"The National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have released a draft plan to restore grizzly bears to the North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE), a region they once roamed for thousands of years. The plan is open for public comment until November 13, 2023.
During the 45-day comment period, the agencies will gather public input to develop their final strategy on grizzly reintroduction in north-central Washington. Public comments can now be submitted here:
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=132104"
Under
alternative A (no-action alternative), current management would continue, and the proposed
restoration population goal of 200 grizzly bears in the US portion of the NCE would not be achieved
because no grizzly bear population is currently present in the NCE, and grizzly bears are not expected to
recover to a sustainable population in the NCE on their own.
Alternative B would release up to 7 grizzly bears per year for 5 to 10 years until an initial population of
25 grizzly bears in the US portion of the NCE is reached. In subsequent years, additional bears could be
released as needed to help meet restoration objectives. Once an initial population of 25 grizzly bears is
reached, the restoration population goal of 200 bears in the NCE would likely be achieved in
approximately 60 to 100 years. Grizzly bears released into the NCE would benefit in the long term from
the large block of high-quality habitat that would help further the conservation of the species. The release
of grizzly bears into the NCE would require their capture and transport from other areas, and some level
of mortality may occur. However, every effort would be taken to minimize capture and transport-related
mortalities. The North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Team (2004) estimates that approximately 2% of
the grizzly bear population in the NCE would be lost to human-caused mortality each year, including
mortalities associated with restoration activities. Although the removal of grizzly bears from source
populations in interior British Columbia, Montana, or Wyoming would effectively count as mortality to
those populations, the viability of source populations would not be affected. Overall, alternative B would
result in beneficial impacts on grizzly bears by restoring them to areas of high-quality habitat and
furthering conservation of the species.
Alternative C differs from alternative B only in the implementation of an ESA section 10(j) designation
for grizzly bears. Impacts on grizzly bears from capture, release, and monitoring, as well as impacts on
source populations would be the same as described under alternative B. Under alternative C, there would
be increased options for grizzly bear management, with specific rules applying to the different
management zones, as described in chapter 2. Using the ESA 10(j) designation would provide additional
management flexibility to effectively manage the grizzly bear population in and around the NCE,
including deterrence, preemptive relocation to prevent conflicts, and written authorization for conditioned
lethal take, if necessary. Without management tools to sufficiently address conflicts between grizzly bears
and humans, the escalation of conflict situations is likely to erode social tolerance for grizzly bear
restoration among some groups. Therefore, despite allowing lethal take in limited circumstances, the 10(j)
designation is expected to improve social tolerance of grizzly bears and, in turn, improve the chances of
establishing and maintaining a grizzly bear population in NCE.
