrocution by downed power lines. Bears come into conflict with people more often during years with poor availability of their preferred foods, particularly during fall. Conversely, fewer conflicts and human-caused bear deaths tend to occur in years when food is abundant. The proportion of bear deaths due to natural causes as compared to human causes is generally higher within national parks, whereas the opposite pattern occurs outside park boundaries.

Elk

Bison Army Cutthroat trout Elk

cutworm

moth

Bison

Elk

Estimated Seasonal Diet Scat analysis of female grizzly bears near Yellowstone Lake, 2007–2009

100%

Elk

Other Meat

80% 60%

In

se

Ungulates

cts

Whitebark pine

Falsetruffles Whitebark pine nuts

40% Grasses 20%

0

Roots

Forbs Berries

May

June

July

Aug.

50 mi.

0

Sept.

60 km

Oct.

Grizzly Bear Mortality Natural deaths

Human-related deaths

Bear range

1979–1988

1989–1998

Cause of Death 200

0

60

Inside park Outside park

40 20

Natural Poached Self-defense Management Livestock

2009–2018

Mortality by Year Inside park Outside park

100

1999–2008

Accidental Unknown

0

No data

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

221

Bear Movement CUSTER GALLATIN

CUSTER GALLATIN 287

89

Virginia City

212

21-year-old male

NATIONAL FOREST

NATIONAL FOREST

April–Sept. 2005

Grizzly Bear 470 Route in 2004 Oct.5–Nov.14

Lee Metcalf Wilderness 287

78

Grizzly Bear 470

191

Grizzly Bear 485

Gardiner

Cooke City

8-year-old female

MONTANA WYOMING

May–Oct. 2005

BEAVERHEAD-

Red Lodge

Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness

DEERLODGE North Absaroka Wilderness

NATIONAL FOREST

West Yellowstone

Grizzly Bear 132

18-year-old female May–Sept. 2003

Cody

SHOSHONE

Black Bear 530

Large adult male

20

14

Yello w s t o n e L ake

June–Oct. 2018

NATIONAL

CARIBOU-TARGHEE 89

NATIONAL FOREST

Winegar Hole Wilderness

YELLOWSTONE

191

N AT I O N A L PA R K

287

20

End route

Teton Wilderness

June 6, 2016 Parker

Route profile below

GRAND

May 5–June 6, 2016

J ac ks o n L ake

Clementsville

Grizzly Bear 819 6-year-old male

Washakie Wilderness

April–Oct. 2016

Begin route May 5, 2016

TETON Tetonia

Rexburg

Jedediah N . P. Smith Wilderness

Driggs

IDAHO

Rigby

26

WYOMIN G

33

FOREST

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER JR. MEMORIAL PARKWAY

BRIDGER-TETON 26 26

89

287

191

22

Jackson

Wind River

NATIONAL Gros Ventre Wilderness

Indian

Fitzpatrick Wilderness

CARIBOU-TARGHEE 26

NATIONAL FOREST

Reservation

FOREST

89

191

0

Bridger Wilderness

0

10 mi. 10 km

Grizzly Bear 819 Route, Elevation and Land Ownership Begin route

Elevation (feet)

May 5, 2016

Buffalo Fork 26

9,000

287

26

Snake River

Major highway

Snake River

Big Elk Creek

Snake River

Indian Creek

Snake River

26

89 crossings

89

191

191

22

26

9 local road crossings

26

26

7,000

89

5,000

WYOMING GRTE BTNF

GRTE

Land Ownership

222

BTNF

GRTE

National Park Service

IDAHO Jackson Hole

BTNF

Yellowstone (YELL), Grand Teton (GRTE), and Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway (JODR)

CTNF

WYOMING BTNF

US Forest Service

Bridger-Teton (BTNF) and Caribou-Targhee (CTNF)

CTNF

BTNF

USFS Wilderness

CTNF

BTNF

CTNF

Jedediah Smith (JSWA) and Winegar Hole (WHWA)

Black Bear Collar Camera Study

1) Near house

Researchers are using a new tool, GPS camera collars, to document the daily movements and behaviors of black bears in Yellowstone. A camera collar records adult black bear 517 feeding on clover in a residential backyard (photo 1) and later killing and feeding on a rival black bear (photo 2). Subadult black bear 519 interacts with a sibling (photo 3) and navigates the natural hazards of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (grizzly bears, wolves, and dominant adult male black bears) by hiding in trees when not on the ground foraging.

Bear 517

3) Sibling interaction

Bear 517 snout

Bear 519 snout

Bear carcass

Bear 519 Observations d Loop Ro a d Gr an

June 6

E

June 7 I 0.5 mi.

0

u

Dr

0

F

ea

Photo 1 Near house

June 5

at

Photo 3 Sibling Interaction

Date June 4

Pl tail ck

Observed Forage A Clover B Clover C Cow parsnip D Dandelion E Dandelion F Sticky geranium G Cow parsnip H Cow parsnip I Deer carcass

Map enlargement

A

H

B

C D

0.5 km

Yellowstone Lake

Climbs tree June 9

G

Bear 519 Collared June 3

Petrified Tree

Photo 3 Interacts with sibling June 28, 5 pm

June 28 10 am

Canon Creek

Teton River

June 11 9 am

Duration of route: 32 days Length of route: 320 miles Highest elevation: 8,983 feet Lowest elevation: 5,620 feet

IDAHO

State

End route

Snake River 89

June 6, 2016

191 287

40 local road crossings

CTNF

Bear 519

Sibling bear

Bear 519 Subadult male June 2015

Photo 2 Killed rival

2) Killed rival bear

Bear 517

Bear 517 snout

Bl a

Bear 517 Adult male Sept. 2014

roads, into three states, and onto habitat managed by various agencies. Male 819 embarked on an even longer odyssey—between May 5 and June 6 he covered approximately 320 miles, crossed 49 local roads and several major highways, and spent time in habitat managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, Bridger-Teton National Forest, and CaribouTarghee National Forest, as well as by Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. Because grizzly bears often cover such long distances, and habitat in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is managed by many different state and federal agencies, bears often cross multiple jurisdictional boundaries to procure the food and other resources they need to survive and reproduce. Consequently, these agencies must cooperate for the long-term conservation of grizzly bears, a task made even more challenging in the face of uncertainties such as climate change and expanding human occupation within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

PHOTOS BY NATE BOWERSTOCK

ranges at about 60 square miles. Mothers with cubs tend to have smaller ranges than those accompanied by yearlings. Subadult males have the largest home ranges, averaging nearly 200 square miles—a likely reason for such a large range is to avoid dominant adult males, which sometimes kill subadults. The size of a female’s annual home range usually plateaus at around age six and reaches a lifetime aggregate of nearly 200 square miles. A male’s annual home range continues to increase over time and may reach a lifetime total of more than 1,500 square miles. The movements of four radio-collared grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem illustrate these patterns. Female 132 was 18 years old and spent an entire summer within a relatively small portion of Yellowstone National Park, rarely crossing any roads. Eight-year-old female 485 had a summer range of similar size, but it overlapped the boundary between Yellowstone and the Custer Gallatin National Forest; her movements necessitated crossing two major highways. In contrast, 21-year-old male 470, and 6-year-old male 819 traveled considerably farther. Male 470 journeyed across multiple

Grizzly bears move around the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in ways that can vary daily, seasonally, annually, and throughout their lifetimes. Individual bears may travel long distances to find seasonably available food and mates for breeding, to avoid threats from humans and more dominant bears, and to make use of unexploited habitats. The size of a bear’s home range is affected by a number of factors. Bears living in highly productive landscapes often have much smaller ranges than those in harsher habitats. Grizzly bear population density can also influence a bear’s selection of range. Given habitats of similar quality, female bears in areas of high population density tend to have smaller home ranges than those in less populated areas, likely due to competition for space and avoidance of dominant males at foraging sites. Male grizzly bears typically have larger home ranges than females and make longer passages. Annual home ranges (which vary year to year) of adult males average around 150 square miles and often overlap those of several female bears, thereby enhancing their breeding opportunities. Females’ annual home ranges are typically around 65 square miles; subadult females have the smallest

WYOMING Clementsville

Bureau of Reclamation

Tetonia

CTNF

JSWA

CTNF

JSWA

WHWA

CTNF

YELL

JODR

GRTE

Private

223

Cougars Cougars (Puma concolor) are a top predator in Yellowstone National Park. Known variously as mountain lion, puma, panther, and catamount, these members of the cat family are highly adaptable generalist carnivores with the widest range of any large terrestrial mammal in the Western Hemisphere. In Yellowstone, as in much of their North American range, cougars suffered significant population declines following intensive predator eradication efforts through the early twentieth century. Cougars along with wolves were eradicated in Yellowstone by the 1930s. Regulated hunting allowed cougar populations to increase and recolonize parts of their former ranges in the western United States by the mid-1900s. Following several decades of protection

Historical range Current range

from human hunting, cougars reestablished a viable, year-round population in northern Yellowstone in the 1980s. This occurred during a period of both high elk abundance and wolf absence resulting in a relatively rapid rate of population growth. After wolf restoration in the mid-1990s, cougar population growth continued to increase through 2001 when up to 42 cougars inhabited northern Yellowstone. From 2001 to 2004 population growth slowed and even declined due in part to competition with wolves and bears over decreasing numbers of elk. While earlier population estimates relied on affixing radio-collars to a large proportion of the cougar population, researchers began using noninvasive genetic survey methods in 2014. This technique yielded an estimate

Cougars in Yellowstone F212

Collared cougar home ranges (2018)

M211

Cougar mortalities (2014–2019)

Mammoth

GAL

Tower-Roosevelt

L AT I N

F209/ F210

A

F202

BS

A

m

RO

La

RANGE

Va

KA

ar

y

RA

lle

NG E

F207 Norris

West Yellowstone

Canyon Village

Madison Junction

H a yd e n Va l l e y

Fishing Bridge

Genetic Sampling Study, 2014–2017 Noninvasive genetic surveys across northern Yellowstone identified unique individuals through snow tracking and subsequent testing of DNA found in hair, scat, and blood left behind on the landscape. Detections of individuals were integrated into spatially explicit capture-recapture (SECR) models for estimates of winter population size and density. Cougar Density 2–3 per 100 sq. km 3–4 4–5 5-10 West Thumb

Old Faithful

Gardiner

Ye l l o w s t o n e Lake

Genetic Samples Sh o s hMale one Female Lake 20 unique males 19 unique females

Mammoth

Gra

nd

Loo

pR

sto Pitch

d.

lat ne P

eau

R.

224

5 km

to n e

0

5 mi.

s ow

0

ll Ye

TowerRoosevelt

0 0

10 mi. 10 km

Cougars are spot-and-stalk ambush predators that hunt alone, killing mainly at night in topographically rugged and forested areas. With keen senses, powerful forelimbs, and retractable claws, they are able to pounce, grasp, and quickly kill. Their primary prey in Yellowstone is elk, followed by deer, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and smaller animals like coyotes, red foxes, and marmots. In recent years, deer have become increasingly prevalent in the Yellowstone cougar’s diet, a change concomitant with a lessening of dependence on elk. This shift likely results from decreasing elk abundance due to the combined effects of large carnivores, hunters, climatic shifts, and other factors influencing elk populations, as well as possible increases in deer abundance.

Adult male cougars defend territories from other males; these areas generally overlap with the home ranges of multiple adult females. Litters of usually one to four kittens are born in protected nursery sites. The young reside with maternal females for a year or two then disperse. While young males typically move more than 50 miles away, young females often establish home ranges near where they were born. These different strategies help maintain genetic variability across large geographic areas. Cougars in Yellowstone benefit from abundant prey and protection from human harvest. Because of this, they are an important source population for emigration into the surrounding Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Population

Prey Selection

M201 Acceleration Signature During Elk Kill

40

60%

10

50% 40% 30% 20%

1987–1993 1.0 cougars per 100 sq. km average

1998–2004 1.9 cougars per 100 sq. km average

2014–2017 2.1 cougars per 100 sq. km average

1987–1993 and 1998–2004 estimates based on radio collaring; 2014–2017 estimates based on genetic techniques

Up or down Forward Sideways

-6

10% 0

Feeding

Stalking

-4

20

No data

30

Surge and kill

1987–1994 1998–2005 2014–2019

Acceleration (g-force) -2 0 2 4 6

70%

Percentage of diet

50

No data

Number of cougars

of up to 45 cougars in northern Yellowstone. Although monitoring focuses on the northern population, cougars are detected in other regions of Yellowstone as well. In much of the park’s interior their presence is highly seasonal (largely absent in winter), and they occur in lower densities relative to northern Yellowstone cougars due to the migratory nature of their main prey, elk and deer. In addition to noninvasive methods, researchers also use advanced GPS satellite collar technology to monitor Yellowstone cougars. These collars have built-in accelerometers and continuously record data on behaviors such as resting, walking, hunting, and feeding and thus greatly expand our understanding of the important role cougars play in ecosystems.

0

Elk

Deer

Pronghorn

Bighorn sheep

Other prey*

*Other prey includes: moose, mountain goat, marmot, porcupine, fox, coyote, cougar, grouse, beaver, and ground squirrel

3:48 a.m.

3:50

3:52 May 23, 2016

3:54

3:56 a.m.

GPS-accelerometer collars continuously measure behaviorspecific acceleration signatures across the three main axes of a cougar’s body. These data identify and measure the energetic costs of activities such as hunting.

Dispersed Cougar Life Histories CUSTER-GALLATIN

Cougar F210 2-year-old female

Solo kill of adult female elk

Last shared kill with mother (F209)

NATIONAL FOREST

May 23, 2016

March 10, 2018

Cooke City

WYOMING

Establishes overlapping but independent home range from mother

A

Leaves mother’s First kill home range after leaving mother (F202) May 20, 2016

March 10, 2018

May 15, 2016

S

A

R K A

Norris

B

O

Cougar M201 2-year-old male

West Yellowstone

MONTANA

Canyon Village

Arrives at new home range in Sunlight Basin

Legally killed by hunter

June 17, 2016

Dec. 1, 2016

Madison Junction

Leaves park R

June 10, 2016

A N

E

N AT I O N A L PA R K

G

YELLOWSTONE Fishing Bridge

SHOSHONE Old Faithful

Ye l l o w s t o n e Lake West Thumb

NATIONAL FOREST

0 0

10 mi. 10 km

225

Carnivore Interactions wolves, and bears overlap substantially, with primary animal protein coming from elk. Cougars, however, are subordinate to, and often displaced by, these other carnivores. Prior to wolf reintroduction, cougars relied mostly on highly vulnerable and readily available elk calves. As wolf and bear populations increased, elk calf availability declined due to the combined effects of carnivores, climate, and human harvest outside the park. To compensate, in the early 2000s cougars shifted their focus to adult cow elk (harder to conceal and slower to consume), which led to increased loss of their kills to scavengers, including wolves and bears, as well as increased risks of injuries or death consistent with taking down larger prey and defending acquired prey from competitors. Despite a slight trend in higher kill rates of adult and maternal female cougars after wolf restoration, the overall frequency at which cougars made kills was not significantly altered by wolf recovery. Since these large

carnivores rely on similar pray, their habitats often overlap, which can result in competitive interactions. This leads to alterations in food intake and predation patterns for all carnivores; it can also lead to increased mortality risk, especially to cougars. Nonetheless, finer-scale habitat selection allows these competing carnivores to coexist. Yellowstone Cougar

PHOTO BY NPS / YELLOWSTONE COUGAR PROJECT

Over the past quarter century, Yellowstone experienced significant changes in its large carnivore community with wolf restoration occurring simultaneous with the natural recovery of cougars and grizzly bears. These changes provide a unique opportunity to understand how carnivores coexist and compete for prey, both live and dead. Their influence on prey species like elk, as well as their contribution to food web dynamics through predation and scavenging, are key components to the structure and function of the Yellowstone ecosystem. Competition between cougars, wolves, and bears (both black and grizzly) occurs in Yellowstone in two primary ways. Interference competition occurs through direct behavioral interactions, including food-stealing at prey carcasses, active avoidance, or killing one another. Exploitative competition occurs when one carnivore species reduces another’s rate of acquiring a shared food resource. In Yellowstone the diets of cougars,

Cougar F207 Carnivore Interactions, 2017–2019

8 Mile wolf pack (Wolf 1155M)

Early 2019 territory

Crevice Lake wolf pack (Wolf 1107M) 2018 territory Gardiner

Mammoth

T I N L L A G A

B Second collar Jan. 29, 2019

Crevice Lake pack wolves interaction

F207’s kitten likely killed March 2018

First collared as three-year-old March 1, 2017

L

A

M A

C 8 Mile pack wolves interaction

R V A L

L

R A N G E

F207 killed

E

March 2019

Y

A Bear interactions

F207 chased off of carcasses

W

ST

ON

E

May 2017

Cougar F207

Home range 2017–2019

Canyon Norris

GR

AN

DC

Y AN

ON

OF

E TH

YE

LL

O

0

Y E L L O W S T O N E N AT I O N A L

226

PA R K

0

5 mi. 5 km

a n d Loo p R oa d

F207 2:00 am, May 23 Daytime May 29 Leaves carcass 6 am, May 29

Gr

Feeds on carcass Nights of May 28 and 29 k

Cr

May 28

Returns to carcass 6 pm

a li

n

Ca

r

ne

d

Daytime May 23

5 Kills elk calf

ee

10:30 pm May 29

C h i t t e nd o n R oa

A Bear Interactions, May 2017

1 Kills adult female elk

Daytime May 26

May 23, early morning

2 Chased off of carcass by bear 9 pm, May 23

Daytime May 27

0

4 Chased off of carcass by bear

0.5 mi.

0

3 Kills adult female elk May 24, early morning

10 pm, May 27

North

0.5 km

The story of cougar F207 highlights interspecies competition in Yellowstone. She was three years old when first collared, just as she was establishing her home range as an independent adult—a range that overlapped with two wolf pack territories and habitats seasonally occupied by many grizzly and black bears. While there is a potential for year-round interactions with wolves, bears spend months in winter dens and become a significant competitor with cougars only from April through November. Despite cougars’ attempts to conceal kills from scavengers by caching (covering with dirt, vegetation, sticks, hair, or snow), bears use their keen sense of smell to detect carcasses. Once a cache is discovered, a bear can easily displace a cougar from it, causing both a loss of food and the need to expend more energy hunting. During May 2017, F207 killed three elk over seven days due to bear displacements.

B Crevice Lake Pack Wolves Interaction, March 2018 Blacktail Plateau D r

Elk

Creek

1 Kills elk

Early morning March 20

2 Feeds on carcass with kitten March 20–22

4 Wo l Even ves le a ve ing,

F207 12:30 am March 20

Ma rch 23 9:30 am March 27

Daytime rest March 24, 26

3 Wolves chase her off of carcass and likely kill her kitten 5 Kills yearling elk Morning, March 22 after wolves leave

Overnight March 23–24

Daytime rest March 23

6 Feeds on carcass leaving daily March 24–27

0

Wolf pack

North

3:00 am, March 22

C

0.25 mi.

0

0.25 km

8 Mile Pack Wolves Interactions, March 2019 Wolf pack 6:30 pm, March 14

F207 7:00 pm, February 28

7:00 pm March 15

3 Kills porcupine

ac

kt

4 Chased off of carcass by wolves and killed

ail

De

5

Evening of March 14

er

1 Kills adult bull elk

W

ol

v

Night of Feb. 28 into March 1

Creek

0

es

Bl

le

av ea fte r

Evening of March 2

0

Once wolves became established, cougars tried to avoid them by frequenting rougher, rockier, and more forested terrain. While this likely reduced run-ins with wolves, it did not eliminate them. At particular risk are maternal females with dependent young. Cougar kittens, which typically rely on their mothers’ care for a year or two, can be more vulnerable to mortality risks from other cougars, wolves, and bears. Following wolf restoration, decreases in cougar mortality caused by encounters with other cougars (infanticide and male-male conflicts, for example) were offset by increased interspecies mortality, with 35 percent of documented cougar deaths caused by wolves and bears. In March 2018, the Crevice Lake pack of wolves discovered F207 on an elk kill, displaced her from it, and possibly killed her eight-month-old kitten, which was documented to be with her just before this encounter.

0.25 mi. 0.25 km

North

2 Feeds on carcass, venturing out occassionally March 1–14

elk on ing d e fe

Cougars adapted quickly to the presence of wolves following their recovery. The landscape of northern Yellowstone helped, allowing for habitat partitioning. Some cougars, however, use areas less frequented by elk or hunt in areas more distant from competitive refugia like forested and rugged terrain. For example, F207 ventured farther south than most local cougars to establish her range. Much of this habitat is post-burn, regenerating lodgepole forest that provides scant escape terrain for evading wolves. In March 2019, F207 killed and fed on an adult bull elk and a porcupine for two weeks in this risky habitat, eventually being discovered by wolves from the 8 Mile pack. With no suitable trees or cliffs to use for escape, she was killed by the wolves. Despite such interactions, coexistence among Yellowstone’s large carnivores today reflects adaptations to competition, which in turn influences predation and food web dynamics.

227

Birds GOLDEN EAGLES from Denali National Park have been tracked through Yellowstone while traveling to and from their wintering grounds in southwest Wyoming. Golden eagles that breed in Yellowstone are residents and remain in the park year round.

Yellowstone Connections Winter Migration

Go ld en

E le ag

Harlequin Duck

ar W

er bl

HARLEQUIN DUCKS breed along interior streams and rivers but, come winter, leave for the relatively greater food abundance found in waters along the Pacific Coast. Yellowstone’s harlequin ducks have been tracked to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the north end of Vancouver Island.

w llo Ye

YELLOW WARBLERS may be small but, like many neotropical migrants, they make a significant journey each fall and spring. Yellow warblers breed across northern North America and migrate several thousand miles to winter between southern Mexico and northern South America.

Common Loon

COMMON LOONS in northwest Montana are known to winter along the western coast of the US, from the Salish Sea to southern California. One tagged bird from Yellowstone traveled even farther, to the southern tip of the Baja California peninsula.

k Haw n’s so ain Sw

For much of Yellowstone’s history, the diversity of bird species in the park was largely overlooked. With the exception of trumpeter swans, avian monitoring has been relatively short-lived compared to that of species such as bears, bison, and elk. Today, however, we are gaining a deeper appreciation of the importance of birds, their role as environmental indicators, and the value of maintaining Yellowstone’s diverse and relatively intact habitats to support avian species. More than three hundred bird species use Yellowstone National Park, though most leave each fall to escape harsh winter conditions. While many can handle the cold temperatures, the scarcity of food (insects, berries, and nectar) forces them to leave. Some birds travel short distances in winter, going only as far as necessary to find food. Such migration patterns can be advantageous, allowing birds to time their travels to match the weather. In a short, mild winter, for example, birds can head back early and start their breeding season sooner. Other birds travel long distances and rely on thousands of years of natural selection to launch their migration. These birds return at roughly the same time every year, regardless of conditions in the park, leaving them more vulnerable to climate change. In Yellowstone, most waterfowl (swans, ducks, and geese) are local migrants. Loons and harlequin ducks are exceptions, traveling far to find coastal food resources each winter. Some bald and golden eagles are residents in Yellowstone year round; while others, such as osprey, peregrine falcons, and Swainson’s hawks, migrate significant distances. A handful of songbirds reside in Yellowstone through the winter, but most, including warblers like the yellow warbler, fly south, sometimes as far as South America.

SWAINSON’S HAWKS breed across western North America, from northern Mexico to central Canada. Hawks from Yellowstone migrate upwards of six thousand miles each fall to spend their winters in central Argentina, foraging on grasshoppers.

Illustrations by Justin Menke

Songbirds

Songbird Species Observed, 2018 habitat-specific surveys better suited for identifying shifts in songbird abundance and diversity. A banding station along a willow-lined riparian corridor, for example, caught nearly 300 individuals belonging to at least 32 species in 2018. This work highlighted the importance of willow habitat for breeding and migrating songbirds and helped identify seasonal shifts in abundance and diversity patterns.

Yellow Warbler

Breeding Bird Survey Songbird Results Total individuals

3,500

2,500

1,500 1,000

0 1988

Fall migration

American robin Brown-headed cowbird Brewer's sparrow Cassin's vireo Cedar waxwing Chipping sparrow Common yellowthroat Dark-eyed junco Dusky flycatcher Unknown flycatcher Gray catbird Green-tailed towhee House wren Lazuli bunting Lincoln's sparrow Macgillivray's warbler Mountain chickadee Northern flicker Orange-crowned warbler Pine siskin Ruby-crowned kinglet Red-naped sapsucker Rufous hummingbird Song sparrow Swainson's thrush Vesper sparrow Warbling vireo White-crowned sparrow Western tanager Willow flycatcher Wilson's warbler Yellow-rumped warbler Yellow warbler 0

2,000

500

228

Estimated trend

3,000

Breeding season

PHOTO BY NPS/D. SMITH

Passerines and near-passerines, groups that combined include all songbirds, woodpeckers, and hummingbirds, comprise the majority of bird species in Yellowstone National Park. Across North America, many of these species are declining or imperiled. To document shifts in songbird populations within the park, the Yellowstone National Park bird program monitors these species across a range of seasons and habitat types. Yellowstone has participated in the long-running North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) each June since at least 1987. This survey helps identify local and broad-scale population trends and fluctuations associated with habitat changes such as those related to the 1988 fires or management actions like wolf reintroduction. BBS results suggest that songbird numbers in Yellowstone are relatively stable over the past decade, but these surveys are constrained to road corridors. The park’s own monitoring efforts include

Predator recovery

1988 fires impact 1990

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Total Songbirds Observed Number of species Number of individuals

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2018

0

100

200

300

Bird Population Monitoring Percent of nest success

80%

40

60% 40%

20

20% Upward trend due to increased monitoring Increased count not indicative of population changes 0% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2011

Percent of nest success

Bald Eagle

Nest success (%)

100%

20

40%

0 2015 2018

2010

Nesting pairs

Nest success (%)

100%

120 100

80%

80

60%

60

40%

40

20%

20

0% 1988

1995

2000

2005

Peregrine Falcon

Nest success (%)

100%

Territories occupied

60

80% 40

60% 40%

20

20% *

Peregrine Falcon

0 2015 2018

2010

0% 1988 1995 2000 2005 *Limited monitoring in 2008

Osprey

0 2015 2018

2010

Number monitored

Percent of nest success

10

* 2005

Golden eagle winter ranges

40 30

Osprey Percent of nest success

Nesting pairs

60%

0% 1988 1995 2000 *Limited monitoring in 2008

Golden Eagle

0 2015 2018

80%

20%

Bald Eagle

60

Number monitored

American White Pelican Nest attempts Young fledged

600

Common Loon

American White Pelican

No data, 2007

Number monitored

900

300 0 1988

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015 2018

Common Loon Adults Loonlets fledged Nest pairs

40

No data, 2008

Number monitored

60

20 0

1989

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015 2018

Trumpeter Swan, 1931−2018

20

1940

1950

1960

1970

No data, 1981−1982

40

0 1931

No data, 1969−1975

60

Adults Cygnets No data, 1942–1945

80

Number monitoed

Commonly seen during the breeding season Location of territorial pairs Cygnet releases between 2013 and 2018

Nest success (%) Territories occupied with known outcome

100%

Number monitored

Trumpeter Swans, 2018

Golden Eagle

Number monitored

Yellowstone Park staff have monitored populations of some sensitive species for several decades. Bald eagles and osprey monitoring commenced in the mid-1980s at the tail end of the DDT pesticide use that decimated raptor populations across North America. Both species were initially stable, but populations declined in the early and mid-2000s, coinciding with the crash in native cutthroat trout populations in Yellowstone Lake. Bald eagles have a relatively diverse diet and have since adapted to other prey sources, while osprey require fish and were heavily reliant on Yellowstone Lake cutthroat. Park-wide, osprey remain abundant, but they are largely absent from Yellowstone Lake despite recent progress in cutthroat trout recovery. DDT also decimated Yellowstone’s peregrine falcons to the point of extirpation. Following releases started in 1982, peregrines are now distributed across the park, often occupying cliffs above water. Researchers believe peregrine populations have reached saturation and the population is stable. Golden eagle population monitoring began in 2011 to determine if they are experiencing the same declines noted across western North America. Researchers have documented 28 territories in the park, most where nesting cliffs are more abundant and at lower, more hospitable elevations. Yellowstone’s golden eagles have variable and generally low reproduction compared with other nearby populations, which is expected given the park’s high elevation and harsh climate. Water birds, like common loons and American white pelicans, are highly susceptible to variations in climate. In particular, water level is key to their nesting success. Early or elevated snowpack runoff can flood nests, while low water levels permit access by predators and humans. Yellowstone pelicans are particularly vulnerable because they have only one nesting site, the Molly Islands on Yellowstone Lake. Water levels regulate the size of the islands—some years submerging them—and nesting success varies dramatically each year. Loons are more evenly spread across the park and the population is relatively stable, barring a temporary decline in the late 2000s. However, with a small population and low productivity, loons remain at risk of local extirpation and deserve continued attention.

1980

1990

2000

2010

2018

The first monitoring records of Yellowstone’s iconic trumpeter swans date to 1919 and the first population estimate was in 1931. At that time, Yellowstone’s swans were the last known remaining population in North America, leading managers to initiate intensive efforts to secure the local population and entire species. The population grew from the 1930s through the early 1960s then began to decline, likely due to causes including increased park visitation and climate change. By 2010, researchers observed only 3 adult swans, down from a high of 69 in 1961. Park managers took aggressive action to again save Yellowstone’s swan population and, since 2012, artificial nesting structures and the release of captive-bred cygnets have slightly boosted the population.

229

Fish Yellowstone National Park Fishery When Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872, 13 fish species populated 52 percent of the park’s surface waters. Waterfalls or other barriers kept fish from the remaining waters. Early park managers placed a high value on visitor access to fishing. Noting the vast fishless waters of Yellowstone, managers asked the U.S. Fish Commission to “see all of these waters so stocked that the pleasureseeker in the Park can enjoy fine fishing within a few rods of any hotel or camp.” Fish from outside the park were first planted in 1889 and 1890, including nonnative species such as brook trout in the upper Firehole River, rainbow trout in the upper Gibbon River, and brown and lake trout in Lewis and Shoshone Lakes. Between 1881 and 1955 the stocking program planted more than 310 million native and nonnative fish, greatly reducing the park’s fishless waters and establishing five nonnative fish species.

Nonnative fish have profoundly affected Yellowstone’s ecology. The more serious consequences include displacement of natives such as westslope cutthroat trout and Arctic grayling, hybridization of Yellowstone and westslope cutthroat trout with nonnative rainbow trout, and predation of Yellowstone cutthroat trout by nonnative lake trout. Preservation of native species is a top priority of current Yellowstone fisheries management. Restoring native fish and monitoring lake and stream ecosystem health are also key pursuits, as are tracking invasive species and providing early warning of habitat degradation. Angling is allowed in the park but closely controlled through catchand-release regulations for native species and a variety of harvest regulations for nonnatives. Nonnative regulations range from two fish per angler, providing the opportunity for a fresh fish dinner, to “must kill” on lake trout in Yellowstone Lake, assisting with lake trout suppression.

Selected Native Fish

Nonnative Fish Rainbow Trout

Cutthroat Trout Originally Yellowstone cutthroat trout inhabited the park’s Snake, Shoshone, Falls, and Yellowstone River drainages. Historical hatchery operations expanded this range by planting fish beyond their native waters. The western cutthroat trout, a close relative to the Yellowstone cutthroat, populates waters in the park’s northwestern corner.

Due to historic stocking practices rainbow trout are widely distributed, although not found in Yellowstone Lake, the Yellowstone River above the falls, or the Snake River.

Lake Trout Lake trout are an extremely harmful species. They are currently in Heart, Lewis, Shoshone, and Yellowstone Lakes as a result of both historical and illegal stocking. Westslope cutthroat trout Yellowstone cutthroat trout

Mountain Whitefish Mountain whitefish are native to the headwaters of the Missouri River, including the Yellowstone River up to the falls, the Gallatin and Madison Rivers, and the Snake and Lewis Rivers.

Brook Trout Historical stocking widely distributed this species, though no brook trout inhabit Yellowstone Lake, the Yellowstone River above the falls, or the Gallatin River.

Arctic Grayling A native species that has been largely lost from the park, Arctic grayling are found in the Gibbon River and less commonly in the Madison and Firehole Rivers.

Brown Trout Brown trout were introduced to the Gallatin, Gibbon, Firehole, Madison, Lewis, and Snake Rivers, and the Yellowstone River below Knowles Falls.

Yellowstone native fish not shown Snake River cutthroat trout Longnose dace Speckled dace Longnose sucker Utah chub Mottled sculpin Utah sucker Mountain sucker Redside shiner

230

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Distribution Clark

M

u ss

elshe

M O N TA N A ll

Rive r

r

r Ri ve Powder

River

ve Ri

Yellowstone

Bigh orn

Salm on

Fo rk

W ind

Rive r

IDAHO

Sn ak

Riv er N. Pla

e en

Rive r Gre

Yellowstone National Park lies at the heart of the native Yellowstone cutthroat range in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. The fish is a keystone species in the park, providing an important source of food for an estimated 42 species of birds and mammals and supporting a $36 million annual sport fishery. Genetically pure Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations have declined throughout their natural range in the Intermountain West, succumbing to habitat degradation and destruction by people, excessive fishing, competition with and predation by nonnative fish, and loss of genetic integrity through interbreeding with introduced fish species. Many of the remaining genetically pure Yellowstone cutthroat trout are found within Yellowstone National Park, particularly in Yellowstone Lake and its drainages. Yellowstone cutthroat trout have disappeared altogether from some streams and suffered substantial population declines elsewhere inside the park. The greatest threat to Yellowstone cutthroats may be illegally introduced nonnative lake trout: one adult lake trout can consume 40 or more cutthroat trout per year. Park biologists have removed over 3.7 million lake trout from Yellowstone Lake since their discovery in 1994, with 326,000 removed in 2020. Lake trout caught in large meshes, which target adults, have dropped from a high of 69,700 in 2015 to 32,800 in 2020, even with increasing effort to target those fish. Hybridization is another major factor in the loss of Yellowstone cutthroat trout, leaving genetically pure fish in only a fraction of their historical range. Pathogens also pose a significant threat; in particular, Myxobolus cerebralis, an introduced parasite that causes whirling disease, has reduced fish populations in several areas of the Intermountain West. In Yellowstone Lake, up to 20 percent of juvenile and adult Yellowstone cutthroat trout are infected with the parasite. Since the late 1980s, periods of drought have decreased the volume of Yellowstone Lake. Water levels as low as those of the Dust Bowl years have exposed bars that block fish passage in the late summer and early autumn when fry migrate to the lake.

Mad iso n River

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout

River tte

Current distribution

WYOMING

Historical distribution YCT management boundary

Hybridization

Whirling Disease, 1995–2017

Negative for whirling disease

Cutthroat extirpated

Positive for whirling disease

Genetically pure Known or suspected hybrids Originally fishless (no cutthroat trout) No data

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Movement Pelica n

Cr

Spawning 4 Pelica n Cr July 15, 2005

Adult cutthroat trout spend most of the year in Yellowstone Lake Yellowstone Many fish will migrate back to Lake Yellowstone Lake and return In 2 Yellowstone in following years to the same location to spawn again Lake Aug. 22, 2005

In Yellowstone Lake

2

Aug. 28, 2004

stone low Yel

Adult cutthroat trout migrate into tributary streams to spawn late April–July

3 Jan. 25, 2005

Yellowstone Lake

stone low Yel

Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the Yellowstone Lake ecosystem display four life history variations. In the most common of these, adult fish reside most of the year in the lake, migrate up tributary streams to spawn, then return to the lake shortly thereafter (lacustrine-adfluvial, right). Less common life history patterns include stream-resident fish moving only short distances to spawn (fluvial); fish migrating from one stream to another to spawn then returning to their resident stream (fluvial-adfluvial); and fish migrating from the lake downstream to an outlet stream, spawning, and returning to the lake (allacustrine). It is rare for a fish to use multiple life history strategies, but it does happen (far right); this fish displayed both lacustrine-adfluvial and allacustrine life history movements in different years. The majority of Yellowstone Lake cutthroat trout spawn in the stream where they hatched (natal homing) and return to the same location to spawn in different seasons (site fidelity). A recent study showed that 97 percent of repeat spawners returned to within 3 kilometers of their original spawning location and only one fish, or 0.7 percent of the sample, was detected spawning in another stream (far right).

Adult Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the Yellowstone Lake system have been documented migrating over 65 km to spawn

July 16, 2004 1 Th or o f a r e Cr Riv

Spawning

3 er June 26, 2006

0 0

20 mi.

Spawning July 16, 2004 1 Th or o f a r e Cr Riv

er

20 km

231

Fish Management

Cr.

Cr. se Ro

e lian C r.

rn Ca

Cre ek hi

Tower and Carnelian Creeks

r ve Ri

Wolf and Grebe Lakes 7

6

13

Rose Creek

Amp

da So

ar m La

Grayling Creek

r Rive

w To

Cr .

Lamar River

12

st Lo reek C

er

3

Cree k

h ug

14

Soda Butte Creek

th ea te r

Sl o

Pebble

Buffalo Creek

C

t te

10

Elk, Lost, 5 Yancey Cr. Elk Creeks

River

ver

ek

Yellow sto ne

Bu

Specimen Creek

re

1 East Fork

er

Ri

Slough

11 Creek G ardn

Cou ga r

8 Gibbon

C r e ek

R i v er

bon R. Gib

River

Madison

River

hole

Goose and 4 Gooseneck Lakes

Arnica

F ire

9 Creek

YELLOWSTONE LAKE

West Thumb Shoshone Lake

Restoration projects Chemically treated Mechanically treated

Ongoing Proposed 0

10 mi.

1 East Fork Specimen Creek

9 Arnica Creek

5 Elk/Lost/Yancey Creeks Brook trout removed and stocked with Yellowstone cutthroat trout Miles restored: 5.9 Status: Completed

Stocked with westslope cutthroat trout Miles restored: 8 Status: Completed

2 High Lake

Stocked with westslope cutthroat trout and Arctic grayling Miles restored: 35 Status: Completed

Lakes

Limiting nonnative fish (rainbow trout) Miles restored: 5.8 Status: Ongoing

14 Soda Butte Creek

11 Slough Creek

Brook trout removed and stocked with Yellowstone cutthroat trout Miles restored: 23.3 Status: Completed

Limiting nonnative fish (rainbow trout) Miles restored: 13.8 Status: Ongoing

Stocked with westslope cutthroat trout and Arctic grayling Acres restored: 232 Status: Completed

Both lakes stocked with westslope cutthroat trout. Gooseneck Lake was unsuccessful. Acres restored: 42 Status: Completed

13 Rose Creek

Limiting nonnative fish (rainbow trout) Miles restored: 38 (target) Status: Preliminary work 2016–2020

7 Wolf/Grebe Lakes

4 Goose and Gooseneck

Limiting nonnative fish (rainbow trout) Miles restored: 8.9 Status: Ongoing

10 Buffalo Creek

Preliminary work 2015 to present Miles restored: 44 (target) Status: Proposed

3 Grayling Creek

12 Lamar River

Brook trout eliminated Miles restored: 3.3 Status: Completed

6 Tower/Carnelian Creeks

Stocked with westslope cutthroat trout Acres restored: 7 Status: Completed

8 Gibbon River

Brook and rainbow trout removed; stocked with westslope cutthroat trout and Arctic grayling Miles restored: 21.2 Status: Ongoing

River Miles Restored Arnica Creek Elk, Lost, Yancey Creeks East Fork Specimen Creek Soda Butte Creek Grayling Creek Rose Creek Lamar River Slough Creek Gibbon River Buffalo Creek Tower and Carnelian Creeks

Ri ve r

ake Sn

10 km

River

0

Heart Lake

3.3

Lake Acreage Restored High Lake Wolf/Grebe Lakes Goose/Gooseneck Lakes

5.9 8 23.3

0

35

7 232 42

50

100

150

200

Acres restored

5.8 8.9 13.8 21.2 38 44

10

20

Miles restored

30

40

Soda Butte Creek Restoration After almost two decades of mechanical suppression (electrofishing, nets, traps) in Soda Butte Creek, nonnative brook trout continued to degrade native Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations and migrate downstream toward the Lamar River. In 2015, fish managers decided to chemically treat the creek and its tributaries to remove all nonnative fish. Following two years of chemical treatment with the fish toxicant rotenone all brook trout were removed from the system. Yellowstone cutthroat trout have been returned and are thriving; areas once devoid of aquatic macroinvertebrates are now teeming with life.

Spawning Cuthroat Trout

PHOTO BY NPS / JAY FLEMING

Completed

Ye l

Lewis Lake

e ton ws lo

232

Aquatic Restoration Projects

High

2 Lake tin Galla

The primary goal of fisheries managers in Yellowstone has changed over time. Early on, expanding angling opportunities was the top priority—millions of native and nonnative fish were stocked in park waters. This had the unintended consequence of harming native fish, and by the early 1950s the park ceased stocking nonnative species. Angling was still at the forefront of fisheries management, but focus shifted to protecting populations for sustainable fishing. Creel limits were instituted (leading eventually to catch-and-release regulations in many areas). More recently, the focus has again shifted, to protecting and restoring native fish and, in turn, restoring the natural function of the Yellowstone ecosystem. Today, where feasible, fisheries managers are returning Yellowstone waters to their historical (pre-European settlement) state. A variety of techniques are being used to accomplish this goal: enhanced angling regulations, isolating stream reaches, removing nonnative species, and restocking native species. Two species, cutthroat trout (Yellowstone and westslope) and Arctic grayling have been the main beneficiaries of this work. Native fish have suffered as a result of the introduction of nonnative species with, for example, westslope cutthroat trout and Arctic grayling being nearly extirpated from Yellowstone. In Yellowstone Lake, introduced lake trout have decimated the native Yellowstone cutthroat trout population. In stream systems, rainbow, brown, and brook trout have all had detrimental effects on native species. Nonnative fish compete with native fish for food and habitat, brown and brook trout prey on native species, and rainbow trout mate with cutthroat trout, producing fertile, hybrid offspring. Because of these dynamics, fisheries managers are now controlling or completely removing nonnative fish where practical. Native fish are protected with a combination of strategies. Angling regulations now include catch and release for native fish and liberal creel limits or mandatory kill regulations for nonnatives. Barriers have been constructed to limit movement of nonnative fish; electrofishing projects remove them. If these measures prove unsuccessful, further action is sometimes required. Complete removal of nonnative species can be achieved through chemical treatment of streams. Once treated, these stretches are restocked with native species and monitored for years to ensure successful recolonization. Chemical treatments have been used throughout the northern portion of the park to help restore native stocks. In areas where restoration of native fish is not practical, fisheries are managed to support wild trout populations. For example, in the Madison, Gibbon, and Firehole Rivers creel limits maintain healthy populations of wild trout. Overall, current management practices are aimed at ensuring the persistence of Yellowstone’s native fish while continuing to provide world-class angling for park visitors.

Lake Trout Gillnet Catches in Yellowstone Lake, 2018 Catchment quantity

High >8 Medium 2–8 Low