As many as 200 grizzly bears could reside in North Cascades National Park and the surrounding ecosystem under an aggressive restoration effort under consideration in the state of Washington. Secretary of the Department of Interior (DOI) Ryan Zinke announced his support of restoring the grizzly population during a March 23 visit to Sedro-Wolley, WA.
During the trip, Zinke emphasized the cultural and spiritual importance of grizzly bears in tribal communities and the contributions grizzlies make to the biodiversity of the ecosystem. He also talked about the “ecological devastation that the permanent loss of grizzly bears would cause if nothing is done.”
In his comments, Zinke said, “Restoring the grizzly bear to the North Cascades Ecosystem [NCE] is the American conservation ethic come to life. We are managing the land and the wildlife according to the best science and best practices.”
Zinke went on, “The loss of the grizzly bear in the North Cascades would disturb the ecosystem and rob the region of an icon. We are moving forward with plans to restore the bear to the North Cascades, continuing our commitment to conservation and living up to our responsibility as the premier stewards of our public land.”
Zinke’s comments appear to represent a change of opinion after instructing the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) in December 2017 to stop its work on an environmental impact statement (EIS).
Ann Froschauer, external affairs supervisor with the Washington Fish and Wildlife, explained actions that may have led to Zinke’s change of opinion, saying, “Briefing our senior leadership about complex proposals like this is an important part of the planning and policy process; stopping to take the time to do that has allowed us to move forward with the secretary’s support.” She added that in February 2018, Karen Taylor-Goodrich, North Cascades National Park Service Superintendent and a member of the IGBC NCE Subcommittee, provided a briefing for DOI staff on the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Restoration Plan and EIS. “After the briefing and additional information sharing with the department, the secretary indicated his support for the completion of the environmental impactstatement process that has been underway since 2014,” Froschauer said.
Cattle producers react
Responding to Zinke’s announcement, Washington Cattlemen’s Association (WCA) Executive Director Sarah Ryan issued a statement, saying, “The idea of dumping man-eating grizzly bears from helicopters into Washington National Parks has not been well thought out. Once the grizzly bears walk out of the park into rural towns and private and state lands, the communities surrounding the recovery area can be greatly impacted.”
Ryan continued, “Already the livestock community has had little to no help with the management and recovery of wolves in the North Cascades, and cannot accept and welcome another federally listed apex predator with no monetary help from the federal government. What is the reasoning behind thinking a recovery like this can be accomplished without the support of the ranching, logging, recreation, and natural resource-based communities or consideration for public safety?”
Also responding on behalf of cattle producers, Ethan Lane, executive director of the Public Lands Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Federal Lands, said, “We are extremely disappointed with the Department of the Interior’s support to introduce grizzly bears to the North Cascades of Washington. For more than a year we have heard the secretary [Zinke] talk about being a better neighbor, but unfortunately actions speak louder than words. Reintroducing as many as 200 man-eating predators into an area already reeling from exploding gray wolf populations is anything but neighborly.” Lane added, “This decision won’t just impact ranchers —it’s a blow for the entire North Cascades ecosystem, the safety of locals and visitors, and the local economy, too. In fact, the only beneficiaries of an action like this will be the radical environmental activists that support this type of ill-advised ecosystem tinkering.”
Reintroduction options
Leading up to reintroduction, the state must first complete an EIS. The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to explore a range of alternatives and analyze impacts that any reasonable alternatives could have on the human environment.
The draft EIS offers four alternatives one of which is “no action.” The January 2017 draft EIS notes that, “Action alternatives carried forward for detailed analysis must meet the purpose of and need for taking action.”
The aggressive or “expedited” restoration plan, identified as Alternative D, would reach the restoration goal within roughly 25 years. The other options, Alternatives B and C would see the recovery goal of approximately 200 bears in 60 to 100 years.
Source populations would most likely be sought in Montana and British Columbia, Canada. The draft EIS notes that while taking grizzlies from these areas would count as mortalities, the sustainability of those populations would be minimally or not affected.
The EIS also is required to consider socioeconomics. In considering concerns about economic impacts on natural resource-based industries the potential impact related to depredation of livestock was mentioned.
Also under consideration in the draft EIS is a possible 10(j) designation under the Endangered Species Act. The draft EIS executive summary explained, “An experimental population is a group or reintroduced plants or animals that is geographically isolated from other populations of the species and is typically determined to be ‘essential’ or ‘non-essential’ to the survival of the species as a whole but contributes to their recovery.” A 10(j) designation often provides some leeway in managing a protected or endangered species.
The National Park Service outlined the six-step process leading to implementation of a restoration plan. It has already completed Steps 1 and 2 which was a public scoping and preparation of a draft EIS. The process is currently in Step 3 which includes a public review of the draft EIS and public input. After an extension of the original deadline, the public comment period ended March 14, 2017. The remaining three steps include Step 4, analyze public comments and prepare the final EIS; Step 5, release of the final EIS to the public; and Step 6, sign the record of decision.
The DOI said that over 126,000 comments and other correspondence were received on the alternatives. Those are being reviewed under Step 4, noted above. The final EIS is scheduled for release in late summer of 2018.
Froschauer told WLJ that, while the EIS indicated some potential staging areas for grizzly releases, no specific sites have been identified at this time. She also said that none of the proposed release sites overlap with existing grazing permit areas.
Lane responded to potential grazing conflicts, saying, “Our concern is more the bleed-over. They introduce grizzlies in one area but have demonstrated that they can’t keep wildlife in one area. So, it’s a range issue too; [bears] will spread from there.
“The Pacific Northwest, ranchers in that area have endured an onslaught of apex predators being introduced and spread into their environment over their objections over the last few years. It is a problem that goes beyond just grizzlies,” Lane concluded. — Rae Price, WLJ editor
