It has been more than four years since the reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Cascade Range was initially proposed. Since then, comment periods and meetings have been held and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been drafted. So, why the delay?
Denise Shultz of the National Park Service (NPS) told WLJ the delay is mostly summed up to a change in administration and the turnover of the Department of the Interior secretaries.
“Normally the process isn’t this long, but there was a pause in the process to brief the new administration about the project and the foundational information about the EIS.”
Previous Secretary Ryan Zinke came out in support of the EIS and the project, but his later resignation caused for another delay in order to brief new Secretary David Bernhardt. While Bernhardt was still the nominee, Congress requested the department reopen the comment period for an additional 90 days, Shultz said.
That comment deadline extension ended Oct. 24, and now the NPS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will work to review the submitted comments and draft an analysis and summary.
Recap of proposed plan
The drafted EIS was first released in January 2017. The document’s purpose is to determine how to restore the grizzly bear to the North Cascades ecosystem (NCE) in order to avoid permanent loss of the bears in the NCE and to remove the grizzly bear from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species. The NCE stretches almost 10,000 square miles within north central Washington and is one of the largest continuous blocks of federal land in the lower 48 states.
The document states that the overall population of grizzlies in the NCE is unknown, but it is unlikely there is a viable grizzly population as only four confirmed detections have been spotted in a period of the last 10 years.
The draft EIS evaluated the effects of alternatives for grizzly restoration, which include potential impacts on wildlife and fish, wilderness character, recreational use, public safety and socioeconomics.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to explore alternatives for action, including a “no-action alternative.” The draft EIS analyzed four alternative plans:
• Continuation of existing management (no action)—Under this alternative, no new management actions would be implemented. Management actions would be focused on improved sanitation, patching control, outreach and educational programs;
• Ecosystem evaluation restoration—In this alternative, up to 10 grizzly bearswould be released at a single site over two summers. The bears would be monitored for two years for habitat use and instances of human conflict. The results after this four-year study would determine future restoration proceedings;
• Incremental restoration—Incremental restoration would involve five to seven grizzly bears being released in the NCE every year for five to 10 years, with the goal to establish an initial population of 25 bears. This alternative is expected to result in a population of 200 bears within 60-100 years; and
• Expedited restoration—This alternative seeks to expedite restoration by releasing additional bears into the NCE over time until the goal is reached. This would not limit the primary restoration phase to 25 animals and would not set a limit for the number of bears released into the NCE. This alternative is expected to restore the population to 200 bears in 25 years.
Project timeline
The EIS draft was released in January 2017 and a comment period ran until March 14, 2017. The commenting period was then extended through April 28, 2017 pending requests from members of the public and local elected officials. A third commenting period was opened July 24, 2019 and closed on Oct. 24, 2019.
A public meeting was also held this year in early October to hear oral comments. Nearly 500 people attended the meeting in Okanogan, WA, and heard from almost 70 speakers.
All comments from the initial commenting period in 2017—over 126,000 comments—to the last commenting period in late October of this year will be considered for the final EIS. Shultz estimates the process to compile all the comments and form an analysis will take a minimum of several months. — Anna Miller, WLJ editor
