Agenda packet — South Lake Tahoe City Council, April 21, 2026 (part 4 of 4)

d) When specifically did NV Energy first communicate to Liberty that it contemplated discontinuing providing future full-requirements services? RESPONSE:
a) The ESA was set to expire December 29, 2025.
b) Yes.
c) Yes, the ESA that was extended was the 2021 ESA. Liberty initiate discussion of remaining a under a full-service agreement past May 2027 in the Fall of 2025. d) NV Energy has remained open to discussions of a long term full-service agreement. They notified Liberty they would not be able to support that agreement once Greenlink West is in service on November 26, 2025.

REQUEST NO. 2:

Sierra Pacific Power Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of NV Energy, filed a request with FERC to revise Rate Schedule No. 55 under Docket No. ER26-___-000 on November 17, 2025, in connection with revising the power purchase agreement between NV Energy and Liberty. This FERC request reports that “Sierra Pacific owns and operates approximately 1,600 MW of generation.” Liberty reports that it obtains all power from NV Energy other than renewable power produced by Liberty (AL-287, p.2). Approximately how much generation capacity does Liberty contract from NV Energy?
RESPONSE:

Under the current ESA, Liberty procures all capacity, outside of our renewable generation, from NV Energy. This results in about 85MW of capacity a year.

REQUEST NO. 3:

AL 287 (p.2) reports that Liberty is aware that NV Energy’s discontinuation of full-requirements service to Liberty is connected to the growth of large loads, including data centers, in NV Energy's territory. Does Liberty engage in any form of monitoring growing demand in NV Energy's territory? If yes. Please explain.

RESPONSE:

Liberty monitors what is publicly available, including NV Energy’s Integrated Resource Plan. 748
Liberty CalPeco Electric
Data Request No. SBUA-Liberty DR re AL 287
March 24, 2026

Page 4 ends

REQUEST NO. 4:

Is Liberty informed of the approximate energy requirements of the new “large loads” in NV Energy's territory? If yes, please state (a) the approximate forecasted load growth of which Liberty is informed and (b) approximately when Liberty learned of principle sources of load growth for periods beyond the term of the five-year energy services agreement between Liberty and NV Energy discussed in Liberty's October 15, 2021, IRP filing with the CPUC.

RESPONSE:

No, Liberty is not informed of the energy requirements of new loads in NV Energy’s territory.

REQUEST NO. 5:

Does Liberty engage in any form of monitoring of NV Energy's energy generation or acquisition capacity? If yes. Please explain.

RESPONSE:

Liberty monitors what is publicly available, including NV Energy’s Integrated Resource Plan.

REQUEST NO. 6:

When did Liberty learn that forecasted demand for energy in NV Energy's territory plus Liberty's demand for energy would likely exceed NV Energy's generation commitment capability? RESPONSE:

Liberty was informed NV Energy could not pursue an energy supply agreement after Greenlink West on November 26, 2025.

REQUEST NO. 7:

Is Liberty in any way affiliated with NV Energy? If yes, please explain.

RESPONSE:

No.

REQUEST NO. 8:

AL 287 (p.2) reports that the termination of full-requirement services from NV Energy will occur in conjunction with the Greenlink-West transmission project becoming operational. 749
Liberty CalPeco Electric
Data Request No. SBUA-Liberty DR re AL 287
March 24, 2026

Page 5 ends

a) What is the purpose of the Greenlink-West transmission project? b) When did Liberty become aware of the initiation of the construction of Greenlink-West transmission project?
c) When did Liberty become aware that Greenlink-West was expected to be completed in May 2027?
RESPONSE:
a) Please see NV Energy’s announcement for details: https://www.nvenergy.com/aboutnvenergy/news/news-releases/nv-energy-transmission-infrastructure-investment-to-driveclean-energy-transformation-for-nevada b) Liberty became aware when NV Energy publicly announced it on July 20, 2020. c) NV Energy announced on November 2, 2023 the in-service date of Greenlink West is May 2027. They provide updates on their Open Access Same-time Information System (OASIS) for information related to their transmission service:
https://www.oasis.oati.com/NEVP/
REQUEST NO. 9:

AL 287 (p.1) describes NV Energy’s decision to discontinue full-requirement services as a “change of stance by NV Energy” and “a surprise” to Liberty. However, Liberty’s October 15, 2021, IRP filing stated it “could only proceed with a ‘bridging agreement’ with NV Energy to provide time for potential improvements on the NV Energy transmission system that would make more resources available.” Had NV Energy previously expressed an intention to continue providing Liberty full-requirement services after the expiration date of the existing contractual commitment to do so? If yes, please describe these communications and the dates of the communications and, to the extent able, provide copies of communications.

RESPONSE:

NV Energy has remained open to discussions on a future supply agreement. However, Liberty has expressed the potential intent to procure power from the market once additional transmission capacity becomes available. In the most recent extension discussions, NV Energy indicated that it was unable to extend the agreement beyond the energization of the Greenlink project.

REQUEST NO. 10:

Please provide any analysis or workpapers concerning (a) Liberty’s preparing for and (b) potential cost implications of transitioning to a power supplier other than NV Energy 750
Liberty CalPeco Electric
Data Request No. SBUA-Liberty DR re AL 287
March 24, 2026

Page 6 ends

RESPONSE:

Please see confidential attachment CalPeco_NVE Balance Analysis_CONFIDENTIAL.pdf.

In preparation for Liberty’s upcoming IRP filing, Liberty evaluated its power procurement options with a focus on affordability and emissions performance. The analysis, as summarized in the confidential attachment, resulted in continuing a full‑service agreement represented the most cost‑effective option while also achieving emissions objectives, including RPS compliance.

Liberty presented these findings to NV Energy, noting that Liberty’s winter‑peaking load complements NV Energy’s load profile and could support an agreement beyond 2027. Despite these discussions, NV Energy ultimately concluded that it could not continue to serve Liberty under a full‑service agreement.
751
Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC
933 Eloise Avenue
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Tel: 800-782-2506
Fax: 530-544-4811
April 2, 2026

VIA EMAIL ONLY
[email protected]
California Public Utilities Commission
Energy Division, Tariff Unit
505 Van Ness Avenue, 4th Floor
San Franciso, CA 94102-3298
Subject: Liberty’s Reply to Protests of AL 287-E Energy Supply Request For Proposals Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC (U 933-E) (“Liberty”) submits this Tier 3 Advice Letter to request expedited approval to conduct a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) and subsequent agreement(s) for Energy Management Services and related supply arrangements for the service territory to follow the end of the existing Energy Services Agreement (“ESA”) with NV Energy.

Liberty makes this request in the context of the approved 2022 Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP”) submission because the currently effective IRP assumed that the NV Energy ESA structure would remain available to Liberty, but exigent circumstances have cause that to no longer be the case.

Background
On March 6, 2026, Liberty submitted its Tier 3 Advice Letter 287-E (“AL”) seeking expedited approval to undertake an RFP to secure replacement energy supply arrangements in light of NV Energy’s decision to cease providing full-requirements wholesale service to Liberty on the later of May 2027 or when NV Energy’s Greenlink-West transmission project becomes operational.1 On March 26, 2026, protests to the Liberty AL were received from Cal Advocates, Small Business Utility Advocates (“SBUA”), and Tahoe Spark. Liberty responds to the salient elements of those protests below and urges the Commission to approve the request to undertake the RFP no later than May 14, 2026, with a subsequent Tier 3 Advice Letter to follow for Commission approval of the resulting contractual supply structure.

Discussion
Timing Exigencies Support Utilization of the Advice Letter Process While the protests from SBUA and Tahoe Spark seek to deny the AL and delay the ability of Liberty to timely utilize a competitive process to find replacement arrangements for energy 1 Information on the status of Greenlink-West can be found at https://www.oasis.oati.com/nevp/. 752
Energy Division Tariff Unit
California Public Utilities Commission
April 2, 2026

Page 2 ends

supply, Cal Advocates properly recognizes the exigency and the appropriateness of the advice letter process in this case.2
Although the precise date of the end of the existing NV Energy ESA cannot be known with certainty, as it is dependent on the date Greenlink-West becomes operational, it is absolutely clear that Liberty must act quickly to both secure supply within the constrained Nevada market and be prepared to schedule those resources as soon as a May 2027 cut-over date. Cal Advocates’ protest recognizes this exigency while the other protests would undercut Liberty’s ability to have sufficient time to solicit bids, evaluate, and negotiate arrangements before presenting them to the Commission for approval.3 Liberty Will Present Final Contracts for Approval
Liberty clearly states it will present the proposed agreement(s) coming out of the RFP via another Tier 3 Advice Letter for Commission approval. Liberty will not seek recovery of any costs associated with any agreement executed pursuant to this solicitation unless and until such agreement is approved by the Commission. Specifically, at page 4, the AL states:

Upon completion of the solicitation, evaluation and agreement negotiation processes, Liberty will present the proposed agreement(s) for Commission approval via a Tier 3 advice letter referencing the request made here, and showing that the results are just and reasonable. Liberty will present confidential information regarding the proposals received and its analysis of which suite of arrangements best serves customers’ interests.

Liberty will then follow-up in the current IRP docket with additional description of how it intends to achieve state policies on renewables and decarbonization over the much longer planning horizon contemplated by the IRP. (Emphasis added.)
As stated in the AL, Liberty’s RFP is intended to evaluate various potential arrangements, not solely a single, full service requirements provider.4
There are services associated with delivering
supply, such as scheduling and settlements, that can be provided by contract distinct from the power purchase agreements with the resources. While a single full-service replacement arrangement may be available, Liberty is not limiting the RFP to such arrangements, but rather— as stated in the AL—the RFP will seek the suite of arrangements that best serves customers over the five-year period. In response to this concern of SBUA, and to further clarify this intent, Liberty includes with this reply redlined draft RFP materials confirming that Liberty will seek a 2 See Cal Advocate’s Protest at pp. 9-10, fn39 citing the timing exigencies and D.12-12-031. 3 SBUA Protest, p. 4; Tahoe SPARK Protest, pp. 18, 20.
4 See AL, p. 4: “Because Liberty is seeking responses from entities able to provide either a one-stop suite of services or distinct services and supplies to be integrated in a way that best serves customers, the evaluation standard must be sufficiently flexible. But the touchstone for the evaluation will be what arrangements best provide customer value while minimizing risks”(emphasis added). 753
Energy Division Tariff Unit
California Public Utilities Commission
April 2, 2026

Page 3 ends

broad set of proposals, whether bundled or unbundled, that can be combined to best serve customers.

A Five-Year Bridging Period Is Appropriate So Liberty Can Develop Longer-Term Supply Strategies
Cal Advocates argues that Liberty should break its solicitation into two phases, with the first running from the start of the cut-over until 2028, and then a second phase for 2029-2030 deliveries.5
Liberty opposes this proposal because it will constrain its ability to develop a longerterm supply strategy that will be presented to the Commission via the IRP and a later application.

As a practical matter, Cal Advocates’ first phase, which ends in 2028, is likely to be counterproductive simply because the initial start date cannot be known with precision at this time. The cut-over will occur May 2027 or the operational date of Greenlink-West, whichever is later. Should Greenlink-West experience additional delays to its commercial operations date, that would create a very short period for any phase 1 contracted services, which injects additional risks for the counterparties. For that reason, Liberty objects to mandatory phasing at this stage, while noting that noting in the requested authority would precluded Liberty from returning to the Commission earlier if market conditions or Commission direction warrant.

Additionally, the five-year term will provide the necessary time for Liberty to establish a costeffective path for its longer-term supply strategies. For example, in prior IRP submissions, Liberty had discussed potential generation and storage development. However, the significantly increased financial requirements associated with wildfire hardening and related insurance requirements, coupled with other global market disruptions such as import tariffs caused Liberty to redirect resources and suspend new generation or storage projects. Moreover, as explained in its 2022 IRP submission, Liberty found that pursuing continued full-requirements services from NV Energy was the most prudent course of action in light of issues around transmission availability and anticipated regulatory changes for the Western regional transmission organization (RTO).6
Contrary to SBUA’s assertion, Liberty watches market developments in the NV Energy balancing authority and was working with NV Energy on a potentially longerterm ESA consistent with the November 2022 IRP plan. Absent the unexpected and unprecedented large load developments in northern Nevada, Liberty believes that NV Energy would have been amenable to providing continued full-service energy supplies. What Liberty did not anticipate in 2022 was the same issue that was not anticipated elsewhere in the country, including California—massive and rapid demand for energy (and water) to serve large data centers. It is this unprecedented large load growth that resulted in NV Energy making clear in late 2025 that it could not continue full-requirements service beyond the energization of Greenlink-West, prompting Liberty’s immediate submission of AL 287-E. 5 Cal Advocates Protest, pp. 5-6.
6 See Liberty’s November 1, 2022 IRP filing in Docket R.20-05-003, pp. 11, 16, 17, 38-39. 754
Energy Division Tariff Unit
California Public Utilities Commission
April 2, 2026

Page 4 ends

In terms of articulating its longer-term procurement strategy and analysis, Liberty intends to present additional details in the upcoming non-standard IRP submission currently due on August 10, 2026 in R.25-06-019. Liberty should have more information from the RFP in hand in August, assuming timely approval of this AL. The non-standard IRP submission will also provide information on the then-current state of Greenlink-West development, as well as a description of the ongoing analysis Liberty will be undertaking in terms of supply and services options over the planning horizon. This includes looking into potential utility resource development and possible increase to in-house capabilities for scheduling and maintaining a compliant portfolio for its customers.

Moreover, the five-year term to the initial bridging will also provide time to adapt to the ongoing regulatory changes happening in the broader western energy markets, which Liberty will have access to via its Greenlink-West transmission allocation and its Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement (“NITSA”). It is the NITSA that provides for the use of the NV Energy system to deliver via multiple points into the Liberty service territory in much the same way as current energy services are delivered. What those broader market changes mean in the context of new transmission availability within the NV Energy balancing authority remain to be seen but should resolve largely by the end of that five-year period.

Liberty Will Undertake a Formal Application for Subsequent Supply Authority Liberty agrees with Cal Advocates that supply arrangements following the initial five-year term should be presented via a formal process, presumably an application.7 Whether or not the
Commission decides to develop a streamlined process for small and multi-jurisdictional utilities (SMJUs) does not need to be addressed in the context of approving this AL but may be addressed in the context of the upcoming IRP or other Commission action.8 On June 1, 2026, in the IRP docket, the large IOUs will be filing documents related to their bundled procurement plans (“BPPs”). Liberty will review those submissions and address in its August IRP submission whether a streamlined procurement process or other mechanism would benefit its customers.

Elements in the Protests are Outside the Scope of the Requested Authority Both Tahoe Spark and SBUA raise issues about recent ratemaking and customer impacts. While Liberty appreciates those concerns and recognizes affordability issues, those concerns are not relevant to this AL, which requests authority to undertake a solicitation process in an expedited manner. Accordingly, those parts of the protests should be disregarded. 7 Cal Advocates Protest, p. 10.
8 See Cal Advocates Protest pp. 10-12, and suggestion that a process be established for both Liberty and Bear Valley Electric Service at pp. 12-13.
755
Energy Division Tariff Unit
California Public Utilities Commission
April 2, 2026

Page 5 ends

Conclusion
Advice Letter 287-E seeks limited, transitional authority for Liberty to conduct a competitive solicitation for replacement electric supply and related services to be in place following the expiration of its existing ESA with NV Energy. The AL does not request approval of any procurement contract, pricing, or cost recovery, and does not prejudge any future Commission determinations.

Given the uncertainty surrounding the precise timing of the Greenlink-West transmission project and the anticipated expiration of the existing Energy Services Agreement no earlier than May 2027, Liberty submits that authorizing the solicitation at this time is necessary to mitigate reliability and cost risks to customers. Delaying authority to solicit would compress procurement timelines and increase the likelihood of adverse outcomes.

Liberty has committed to submit any resulting agreements for Commission approval prior to seeking cost recovery and to provide sufficient information to allow the Commission to determine whether such agreements are just and reasonable. Approval of this AL would not limit the Commission’s authority to impose conditions on, or deny, any future request for contract approval.

For these reasons, Liberty respectfully requests that the Commission reject the protests and approve Advice Letter 287-E with an effective date of no later than May 14, 2026, or as soon thereafter as practicable.

Sincerely,
/s/ Dan Marsh
Dan Marsh
Director, Rates and Regulatory Affairs
cc: Liberty General Order 96-B Service List
Julie Hagan, [email protected], Public Advocates Office Christian Lambert, [email protected], Public Advocates Office Ariel Strauss, [email protected], SBUA
Danielle Hughes, [email protected], Tahoe SPARK
Enclosures: [Exhibit 1 Updated Redlined Solicitation Materials] 756
Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC
Advice Letter Filing Service List
General Order 96-B, Section 4.3

Energy Management Agreement with Net Requirements Service that includes Energy Delivery & Scheduling Coordinator Services RFP Posting Date:

Response Deadline:

Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC (“Liberty”) issues this request for proposals (“RFP”) to solicit competitive proposals from qualified firms for energy supply and scheduling services for Liberty to serve its customers. Liberty will be selecting a single entity to provide the supply and services outlined here.

Background
Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric), LLC (“Liberty”), a subsidiary of Algonquin Power and Utilities Corp., acquired what is now called California Pacific Electric Company (“CalPeco”) from NV Energy, Inc. on December 21, 2012. Liberty provides electric service to the Lake Tahoe region in California for approximately 49,000 customers. The peak load on Liberty’s system is 141 MW, which occurred in December 2017, and the rolling 12‐month peak wholesale load was 634,000 MWh at the end of April 2023. Liberty is subject to regulatory oversight by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”).

Liberty is owner of the 50 MW Luning solar facility located in Nevada, generating approximately 145,000 MWh/year and an additional Nevada‐based 10 MW Turquoise solar facility generating approximately 28,000 MWh/year.

Liberty’s electrical system is interconnected at 38 points with NV Energy with limited electrical interconnections with other electrical grids and is not a part of the electrical grid controlled by the CAISO. Instead, Liberty’s service area falls within NV Energy’s Balancing Authority Area.

Liberty currently receives Full Requirements Service from NV Energy to meet the resource needs of its customers receiving Energy Supply (as defined in Liberty’s CA Tariff Rule 1), which include capacity, energy, network transmission service, ancillary services pursuant to an energy services agreement (“ESA”) with NV Energy. The current ESA will be expiring on May 31, 2027, or upon 759
the completion of facilities (“Greenlink West1”) that will make available sufficient capacity NVE to grant Liberty Network Integration Transmission Service for its entire Network load.

A net services and energy management agreement would be dependent on Liberty’s Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement (“NITSA”) taking effect. Currently, service under the NITSA shall commence on the date when construction of any Direct Assignment Facilities and/or Network Upgrades are completed (i.e. Greenlink West). Service under this agreement shall terminate on January 1, 2049.

Liberty must comply with California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) Program. Under the RPS, retail sellers are required to procure eligible renewable energy credits (“REC”) so that the amount of electricity generated from eligible renewable energy credits equals an average of 60% of total retail sales to customers in California by 2030. Additionally, Senate Bill (SB) 350 requires 65% of RPS procurement to be derived from long‐term contracts of 10 or more years. Liberty is allowed to procure bundled and unbundled RECs to meet its requirements. Currently, Luning, Turquoise, and NVE provide renewable energy to Liberty to help meet its RPS requirements. RPS requirements are currently met by netting the production of the Renewable Generator pursuant to an ESA with NV Energy.

This RFP seeks Proposals from Respondents offering these services (as further defined below).

Proposals may include all or a portion of the services described. Liberty is open to evaluating all‐ inclusive offerings as well as standalone service components, which may be considered individually or combined to best meet the needs of Liberty and its customers. The selected supplier needs to allow for, and assist in, the delivery of traditional generation resources that may be provided to Liberty from suppliers located either within NV Energy Balancing Authority or imports from outside the NV Energy Balancing Authority during the term of an Energy Services Agreement entered into pursuant to this RFP. Liberty would take ownership of all RECs associated with the underlying bundled RPS‐eligible electricity. Any proposal including renewable energy must show that RECs will be issued, tracked and retired through the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (“WREGIS”).

To help meet RPS requirements, proposals for renewable energy as described are encouraged and may receive a higher rating upon bid evaluation.

RFP Scope of Services
The purpose of this RFP is to obtain responses setting forth terms and conditions on which a single, qualifying Respondent would be able to provide the scope of services set forth below.

Liberty intends to select a Respondent to provide a firm block of energy and provide energy service obligations to meet its energy service obligations to its customers including scheduling and coordinating.

1. The Respondents should propose services for a minimum of a 5‐year term designed to meet the following objectives beginning June 1, 2027:
1 The latest information on Greenlink West can be found here: https://www.nvenergy.com/cleanenergy/greenlink‐nevada 760
• The Respondents should propose an energy supply under a commercially accepted agreement. The supply should be designed to meet the following objectives beginning June 1, 2027:
• Meet all of the requirements of a Certified Scheduling Coordinator as defined in Section 36 of the NV Energy OATT.
• Deliver firm energy on behalf of Liberty at an agreed Point of Receipt (POR) to serve 100% of Liberty’s net load requirements.
• Submit Transmission Service Reservations on behalf of Liberty on the OATI WestTrans system.
• Schedule energy delivery and issue all applicable E‐Tags, including but not limited to energy received from the Renewable Generators and supplied under Scope 1 that can be used to meet Liberty’s load
• Manage all required transmission rights, ancillary service charges, and associated tariffs. • Supply firm capacity to meet applicable resource adequacy requirements, including NV Energy’s reliability requirements.

2. Proposals will be to satisfy Liberty’s instantaneous energy requirements. Respondents may use the following data provided by Liberty in developing proposals:
a. Liberty hourly load from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2024 b. Liberty monthly loads from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2024 c. Liberty monthly load coincident with NV Energy’s system peak loads from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2024

3. The Respondent may transmit power as required in 2 above from 1: Sources within the NV Energy BA or 2) Sources outside of the NV Energy BA to the NV Energy Point of Delivery (“POD”) at the Midpoint 345 kV (or Alternate) POD on the NV Energy system and utilize Liberty’s Network Integration Transmission Service (“NITS”) rights to deliver all energy and ancillary services to the Liberty Designated Network Load within the NV Energy Balancing Area Authority. In performing the duties of a Certified Scheduling Coordinator, Respondents will (on behalf of Liberty) deliver firm energy to the POR and act on behalf of Liberty as required of a Network Transmission Customer in compliance with NV Energy’s OATT.

4. Fixed pricing shall be offered at a cost per megawatt‐hour of energy ($/MWh) delivered at the Liberty POD. Proposed pricing may vary by month and On‐Peak or Off‐Peak. Five year initial term with negotiated annual renewals.
761
1 Assumptions:
• Contractor must be legally authorized to sell power and qualified and able to deliver such power at the POR.
• The energy provider will provide access to day ahead and hour ahead estimates according to the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (“WECC”) protocol (plus fifteen minutes for hourly data), of the expected energy needs. Liberty will provide access to the hourly facility load data.
• The energy provider will be responsible for scheduling Liberty’s Luning and Turquoise resource(s), pre‐scheduling Liberty’s native load and making adjustments to schedules on a continuous basis to minimize imbalances. The energy provider will be responsible for imbalance transactions and costs.
• Delivery shall be WSPP Schedule C, Firm energy subject to Liquidated Damages. Other forms of wholesale power purchase agreements will be considered. • “On‐Peak” shall be defined as HE 0700 through HE 2200 PPT (16 hrs/day) Monday through Saturday, except for NERC Holidays (Liberty is a winter‐peaking utility). “Off‐Peak” are all remaining hours.
• Contractor shall work with Liberty to assure compliance with existing and potential future changes to applicable CPUC and any other applicable regulatory agency requirements, guidelines and standards throughout the Term of the agreement.

Proposal Submission Required Elements

1. Transmittal Letter: A brief statement of the Proposer’s understanding of the work to be done and commitment to perform the work as scheduled, including a summary of any and all exceptions taken to the scope of services requirements, statement of work, specifications, and reference to any proposed contractual terms and conditions required by the Proposer. An officer authorized to bind must sign the proposal on behalf of the Proposer.

2. Applicant Information: Provide legal name of the company, physical street address, e‐mail address, telephone, name and title of individuals authorized to represent the Respondent and the names of all affiliates or organizations with a controlling interest in the company or its affiliates.

3. Term: The term is a minimum of 5 years with an option to renew.

4. Proposal: Provide a description of the proposed services, how it meets each of the Scopes of this RFP, a detailed description addressing all of the Scope of Services, as well as any tasks, task elements and/or functions that are not part of the proposal.

5. NDA: An executed non‐disclosure agreement between the Respondent and Liberty is required.

6. Fees: Pricing should be made based on good faith estimates of the requirements defined in 762
1 this RFP. Provide detailed specific examples or estimates of the fees.

7. Timeline: Provide a timeline for transaction development and implementation for each potential option.

8. Experience: In addition to providing technical responses to the specific scope of work described above, Respondent will separately provide information on each of the following:
a) State the full name and address of your organization and, if applicable, any branch office that will perform work on this project.
b) Describe your company’s plan for managing this particular project and clearly identify project participants and the members of your management team that would be responsible for providing services to Liberty.
c) Provide a brief overview of your company, including organizational structure, number of employees, number of years the company has been in business, number of years the company has provided energy scheduling coordinator services, technology support resources, FERC market based rate authority references, and a list of representative clients.
d) Describe your firm’s experience as may be applicable to this RFP, including management qualifications, years and descriptions of experience in energy scheduling coordinator services, and other contract‐related qualifications. e) Describe your firm’s experience, if any, with assisting or providing services to clients in California, Nevada, or other western states.
f) State whether proposer will use subcontractors to perform services pursuant to the contract. Should the use of subcontractors be offered, the proposer shall provide the same assurances of competence for the subcontractor, plus the demonstrated ability to manage and supervise the subcontracted work. Subcontractors shall not be allowed to further subcontract with others for work. The provisions of any contract resulting from this RFP shall apply to all subcontractors in the same manner as to the proposer.
g) Respondent shall indicate any and all pending litigation that could affect the viability of Respondent’s proposal, continuance of existing contracts, operation or financial stability.
h) Identify whether any key employees have ever been disciplined, suspended, cited, disbarred, censured, or subject to an investigation by any court or regulatory body responsible for oversight of the key employee in connection with services in the energy industry.
i) Provide the name, address, and telephone number of three or more current clients that can serve as a reference.
j) Provide at least two years of independently audited financial statements, credit ratings from at least two credit agencies and any credit bureau reports applicable to the Respondent. Briefly describe your company’s financial position and financial and other resources available in connection with the performance of the services. k) Describe whether the Proposer has, within the last five years, rendered any service to 763
1 Liberty, or its affiliates, either as a contractor or subcontractor, either under the current proposer’s name or any other name or organization. If so, please provide details (status as prime or subcontractor, brief description of the contract, contract start and end dates, the contract administrator name, and total actual contract expenditures).
l) If the Proposer has not rendered any service within the last five years to Liberty, then please provide references over that period with the requested details described above including the counterparty for which services were provided. m) Identify existing projects or programs which Respondent developed and/or operates similar to service requested by Liberty.
n) Identify expectations from Respondent including requirements definition, strategy refinement, and staffing requirements to support implementation methodology. o) Identify any regulatory fines or penalties Respondent has been subject to in the last five years.

Proposal Terms and Conditions

1. Liberty reserves the right to cancel this RFP at any time, reject any and all proposals and to waive irregularities.

2. Liberty shall determine at its sole discretion the value of any and/or all proposals including price and non‐price attributes.

3. Liberty shall perform an initial screening evaluation to identify and eliminate any Proposals that are not responsive to the RFP, do not meet the minimum requirements set forth in the RFP, are clearly not economically competitive with other proposals, or are submitted by Proposers that lack appropriate creditworthiness, sufficient financial resources, or qualifications to provide dependable and reliable services.

4. Liberty reserves the right to submit follow up questions or inquiries to request clarification of information submitted and to request additional information from any one or more of the Respondents.

5. Liberty reserves the right, without qualification and in its sole discretion, to accept or reject any or all proposals for any reason without explanation to the Respondent, or to make the award to that Respondent, who, in the sole opinion of Liberty, is in the best interests of Liberty and will provide the most value to Liberty and its customers.

6. Liberty may decline to enter into any potential engagement agreement or contract with any Respondent, terminate negotiations with any Respondent, or to abandon the request for qualification process in its entirety.

7. Liberty reserves the right to make an award, irrespective of price or technical ability, if Liberty determines that to do so is in the best interests of Liberty and its customers and will provide the most value to Liberty and its customers.

8. Those Respondents who submit Proposals agree to do so without legal recourse against Liberty, their directors, officers, employees and agents for rejection of their Proposal(s) or for failure to execute or act on their Proposal for any reason.

9. Liberty shall not be liable to any Respondent or party in law or equity for any reason 764
1 whatsoever for any acts or omissions arising out of or in connection with this request for proposals.

10. Liberty shall not be liable for any costs incurred by any Respondents in preparing any information for submission in connection with this RFP process or any and all costs resulting from responding to this RFP. Any and all such costs whatsoever shall remain the sole responsibility of the Respondent

11. Liberty is not responsible or liable for individual interactions with the Respondent which are not entirely conducted through Liberty or at Liberty’s option or election to engage the Respondent as defined within the Terms and Conditions herein.

12. Submission of a Proposal constitutes acknowledgement that the proposer has read and agrees to be bound by the terms and specifications of this RFP and any addenda subsequently issued prior to the due date for a Proposal.

13. Information in this RFP is accurate to the best of Liberty’s knowledge but is not guaranteed to be correct. Proposers are expected to complete all of their due diligence activities prior to entering into any final contract negotiations with Liberty.

14. Liberty reserves the right to reject any Proposal for any reason without cause. Liberty reserves the right to enter into relationships with more than one vendor, can choose not to proceed with any Proposer with respect to one or more categories of services, and can choose to suspend this RFP or to issue a new RFP that would supersede and replace this one.

15. Liberty is subject to regulatory oversight by the CPUC, and anticipates filing the executed Agreement(s) with the CPUC for its review and approval. Liberty may, at its sole discretion, instead file and seek CPUC review and approval of an Agreement prior to its final execution, which lacks only specified energy and/or capacity price(s) for the Products and Services to be provided (“Final Stage Agreement”). Whether Liberty files an executed Agreement or a Final Stage Agreement, the validity and effectiveness of any such Agreement is expressly conditioned on Liberty’s receipt of Regulatory Approval of the filed Agreement. “Regulatory Approval” means a final and non‐appealable order or orders from the CPUC, without conditions or modifications unacceptable to Liberty, finding Liberty’s entry into and performance under the Agreement to be reasonable. Should the CPUC direct changes to the terms and conditions, the parties will be expected to undertake commercially reasonable efforts to amend the agreement to satisfy CPUC regulatory requirements.

16. Liberty agrees that it will treat the information it receives from Respondents in a confidential manner and will not, except as required by law or regulatory authority, disclose such information to any third party or use such information for any purpose other than in connection with this RFP.

Additional Requirements for Proposal

1. Consideration of Responses: Submitted proposals should be prepared simply and economically, without the inclusion of unnecessary promotional materials. Proposals should be submitted on duplex copied (double‐sided pages) where possible.

2. Insurance, Licensing, or other Certification: If selected, the proposer will be required to 765
1 maintain sufficient insurance, licenses, or other required certifications for the type of work being performed. Liberty may require specific insurance coverage to be established and maintained during the course of work and as a condition of award or continuation of contract.

3. Non‐Discrimination/Equal Employment Practices/Affirmative Action Plan: If selected, the proposer and each of its known subcontractors may be required to complete and file an acceptable Affirmative Action Plan.

4. Liberty‐Furnished Property: Liberty or participating utility drawings, specifications, and other media furnished for the Provider’s use shall not be furnished to others without written authorization from the source agency.

5. Contractor‐Furnished Property: Upon completion of all work under any Agreement entered with Liberty, ownership and title to reports, documents, drawings, specifications, estimates, and any other document produced as a result of the Agreement shall automatically be vested to Liberty and no further agreement will be necessary for the transfer of ownership to Liberty. Liberty has the sole right to distribute, reproduce, publish, license, or grant permission use all or portion of the deliverable documentation or presentations.

766
1 Schedule
Liberty RFP for Energy Scheduling Services Selection Process Schedule of Requirements Date(s)
Issue RFP
Responses Due
Review of Responses
Further negotiations and Interviews (if necessary)
Selection of Respondent
Execute agreements with Respondent
File agreements with the CPUC & FERC, as necessary
Liberty RFP for Energy Scheduling Services Selection Process Schedule of Requirements Date(s)
Service Begins June 1, 2027
Proposal Submission Delivery Requirements
There will be no initial Proposer's conference associated with this RFP. Clarification questions may be addressed to: [email protected] All responses, including a transmittal letter of authentic offer with original authority signature and any supporting documentation, should be delivered prior to 5:00 p.m. PST on [DATE] to [email protected]
Except as specified above, no contact shall be made with any employee of Liberty Utilities or its affiliates, its Board of Directors, committees or working group representatives, concerning this RFP.
767
What is changing with Liberty’s energy supply?
While your reliable electric service will not change, Liberty is preparing for a transition in how we source the power that serves our customers.

The Current Setup For several years, Liberty has used a mix of energy sources:
• Our Own Solar: We generate a portion of our electricity through 60 - megawatts of Liberty - owned solar systems.
• NV Energy Partnership: Additional power needed beyond what our solar provides is currently purchased from NV Energy.

What is Changing in 2027 Iin mid - to late - 2027 , NV Energy will no longer be our wholesale provider. For a seamless transition, Liberty is taking the following steps:
• New Energy Partnerships: We are forming new partnerships to replace the supplemental power previously provided by NV Energy. This allows us to diversify where our energy comes from while maintaining reliability.
• Same Delivery System: We will continue to use the existing transmission lines to bring this power into our service territory. • Commitment to Clean Energy: We will continue to utilize our local solar systems as a core part of our energy mix.

Next Steps & The Future of Your Energy
768
What steps are being taken now? We are seeking approval from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to search for new partners.

Once approved, we plan to open a formal bidding process (known as a request for proposals) in Summer 2026. This allows energy supply companies to compete for the opportunity to supply power to our region.

What are the advantages of finding new energy suppliers? The energy market has changed significantly in recent years. By looking at new providers, we can tap into a wider variety of options, especially more modern and renewable energy sources like wind and solar. This transition allows us to seek cleane r and more efficient power available today.

What advantage does Liberty have when negotiating in the energy market? Most utilities in the West use the most electricity during the hot summer months for air conditioning. Because our region is winter - peaking —meaning our highest demand is during the cold winter months —we are an attractive partner for energy suppliers who have extra power available during the off - season for the rest of the grid.

Will this change impact the reliability of my power? No. The ability for the power provider to deliver reliable power will be a key criterion for selection and a requirement in the service agreement.

Will my rates go up? While no utility can predict the exact future cost of energy, affordability is a primary goal in this search. With a competitive bidding process, we aim to find a cost - effective solution for your monthly bill. 769
What are Liberty’s main priorities for our future energy supply? Customer priorities are our priorities. For this reason, Liberty is prioritizing renewable options and customer affordability.

Does Liberty’s system connect to Nevada or California? Liberty’s distribution system connects directly to NV Energy’s transmission grid. NV Energy is, and will remain, Liberty’s transmission provider .

Has Liberty evaluated building a connection to California’s electric grid? Yes . However, a large transmission line west, further into California over the Sierras, would be needed . Such a project would require a significant investment with environmental and other notable considerations. d oes this change Liberty’s relation ship with NV Energy? While NV Energy will no longer be Liberty’s energy supplier, NV Energy will remain our transmission provider providing transmission line connections to the larger energy grid. NV Energy is a good partner and neighbor , and Liberty looks forward to continued collaboration on many shared goals.
770
603838660 - 1 -
ALJ/PPE/avs Date of Issuance 3/30/2026
Decision 26-03-017 March 19, 2026

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Liberty Utilities
(CalPeco Electric) LLC (U933E) for
Authority to Among Other Things,
Increase Its Authorized Revenues for
Electric Service, Establish Marginal
Costs, Allocate Revenues, And Design
Rates, as of January 1, 2025.

Application 24-09-010

DECISION TO ADOPT AND MODIFY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND ADDRESS LIBERTY UTILITIES’ (CALPECO ELECTRIC)
TEST YEAR 2025 GENERAL RATE CASE
771
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page

DECISION TO ADOPT AND MODIFY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
ADDRESS LIBERTY UTILITIES’ (CALPECO ELECTRIC) TEST YEAR 2025 GENERAL RATE CASE...................................................................................................2 Summary............................................................................................................................2

1. Background.................................................................................................................2

1.1. Submission Date ..................................................................................................7

2. Issues Before the Commission..................................................................................7

3. Amended Settlement Motion and Settlement Agreement..................................9

3.1. Background ..........................................................................................................9

3.2. Commission’s Standard of Review.................................................................10

3.3. Modification of Settlement Agreement by
Rejection of Fixed Residential Charge............................................................13

4. Determination of Disputed Scoped Issues ...........................................................16

4.1. Overview ............................................................................................................16

4.2. Standard of Review ...........................................................................................16

4.3. Insufficient Factual Record to Determine Scoped Issues 4 and 12............16

4.4. Scoped Issues 2, 3 and 15..................................................................................17

4.4.1. Revenue Allocation.....................................................................................17

4.4.2. Rate Design ..................................................................................................19

4.4.2.1. Residential Customers.........................................................................19

4.4.2.2. Small Commercial and Industrial (Small C&I)...............................19

4.4.2.3. Medium and Large Commercial and
Industrial (Medium and Large C&I) .................................................20

4.4.2.4. Rate Design Methodology...................................................................20

4.4.3. Affordability and Disconnection for Non-Payment Impacts ..............21

4.5. Scoped Issues 5 and 11......................................................................................25

4.5.1. Marginal Cost of Service Study ................................................................25

4.5.2. Nonpermanent Residential Class .............................................................28

4.6. Scoped Issue 8: Return on Equity and Rate of Return ................................30

4.6.1. Standard of Review ....................................................................................31

4.6.2. Cost of Debt .................................................................................................32

4.6.3. Return on Equity (ROE).............................................................................32

4.6.4. Rate of Return (ROR)..................................................................................34 772
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- ii -

4.7. Scoped Issue 10 ..................................................................................................35

5. Summary of Public Comment................................................................................35

6. Conclusion.................................................................................................................36

7. Procedural Matters...................................................................................................36

8. Comments on Proposed Decision..........................................................................36

9. Assignment of Proceeding......................................................................................37 Findings of Fact...............................................................................................................37 Conclusions of Law ........................................................................................................39 ORDER .............................................................................................................................40 Attachment A - Settlement Agreement with Amended Appendix A Attachment B - Summary of Results of Operations 2025
773
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 2 -

DECISION TO ADOPT AND MODIFY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
ADDRESS LIBERTY UTILITIES’ (CALPECO ELECTRIC)
TEST YEAR 2025 GENERAL RATE CASE
Summary
This Decision adopts and modifies an uncontested multi-party Settlement Agreement regarding revenue requirements issues and addresses Liberty Utilities’ (CalPeco Electric) LLC’s (Liberty) Test Year 2025 general rate case to increase its authorized revenues, allocate revenues and design rates. This Decision authorizes Liberty to have a revenue requirement of $231,938,000, representing an 11.4% increase over the currently authorized revenue requirement of $208,147,000.

This Decision also authorizes Liberty a return on equity of 9.75%, a cost of debt of 5.87%, a capital structure of 47.5% debt and 52.5% equity, and a rate of return of 7.91%.

This proceeding is closed.

1. Background
On September 20, 2024, Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC (Liberty/Applicant) filed Application (A.) 24-09-010 (Application) with the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) and initiated this proceeding. The Application is a general gate case (GRC) that requests the Commission authorize Liberty to increase its revenue requirement and customers’ electric rates starting in 2025.

The Notice of the Filing of the Application appeared on the Commission’s Daily Calendar on September 25, 2024.
774
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 3 -
On October 3, 2024, Liberty filed a Motion to Track Costs in its General Rate Case Memorandum Account (GRCMA).

On October 21, 2024, the Tahoe Energy Ratepayer Group (TERG) filed a Response to the Application.

On October 25, 2024, individual Protests were filed by The Utility Reform Network (TURN), A-3 Customer Coalition (A-3 CC) and the Public Advocates Office at the California Public Utilities Commission (Cal Advocates).

On November 7, 2024, ALJ Resolution 176-3554 issued and preliminarily categorized this proceeding as ratesetting.

On December 19, 2024, Small Business Utility Advocates (SBUA) filed a Motion for Party Status.

On December 23, 2024, a ruling by the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued granting Liberty’s Motion to Track Costs in its GRCMA.

On December 26, 2024, an ALJ ruling granted SBUA’s Motion for Party Status.

On January 8, 2025, the Alliance for Housing Opportunities in Energy Supporting Permanent Affordable Housing for Residential Kilowatts (Tahoe SPARK) filed a Motion for Party Status.

On January 9, 2025, a Joint Case Management Statement was filed by Liberty, Cal Advocates, A-3 CC, TERG, SBUA and TURN.

On January 16, 2025, the prehearing conference (PHC) was held to address the issues of law and fact, determine the need for hearing, set the schedule for resolving the matter, and address other matters as necessary. 775
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 4 -
On January 22, 2025, TERG filed a Response to Tahoe SPARK’s Motion for Party Status.

On January 30, 2025, Liberty, Cal Advocates, A-3 CC, TERG, SBUA and TURN filed a Motion for Protective Order.

On February 13, 2025, an ALJ ruling denied Tahoe SPARK’s Motion for Party Status.

On February 20, 2025, an ALJ ruling granted the Motion for Protective Order.

On February 21, 2025, an ALJ ruling ordered Liberty to file amended workpapers.

On March 5, 2025, Liberty filed a Motion for Interim Rate Relief and Request for Expedited Treatment (Interim Rate Motion).

On March 6, 2025, Tahoe SPARK filed a second Motion for Party Status.

On March 17, 2025, A-3 CC filed a Response and TURN filed an Opposition to Liberty’s Interim Rate Motion.

On March 21, 2025, TERG filed a Response to Liberty’s Interim Rate Motion.

On March 25, 2025, an ALJ ruling granted Tahoe SPARK’s Motion for Party Status.

On April 1, 2025, Liberty filed a Reply in Support of Its Interim Rate Motion.

On May 29, 2025. Commissioner Matthew Baker’s Scoping Memorandum and Ruling (Scoping Ruling) issued. The Scoping Ruling scheduled evidentiary hearings and designated ALJ Patrick Petersen as the Presiding Officer. 776
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 5 -
On June 19, 2025, Tahoe SPARK filed a Motion to Be Added to the Protective Order.

On June 25, 2025, an ALJ ruling granted Tahoe SPARK’s Motion to Be Added to the Protective Order.

On July 8, 2025, an ALJ ruling noticed Public Participation Hearings (PPHs).

On July 29, 2025, a Joint Status Conference Statement was filed by Liberty, Cal Advocates, A-3 CC, TERG, TURN, SBUA and Tahoe SPARK (collectively the Parties).

On August 7, 2025, an ALJ ruling cancelled the two in person PPHs.

On August 22, 2025, Tahoe SPARK filed a Motion to Freeze Liberty’s Rate Increase (Motion to Freeze Rates).

On August 29, 2025, the Parties filed a Supplemental Joint Status Conference Statement.

On September 2, 2025, Liberty filed a Response to the Motion to Freeze Rates.

On September 5, 2025, a Notice of Evidentiary Hearings issued.

On September 8, 2025, Liberty filed a Supplemental Report Regarding Evidentiary Hearings.

On September 8, 2025, an ALJ ruling issued regarding the Evidentiary Hearings.

On September 15, 18 and 19, 2025, virtual Evidentiary Hearings were held.

On September 19, 2025, an ALJ ruling modified the procedural schedule and due dates to file opening and reply briefs.
777
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 6 -
On October 1, 2025, Liberty, Cal Advocates, TURN, TERG, A-3 CC, and SBUA (collectively Settling Parties) filed a Joint Motion for Approval and Adoption of the Multiparty Settlement Agreement.

On October 1, 2025, the Settling Parties filed an Amended Joint Motion (Amended Settlement Motion) for Approval and Adoption of the Multiparty Settlement Agreement on Revenue Requirement Issues.

On October 9, 2025, the Settling Parties filed a Joint Motion for Admission of Prepared Testimony and Exhibits into the Evidentiary Record (Motion to Admit Evidence).

On October 10, 2025, Opening Briefs were filed by Liberty, Cal Advocates, A-3 CC, TURN, Tahoe SPARK, TERG and SBUA.

On October 24, 2025, Reply Briefs were filed by Liberty, Cal Advocates, A-3 CC, TURN, Tahoe SPARK, TERG and SBUA.

On October 31, 2025, the Settling Parties filed an Amendment to Appendix A to the Settlement Agreement to correct typographical errors.

Appendix A describes and compares the Settling Parties’ positions on the settled issues. The Settlement Agreement, including the amendment to Appendix A to the Settlement Agreement, is Attachment A to this Decision.

On November 3, 2025, an ALJ ruling Adopting Confidential Modeling Procedures was issued.

On January 30, 2026, an ALJ ruling issued granting the Motion to Admit Evidence.
778
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 7 -

1.1. Submission Date
This matter was submitted on January 30, 2026 upon the granting of the Motion to Admit Evidence.

2. Issues Before the Commission
This Decision resolves the entire proceeding and all of the Scoped Issues listed below. However, the Decision is bifurcated into two parts. The first part determines whether the Commission should adopt the Settlement Agreement regarding Liberty’s revenue requirements for this proceeding. Specifically, the first section corresponds to and resolves Scoped Issues 1, 6, 7, 9, 13 and 14 in their entirety and partially resolves 8. The second section resolves the remaining disputed Scoped Issues 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 15.

The Scoped Issues in this proceeding are:

1. Whether Liberty’s request to increase its authorized revenues for electric service, effective January 1, 2025, is just and reasonable;

2. Whether Liberty’s proposals to allocate revenues and design rates are reasonable;

3. Whether Liberty’s proposed rates are just and reasonable;

4. Whether Liberty should propose a residential electrification rate;

5. Whether the methodology employed for Liberty’s marginal cost study and the results of its marginal cost study are reasonable;

6. Whether Liberty’s forecast of Operations and Maintenance, and Administrative and General expenses for Test Year
(TY) 2025 is supported and reasonable;

7. Whether Liberty’s capital forecasts for 2025, 2026, 2027, and 2028 in the major categories of (i) Safety and Reliability – 779
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 8 -
Distribution, (ii) Safety and Reliability – Substation, (iii) Safety and Reliability – Wildfire Mitigation, (iv) Customer Driven, and (v) Others are supported and reasonable;

8. Whether Liberty’s proposed Rate of Return (ROR) on rate base of 8.568%; a Return of Equity (ROE) of 11.0%; and a capital structure of 47.5% debt and 52.5% equity are
reasonable;

9. Whether Liberty’s proposals of $247.920 million in rate base for TY 2025, and an increase in rate base of $39.773 million or 19.1% over currently authorized revenues, effective
January 1, 2025, are reasonable;

10. Whether Liberty adequately implemented its risk--based decision-making process and framework;

11. Whether Liberty’s proposal to eliminate the nonpermanent residential class is reasonable;

12. Whether Liberty’s proposals to increase funding for wildfire insurance and mitigation could be recovered through
alternative non-volumetric mechanisms, such as a demand charge or demand differentiated service fee;

13. Whether Liberty’s request to continue use of the Post TestYear Adjustment Mechanism (PTAM) in 2026 and 2027 to include authorized capital project and revenue
requirement escalation in rates in 2026 and 2027 is
reasonable;

14. Whether Liberty’s proposed Storm Balancing Account to track the difference between authorized and recorded
storm costs is reasonable; and

15. Whether the impact of Liberty’s proposed rate increase on affordability and disconnection for non-payment is
reasonable.
780
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 9 -

3. Amended Settlement Motion
and Settlement Agreement

3.1. Background
The Settling Parties filed the Amended Settlement Motion that requests the Commission adopt the Settlement Agreement. The Settling Parties’ Amended Settlement Motion resolves some, but not all, of Liberty’s revenue requirement issues in this proceeding.1 Tahoe SPARK was the only party that did not join the Settling Parties. Tahoe SPARK served an untimely response to the Amended Settlement Motion that was not accepted by the Commission’s Docket Office and is not part of the record.2 Therefore, the Amended Settlement Motion and the Settlement Agreement are uncontested.

In the Amended Settlement Motion, the Settling Parties agreed on a Test Year (TY) 2025 revenue requirement for Liberty of $232,956,000 that increases authorized revenues by 11.92%.3 The Settling Parties also agreed on other major terms including: (1) capital expenditures of $51,035,000 for 2024 and $70,109,000 in 2025, for a total of $121,144,000, (2) Liberty’s continued use of the Post Test Year Adjustment Mechanism (PTAM) to recover a total of $104,511,000 in combined 2026 and 2027 capital expenditures, (3) a debt to equity structure of 1 Amended Settlement Motion at 1.
2 On November 17, 2025, Liberty filed a Response objecting to Tahoe SPARK’s response to the Settlement Motion, but Tahoe SPARK’s response was untimely and was not made part of the record in this proceeding.
3 Amended Settlement Motion at 4-5. Section 1.7 of the Settlement Agreement provides that the revenue requirements stated in the Settlement Agreement are based upon Liberty’s previously authorized return on equity (ROE), and the Settling Parties agree that the final revenue requirements will be adjusted to reflect the ROE adopted by the Commission in this Decision. 781
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 10 -

47.5%/52.5%, and (4) up to $24,000,000 in individual costs for Meyers Substation and Stateline Substation projects.4

3.2. Commission’s Standard of Review
To determine if the Settlement Agreement should be approved in whole or in part, or rejected outright, this Decision analyzes the settlement in accordance with Article 12 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), which applies to contested and uncontested settlements. The Settlement Agreement is uncontested. The Commission has long favored the settlement of disputes. Under Rule 12.1(d), the Commission will not approve a settlement unless it is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.

California courts have long recognized that the evaluation of a settlement is not an exercise in deciding the underlying merits of the case but an assessment of whether the agreement as a whole is fair and reasonable.5 The trial court, or in this context the Commission, “does not try out or attempt to decide the merits of the controversy” but instead determines whether the settlement meets established fairness criteria.6 As explained in 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1146, courts exercise broad discretion in evaluating settlements and consider a range of factors, including the strength of the parties’ positions, the risks and expense of further litigation, the extent of discovery, and the experience and views of counsel. Similarly, in Dunk 4 Id. at 5.
5 City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp. (2d Cir. 1974) 495 F.2d 448, 456. 6 Ibid.
782
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 11 -
v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, the court recognized a presumption of fairness when: (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the tribunal to act intelligently; (3) counsel are experienced in similar matters; and (4) there is little or no opposition to the settlement.

Federal precedent is to the same effect. As the Ninth Circuit observed in Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp. (9th Cir. 1998) 150 F.3d 1011, 1027, “Settlement is the offspring of compromise; the question we address is not whether the final product could be prettier, smarter or snazzier, but whether it is fair, adequate and free from collusion.” This pragmatic approach aligns with the Commission’s policy favoring settlements as efficient, equitable, and resource-conserving resolutions of complex regulatory disputes. The focus is not on whether the agreement achieves the optimal result for any one party, but whether the negotiated outcome as a whole advances fairness, reasonableness, and the public interest.

Applying these principles, the Commission concludes that the Settlement Agreement satisfies Rule 12.1(d), except for Section 4.16 that sets a residential fixed charge of $31.70. The record demonstrates that the settlement was the product of arm’s-length negotiations between knowledgeable and wellrepresented parties, each with extensive experience in Commission proceedings.7 7 See Attachment A to this Decision (Settlement Agreement Appendix A Consolidated Comparison of Party Positions’ on All Settled Issues).
783
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 12 -
The Settling Parties collectively represent a broad and balanced range of interests, including those of various ratepayer classes.

The Commission finds the Settlement Agreement, with the exception of Section 4.16 regarding a fixed residential charge, to be reasonable in light of the whole record. The settlement was reached after discovery, evidentiary hearings, and submission of extensive written testimony. It resolves numerous issues supported by the evidentiary record and narrows the scope of remaining disputes. The Settlement Agreement reflects compromises grounded in the data and testimony presented, resulting in rate and policy outcomes that are balanced and supported by the record as a whole.

The Settlement Agreement, with the exception of Section 4.16 regarding a fixed residential charge, is also consistent with law. The Settling Parties represent that no term of the agreement contravenes any statute or prior Commission decision, and the Commission’s independent review finds no conflict with governing law.8 The settlement complies with Public Utilities Code (Pub. Util.

Code) Sections 451 and 454, which require that all rates be just and reasonable and that no rate change occur without Commission authorization. The settlement also aligns with longstanding Commission practice approving settlements that advance administrative efficiency and conserve public and party resources.

Finally, the Settlement Agreement, with the exception of Section 4.16 regarding a fixed residential charge, is in the public interest. It ultimately provides rate and policy outcomes that will reduce litigation costs, conserve 8 Amended Settlement Motion at 3.
784
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 13 -
regulatory resources, and enhance regulatory certainty for both the utility and customers. The settlement results in a reduction of Liberty’s requested revenue requirement while still ensuring the utility can continue to provide safe and reliable electric service at reasonable rates. The participation of Cal Advocates— the Commission’s independent consumer advocate—further supports the conclusion that the settlement protects the interests of ratepayers, including residential and low-income customers.

Consistent with judicial and administrative precedent, the Commission’s review of the settlement does not require parceling each fact or issue resolved therein.9 The Commission’s role is to ensure that the agreement as a whole meets the criteria of Rule 12.1(d). Having conducted a comprehensive, high-level assessment of the settlement and the corresponding evidentiary record, the Commission concludes that the Settlement Agreement, taken in its entirety and excepting the fixed charge amount listed in Section 4.16, is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.

3.3. Modification of Settlement Agreement by
Rejection of Fixed Residential Charge
The Commission analyzes the Settlement Agreement in accordance with Article 12 of the Commission’s Rules. Specifically, Rule 12.4 enables the Commission to reject any part of the settlement that is not in the public interest provided the parties have an opportunity to respond to the Commission’s 9 See Title Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1992) 4 Cal.4th 715, 733 [“A court will respect a stipulation limiting the issues in a case.”].
785
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 14 -
rejection of a settlement provision. Rule 12.2 allows parties to file comments to the Amended Settlement Motion. However, no timely comments were filed.10 Prior to this proceeding, the fixed charge was approved by the Commission in Decision (D.) 24-05-028 for all California Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs). In Ordering Paragraph 10 of D.24-05-028, the Small Multi-Jurisdictional Utilities, including Liberty, were ordered to submit a Tier 3 Advice Letter to, amongst other things, provide for Commission approval ”a list of all base revenue cost categories that the utility proposes to recover through its incomegraduated fixed charges and the revenue requirement associated with each cost category,” and the actual ”proposed fixed charge levels.” First, the Settlement Agreement language is unclear whether the residential fixed charge of $31.70 is intended to be applied on a monthly, annual, or another timeframe. Second, the drafting and approval process is currently underway for Liberty’s Advice Letter 248-E and its supplements as required under D.24-05-028. It would be an error for the Commission to usurp the resolution process and accept the Settlement Agreement’s fixed residential charge in this proceeding. Therefore, it is consistent with law for the Commission to allow the fixed charge to be resolved in accordance with D.24-05- 028.

Pursuant to Rule 12.4(c), the Commission modifies the Settlement Agreement by rejecting Section 4.16 of the Settlement Agreement that proposes a 10 Tahoe SPARK served an untimely comment to the Amended Settlement Motion that was rejected by the Commission’s Docket Office and is not part of the record. 786
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 15 -
residential fixed charge of $31.70 because it is not reasonable in light of the whole record, is not consistent with law, and is not in the public interest. It is not reasonable, it is not consistent with the Commission’s decision in D.24-05-028, and it is not in the public interest for the Settling Parties, without any explanation, to purport to set a residential fixed charge without following the resolution process approved by the Commission in that 2024 decision, a process that allows for a thorough consideration of the issues regarding a residential fixed charge. Reason, the law, and the public interest are best served by allowing the fixed charge to be addressed through the resolution process established by the Commission.

The Settling Parties reserved their rights to rescind the Settlement Agreement in the event of alteration or modification by the Commission.11 The Settling Parties are directed to state in their Comments to the Proposed Decision that they either accept the Commission’s modification or request other relief.

The Commission’s approval of the Settlement Agreement with modification resolves Liberty’s revenue requirements and Scoped Issues 1, 6, 7, 9, 13, and 14 entirely. The Settlement Agreement also sets Liberty’s debt to equity ratio at 47.5% debt to 52.5% equity. This results in a partial resolution of Scoped Issue 8 that contains additional disputed sections.
11 Settlement Agreement at 9-11.
787
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 16 -

4. Determination of Disputed Scoped Issues

4.1. Overview
The Settlement Agreement resolved Liberty’s revenue requirements and several Scoped Issues. This section determines the remaining disputed Scoped Issues 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, and 15 in their entirety and the disputed part of Scoped Issue 8 not covered by the Settlement Agreement.

4.2. Standard of Review
Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code Section 451, the Commission is obligated to ensure that the electric rates Liberty charges its customers are just and reasonable. In addition, Pub. Util. Code Section 453(c) prohibits Liberty from maintaining unreasonable differences as to rates between localities and classes of service.

4.3. Insufficient Factual Record to
Determine Scoped Issues 4 and 12
The Commission requires a sufficient factual record in its proceedings as the foundation to determine issues. The factual record in this proceeding does not contain sufficient facts to inform the Commission to reach a reasonable determination for Scoped Issues 4 and 12.

Scoped Issue 4 is whether Liberty should propose a residential electrification rate.12 Liberty did not propose a residential electrification rate in this proceeding and neither did any of the Parties. The factual record in this proceeding is insufficient and lacks foundation for the Commission to determine this issue. Therefore, the Commission declines to determine Scoped Issue 4. 12 Scoping Ruling at 2.
788
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 17 -
Scoped Issue 12 is whether Liberty’s proposals to increase funding for wildfire insurance and mitigation could be recovered through a non-volumetric mechanism such as a demand fee.13 In its Application, Liberty did not propose a demand charge or other demand differentiated service fee or other nonvolumetric rate mechanisms to recover wildfire insurance and mitigation costs.

Additionally, no other party to the proceeding proposed a demand charge or demand-differentiated fee in testimony. Again, the factual record in this proceeding is nevertheless insufficient and lacks foundation for the Commission to determine this issue at this time. Absent a sufficient factual record, the Commission is unable to resolve this issue based on speculation and declines to determine Scoped Issue 12.14

4.4. Scoped Issues 2, 3 and 15
Scoped Issues 2, 3, and 15 are intertwined. Scoped Issue 2 is whether Liberty’s proposals to allocate revenues and design rates are reasonable. Scoped Issue 3 is whether Liberty’s proposed rates are just and reasonable. Scoped Issue 15 considers whether the impact of Liberty’s proposed rate increase on affordability and disconnection for non-payment is reasonable.

4.4.1. Revenue Allocation
Scoping Ruling Issue 2 directed parties to determine or otherwise consider whether Liberty’s proposals to allocate revenues and design rates are reasonable.

Liberty proposed to allocate base rate revenues among customer classes using 13 Scoping Ruling at 2.
14 The Commission may consider the reasonableness, design options and feasibility of implementation of a demand fee in a future Rulemaking.
789
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 18 -
the results of its Marginal Cost of Service (MCOS) study as the analytical starting point. The MCOS results were used to identify each class’s marginal responsibility for generation, distribution demand, and customer-related costs, and these marginal cost responsibilities were translated into cost-based class revenue shares. Liberty then compared each class’s current revenue contribution to its marginal cost responsibility to determine the direction and magnitude of revenue allocation needed to move rates toward cost causation.

To promote rate continuity and address bill impact concerns, Liberty did not propose an immediate, full movement to marginal-cost-based revenue allocation. Instead, it proposed a partial movement toward cost-based revenue allocation.15 Under this approach, 10 percent of each customer class’s revenue requirement increase is allocated based on the results of the MCOS study, while the remaining 90 percent is allocated on a uniform, system-average basis across all customer classes.16 Liberty argued that this would moderate shifts that would otherwise produce large inter-class bill impacts.17 This approach was presented as a balance between improving fairness and cost causation over time while maintaining reasonable rate stability for customers.

The Settlement Agreement did not resolve issues relating to revenue allocation, as parties sought to address this issue in evidentiary hearings and 15 Exh. TSL-4 at 1-2.
16 Exh. TSL-4 at 1-2.
17 Liberty Opening Brief at 27 – 28.
790
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 19 -
briefs. Accordingly, this Decision provides the Commission’s consideration and determination on this revenue allocation issue.

4.4.2. Rate Design
In its Application, Liberty provided a range of rate design proposals for different customer classes, described below.

4.4.2.1. Residential Customers
Liberty proposed to consolidate the permanent and non-permanent residential rate schedules into a single residential class, based on MCOS study results showing no material cost differences between the two groups.18 In addition, Liberty proposed that residential rates should also include an increased fixed customer charge as required by Assembly Bill (AB) 205. The remaining revenue requirement would be recovered through volumetric TOU energy rates, with TOU periods retained to reflect marginal generation and distribution cost differences by season and time of day.19

4.4.2.2. Small Commercial and
Industrial (Small C&I)
For Small C&I customers, Liberty proposed to continue recovering revenues primarily through a combination of customer charges and volumetric energy rates, informed by MCOS study results. Customer charges were increased to better align with marginal customer costs, while energy charges were adjusted upward on a generally uniform basis to recover remaining revenues. TOU 18 Exh. LIB-09 at 5-7.
19 Exh. TSL-5 at 1 – 15.
791
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 20 -
volumetric rate differentiation was maintained where applicable to reflect marginal cost patterns across different peak periods.20

4.4.2.3. Medium and Large Commercial and
Industrial (Medium and Large C&I)
For Medium and Large C&I customers, Liberty proposed rates that rely more heavily on demand charges and TOU-based energy charges, reflecting these classes’ higher contribution to marginal distribution demand and generation capacity costs. Demand charges were designed to better align with marginal distribution demand costs identified in the MCOS study, while energy charges recover marginal generation energy costs by TOU period. Customer charges were also increased to reflect higher class-specific customer-related costs.21

4.4.2.4. Rate Design Methodology
Liberty proposed rate adjustments that are consistent with MCOS-derived cost responsibilities and generally maintain existing rate structures while updating customer, demand, and energy charges as needed to recover allocated revenues and reflect marginal cost relationships.22
The Settlement Agreement did not explicitly address Issues 2 and 3 of the Scoping Ruling by determining whether the rate design proposals were reasonable. Moreover, the Settlement Agreement did not resolve all issues relating to rate design, as parties were divided over Liberty’s proposal to 20 Exh. TSL-5 at 1 – 15.
21 Exh. TSL-5 at 1 – 15.
22 Exh. TSL-5 at 1 – 15.
792
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 21 -
consolidate the permanent and non-permanent customer classes. As such, the Parties sought to address this specific issue in evidentiary hearings and briefs.

4.4.3. Affordability and Disconnection
for Non-Payment Impacts
Scoped Issue 15 considers whether the impact of Liberty’s proposed rate increase on affordability and disconnection for non-payment is reasonable. In prepared testimony, several parties took positions on affordability and nonpayment impacts. TURN argued that Liberty’s proposed rate increase would materially worsen affordability for already financially stressed households, increasing arrearages and the risk of disconnection for non-payment, and therefore urged the Commission to reduce Liberty’s requested revenue requirement.

Tahoe SPARK emphasized community-level impacts, arguing that higher rates would disproportionately burden permanent residents, threatening housing stability and increasing the likelihood of bill non-payment, especially in a tourism-driven service territory.

Cal Advocates focused on cost reasonableness and moderation of rate impacts, supporting adjustments to Liberty’s forecasts to limit bill increases and protect customers from excessive affordability pressures.

Liberty also acknowledged general affordability concerns and proposed structural mitigations (such as rate design changes and low-income protections) but maintained that its requested increase is necessary to recover prudent costs and did not present a detailed analysis of disconnections or non-payment outcomes associated with its proposed rate design.
793
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 22 -
Although the Parties provided diverse perspectives regarding affordability and disconnection impacts, it is significant that this Decision’s adopted revenue requirements are based on an uncontested Settlement Agreement of the Settling Parties. Based upon our review of the evidence in this proceeding, we find this Decision’s impacts on affordability and disconnection for non-payment are reasonable, balancing objectives including rate stability, bill impact, and cost causation.

4.4.4 Adopted Revenue
Allocation and Rate Design
Liberty proposed to allocate customer class revenues using a 10/90 split, under which 10 percent of the revenue requirement would be allocated based on Equal Percentage of Marginal Cost (EPMC), and the remaining 90 percent would be allocated using a System Average Percentage Change (SAPC) methodology.23 Liberty characterized this approach as a prudent, incremental step toward costbased pricing that prioritizes bill continuity and affordability, particularly given the magnitude of the overall rate increase and ongoing economic pressures on customers.24
EPMC is a longstanding revenue allocation method that spreads a utility’s required revenues across customer classes in proportion to each class’s marginal cost of service. EPMC is grounded in the principle of cost causation: customer classes that impose higher incremental costs on the system (for example, by driving peak demand) cover a higher share of the revenue requirement, while 23 Exh. TSL-4 at 1-2.
24 Liberty Opening Brief at 27–28.
794
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 23 -
lower-cost classes pay a lower share. Put simply the idea is that customers should pay in proportion to the costs they cause the utility to incur. Conversely, System Average Percentage Change (SAPC) is a revenue allocation method that applies the same percentage rate increase (or decrease) to all customer classes, regardless of their marginal cost responsibility. Under SAPC, every class’s revenues grow at the system-wide average rate, which helps maintain rate stability and bill continuity, but does not move rates toward cost-based outcomes.

A-3 CC opposed Liberty’s proposal and advocated instead for a 30/70 split, arguing that marginal cost-based pricing has long been the Commission’s preferred benchmark and that Liberty’s 10% EPMC movement is overly conservative.25 A-3 CC contended that the Settlement Agreement reduced Liberty’s overall revenue increase, creating opportunities to move further toward cost causation without causing undue bill shock.26 A-3 CC emphasized that under Liberty’s 10/90 split, medium and large commercial customers continue to bear a disproportionate share of costs relative to their marginal responsibility, thus subsidizing other customer classes.27
SBUA and other parties raised concerns that increasing the EPMC share to 30% would exacerbate affordability impacts, particularly for residential and small commercial customers already facing substantial bill increases.28 SBUA 25 A-3 CC Opening Brief at 7–18.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 SBUA Opening Brief at 4 – 6.
795
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 24 -
argued that A-3 CC’s proposed 30/70 split is itself arbitrary and unsupported by a clear affordability threshold.29 SBUA warned that shifting more costs onto residential customers could affect households negatively, undermining the local workforce that small businesses depend upon.30
The Commission acknowledges the competing equity and affordability considerations but concludes that continued reliance on a 10/90 split delays meaningful progress toward cost-based revenue allocation. Revenue allocation is inherently a zero-sum exercise and that sustained inter-class subsidies, particularly those shouldered by medium and large commercial customers, are inconsistent with long-standing Commission policy favoring marginal-cost principles. At the same time, the Commission recognizes the need to temper impacts on residential customers, noting that residential classes have a broader base over which to spread incremental costs.

The Commission determines that a 30/70 split represents a reasonable and balanced outcome in this proceeding. The 30/70 split is a step toward rebalancing cross subsidies between customer classes. The Commission finds that this approach makes a meaningful step toward cost-based revenue allocation consistent with Commission precedent, while avoiding severe rate shocks and preserving affordability considerations. The Commission further concludes that adopting Liberty’s proposed 10/90 split would unduly delay progress toward equitable cost causation. Accordingly, the Commission adopts the 30/70 split and 29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.
796
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 25 -
reiterates that future GRCs should continue evaluating opportunities to move closer to full marginal cost-based revenue allocation.

Upon review of the evidence in this proceeding and based upon the analysis above, we find that this Decision’s resolution of the revenue allocation and rate design issues presented is reasonable.

4.5. Scoped Issues 5 and 11
Scoped Issue 5 is whether the methodology employed for Liberty’ s marginal cost study and the results of its marginal cost of service (MCOS) are reasonable.31 The reasonableness of the marginal cost study forms the evidentiary basis to evaluate Scoped Issue 11. Scoped Issue 11 is whether Liberty’s proposal to eliminate the nonpermanent residential class is reasonable.

4.5.1. Marginal Cost of Service Study
Liberty proposed a MCOS study designed to measure the incremental costs of serving additional customers, load, and energy, and to use those results as the primary analytical foundation for revenue allocation and rate design. The study estimates four major marginal cost components: generation capacity, generation energy, distribution demand, and customer-related costs, and allocates these costs by TOU period and customer class, as follows:
 Generation capacity marginal costs were based on the
deferral value of a utility-scale battery energy storage resource, using the Real Economic Carrying Charge (RECC or “Rental” methodology) to represent the annualized cost of deferring generation capacity investment. Generation energy marginal costs were derived from Integrated
31 Scoping Ruling at 2.
797
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 26 -
Resource Plan-based energy price forecasts by TOU
period.32
 Distribution marginal demand costs were estimated using the cost of incremental distribution and substation
investments, with a refined methodology that relies on
recent projects rather than long-term historical trends.

These distribution costs were then split between TOU
volumetric and non-volumetric rate components.33
 Marginal customer costs reflect the cost of access to the distribution grid, and were divided into common customer costs (e.g., billing and customer service) and specific customer costs (e.g., meters, service drops, transformers), with the latter based solely on new customer hookups to better reflect incremental cost causation.34
Liberty emphasized that the methodology is generally consistent with its prior GRC settlement but includes targeted refinements to improve alignment with current system conditions and cost causation principles.35 TERG highlighted data limitations, such as estimated class-level hourly usage, lack of account-level TOU histories, and lingering pre-2022 class coding issues, to argue that these shortcomings undermine the reliability of using the MCOS to justify maintaining separate classes.36 TERG’s position is unconvincing and this Proposed Decision declines to deviate from Liberty’s robust MCOS. 32 Exh. LIB-09 at 11 to 13.
33 Exh. LIB-09 at 10 to 11.
34 Exh. LIB-09 at 3.
35 Ibid.
36 Exh. Tahoe ERG-01 at 17 – 20.
798
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 27 -
While the Settlement Agreement proposed by Settling Parties did not explicitly address Issue 5 of the Scoping Ruling by determining whether the marginal cost study and its results were reasonable, parties did reach consensus on the overall revenue requirement, which draws heavily on the outputs and findings of the MCOS study. The Settlement Agreement also noted that it was based on the position on revenue requirement demonstrated in Direct Testimony and Workpapers of Liberty, Chapter 9 of which includes the MCOS study.37 In light of the adopted MCOS study in the record and the reliance on its outputs by parties to the Settlement Agreement, the Commission finds the available data and the methodology employed by Liberty in its MCOS study and its results to be reasonable.

Additionally, the Commission directs Liberty in its next GRC to conduct a more comprehensive and data-driven MCOS study that leverages Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) interval data in consultation with Energy Division. The Commission recognizes that current MCOS results are constrained by estimated load shapes, limited account-level TOU information, and legacy customer classification issues. As AMI implementation expands, it is reasonable to expect Liberty to develop sufficiently detailed and empirically grounded analyses of billing determinants, including customer load profiles, peak demand contributions, and hourly and seasonal usage patterns at a level of granularity not currently possible with analog meters.
37 See Settlement Agreement at 3.
799
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 28 -
The Commission therefore expects Liberty to use this enhanced data capability to produce a more detailed, transparent, auditable, and analytically robust MCOS study that better informs customer class structure, revenue allocation, and rate design features and options. .

4.5.2. Nonpermanent Residential Class
Liberty proposed to consolidate the residential permanent and nonpermanent rate classes into a single residential class, arguing that its MCOS study shows insufficient cost differences to justify maintaining separate tariffs.38 Liberty emphasized that differences in marginal cost per kilowatt-hour between the two groups were relatively small and contended that consolidation would improve administrative clarity, reduce disputes over customer qualification, and align with the Commission’s direction to recover more fixed costs through customer charges rather than volumetric rates.39 Liberty also linked consolidation to the introduction of higher fixed charges, asserting that once fixed, non-usage driven costs are recovered uniformly, the rationale for separate residential subclasses diminishes.40
Opposing parties, notably TURN, Tahoe SPARK, and SBUA, argued that consolidation would improperly shift costs onto permanent residents and undermine cost causation in a system characterized by tourism-driven seasonal peaks. TURN pointed to Liberty’s own MCOS study results showing an approximately 15.7 percent difference in cost to serve permanent versus non38 Exh. LIB-09 at 5-7. 39 Liberty Opening Brief at 29 – 30.
40 Liberty Opening Brief at 29-30.
800
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 29 -
permanent customers, which it argued is material rather than de minimis.41 Additionally, Tahoe SPARK asserted that non-permanent customers disproportionately drive winter peak demand, wildfire risk exposure, and capital investment needs, and that collapsing the classes would dilute signals intended to reflect those impacts and worsen affordability for year-round residents.42 TERG supported consolidation, asserting that the MCOS-derived cost differences are modest when viewed relative to the overall residential average and that the study’s fixed-cost allocations between the two residential subclasses are inherently arbitrary and difficult to audit.43 TERG highlighted data limitations, such as estimated class-level hourly usage, lack of account-level TOU histories, and lingering pre-2022 class coding issues, to argue that these shortcomings undermine the reliability of using the MCOS study to justify maintaining separate classes.44 However, TERG did not propose an alternative analytical framework to replace Liberty’s MCOS study approach.

While Parties raise legitimate methodological questions in response to Liberty’s MCOS study analysis, including concerns regarding data robustness and allocation assumptions, we are not persuaded it is prudent to make a permanent structural change in rates by consolidating these residential classes based on incomplete and contested evidence. The 15.7 percent differential in cost to serve permanent versus non-permanent customers is indeed a material 41 TURN Opening Brief at 2.
42Tahoe SPARK Opening Brief at 4–5.
43 TERG Opening Brief at 7–27.
44 Ibid.
801
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 30 -
difference that merits maintaining this separation for the time being. Further, TERG’s observation of a lack of robustness of the underlying data for the MCOS and the absence of an alternative methodology by parties in general supports maintaining the separation in permanent and non-permanent residential classes until a more granular, transparent, and defensible analysis of these determinants can be conducted. It is reasonable to conclude that a more conclusive analysis will be possible once smart meters are more widely proliferated amongst residential customers in Liberty’s service territory and widespread interval usage data can support a more thorough MCOS study.

We therefore determine that the residential permanent and non-permanent rate classes should remain separate in this rate case period. The Commission finds that neither Liberty nor TERG has demonstrated that consolidation would be just, reasonable, and consistent with cost causation principles, particularly in light of acknowledged MCOS study limitations and unresolved data concerns.

The Commission directs Liberty to conduct a more thorough and granular analysis of residential customer demographics, usage patterns, and cost drivers in its next GRC application.

4.6. Scoped Issue 8: Return on
Equity and Rate of Return
Scoped Issue 8 is whether Liberty’s proposed base rate of return (ROR) on rate base of 8.568%, a ROE of 11.0%, and a capital structure of 47.5% debt and

52.5% equity are reasonable. The cost of debt of 5.87% was not disputed. As noted above, the Settling Parties agreed on the 47.5% debt and 52.5% equity 802
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 31 -
capital structure and therefore this analysis is limited to the disputed issues of the ROR and ROE.

4.6.1. Standard of Review
The Commission has stated that “[o]ur basic objective in a cost of capital proceeding is to set the equity return at the lowest level that meets reasonableness.45
In D.18-03-035, the Commission emphasized that the adopted ROE must allow a utility to maintain credit quality and attract capital, but that ratepayer affordability and market conditions require minimizing returns to the extent consistent with financial integrity. Similarly, D.19-12-056 reinforced that fairness to customers is paramount and that a utility is not entitled to the highest possible return, only one sufficient to attract capital at reasonable cost.46 The Application included two chapters of testimony on Liberty’s cost of capital structure and requests an 11% ROE for Test Year 2025 and an overall ROR of 8.57% with a cost of debt of 5.87%.47 Liberty and Cal Advocates were the only Parties to offer witness testimony regarding the ROE and ROR.48 The other Parties presented arguments in their respective briefs, but did not provide a sponsoring witness nor testimony. Here, Liberty represents its investors’ interests while Cal Advocates represents Liberty ratepayers’ interests. Liberty’s 45 D.18-03-035 at 6.
46 See D.19-12-06 at 15.
47 Exh. LIB-07 (Testimony of Thomas Bourassa) at 3-4 and Exh. LIB-11 (Testimony of Manasa Rao).
48 Exh. CalAdv-05 (Testimony of J. Randall Woolridge).
803
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 32 -
and Cal Advocates’ active engagement and witness testimony provide a robust record to represent and balance the interests of Liberty’s ratepayers and investors.

4.6.2. Cost of Debt
In this proceeding, Cal Advocates did not dispute Liberty’s proposed cost of debt of 5.87%. This accord, and lack of dispute amongst the other Parties, supports the Commission’s determination that Liberty’s proposed cost of debt of

5.87% is reasonable.

4.6.3. Return on Equity (ROE)
The Commission authorized Liberty to have a ROE of 10% in its prior general rate proceeding. Liberty’s Application requests an increase to 11% ROE for TY 2025. Liberty witness Bourassa’s testimony included models that show a range of 9.7% to 11.5% for ROE with 40 additional basis points for premium risk.49 Cal Advocates witness Woolridge presented models and testified that Liberty’s ROE should be 9.25%.50 Woolridge also testified that in 2025 the national average ROE is 9.7% for regulated entities. 51 The Commission finds Liberty’s arguments unpersuasive to justify increasing its ROE from 10% to 11%. Woolridge’s testimony includes an analysis of the methodologies Bourassa used to support Liberty’s ROE of 11%. We find that Bourassa’s methodologies and assumptions inflated Liberty’s ROE claim. 49 See Exh. PAO-01, Table 2, Panels A and B at 4.
50 Exh. Cal Adv-05 (Testimony of Woolridge) at 69.
51 Exh. CalAdv-05 (Testimony of Woolridge) at 13.
804
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 33 -
Liberty witness Bourassa added a 40 basis-point-premium to reach an ROE of 11% based on perceived risk because Liberty is a mid-sized utility with wildfire exposure risks. However, this was not supported by empirical evidence.

Liberty’s reliance on its size to increase its claimed ROE is misplaced. In addition, as recognized in D.20-08-030, Liberty is a subsidiary of a much larger corporation, it has renewed its wildfire insurance coverage, and it maintains an approved wildfire mitigation plan. Liberty also relies on the fact it does not pay into, nor is covered by the AB1054 Wildfire Fund that applies to the state’s large IOU electric utilities.52 However, this overlooks the roles of insurance and Liberty’s wildfire mitigation plan to mitigate risks and protect investors. These factors undercut Liberty’s claim for increased ROE to mitigate for perceived risks. It is unreasonable for the Commission to increase Liberty’s ROE on these grounds.

The Commission finds that Cal Advocates witness Woolridge provided more compelling testimony and Liberty’s modeling was less reliable. Liberty’s Capital Asset and Pricing Model (CAPM) used atypical inputs that inflated Liberty’s ROE request.53 Liberty’s Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) was flawed and overstated long term utility growth.54 Also, Bourassa utilized an arithmetic mean to calculate historical risk premiums that results in inflated risks and higher 52 The Wildfire Fund provides resources to the larger investor-owned utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company for wildfire claims.
53 See D.20-08-030 at 42-43.
54 Exh. CalAdv-05 (Testimony of Woolridge) at 54.
805
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 34 -
equity estimates. Woolridge also disputes Bourassa’s interpretation of the proxy group average to support lowering, not raising, Liberty’s cost of equity.55 Liberty’s proposed ROE of 11% is not warranted.

The Commission concludes that an ROE of 9.75% is reasonable and supported by the record. This ROE is consistent with national averages, adequately accounts for Liberty’s wildfire risk, and fairly balances the interests of ratepayers and investors.56

4.6.4. Rate of Return (ROR)
While the calculations and modeling of the ROE are subject to confidential treatment in this proceeding,57 the overall ROR of 7.91% is calculated by weighting the proposed ROE and the cost of debt according to their respective shares in Liberty’s proposed capital structure. The ROE compensates shareholders for the capital invested and the associated risk, while the cost of debt represents the weighted average interest expense on Liberty’s borrowings.

These weighted components are combined to determine the proposed overall rate of return, which is applied to rate base to calculate the dollar amount of return included in Liberty’s revenue requirement.
55 Reporters’ Transcript, Vol. 3 at 120:20-22 (Liberty, Bourassa); See also, Exhibit LIB-23, Rebuttal Testimony - Cost of Capital and Rate of Return, dated July 24, 2025 (Bourassa Rebuttal Testimony); Exhibit TJB-3; Reporters’ Transcript, Vol. 3 at 109:20-111:8 (Liberty, Bourassa); Exh. LIB-07; Exh. TJB-3 at 7.
56 Liberty’s continued escalating costs for wildfire insurance premiums may warrant the Commission to consider a rulemaking to address small and medium size utilities’ long term wildfire insurance risks.
57 See ALJ Ruling Granting Joint Motion for Protective Order dated February 20, 2025 and ALJ Ruling Adopting Confidential Modeling Procedures dated November 3, 2025. 806
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 35 -

4.7. Scoped Issue 10
Scoped Issue 10 is whether Liberty adequately implemented its risk-based decision-making process and framework. Liberty and other small and multijurisdictional utilities entered into a 2018 Settlement Agreement regarding requirements for their risk-based decision making in their future general rate case proceedings.58 Liberty’s testimony regarding its risk-based decision making is attached as Chapter 5 to the Application. No Party served intervenor testimony to rebut Liberty’s testimony.

An ALJ ruling ordered Liberty to file a response with a more detailed description of its risk-based decision-making framework in this proceeding.59 Liberty’s response to that ALJ Ruling described how Liberty’s risk-based decision-making comports with the requirements of D.19-04-020. No evidence was presented in this proceeding to dispute the adequacy of Liberty’s risk-based decision-making. The Commission concludes that Liberty adequately implemented its risk-based decision-making process and framework.

5. Summary of Public Comment
Rule 1.18 allows any member of the public to submit written comment in any Commission proceeding using the “Public Comment” tab of the online Docket Card for that proceeding on the Commission’s website. Rule 1.18(b) requires that relevant written comment submitted in a proceeding be summarized in the final decision issued in that proceeding. In this proceeding, 328 Public Comments were received as of the issuance of the Proposed Decision 58 Liberty Response to ALJ Ruling July 15, 2025 at 1; see D.19-04-020. 59 See ALJ Ruling dated June 24, 2025.
807
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 36 -
that uniformly criticized Liberty’s costs and rate increases. The Public Comments described increasingly difficult household and business hardships and affordability issues caused by Liberty’s rapidly rising rates that outpace inflation.

The Public Comments also criticized Liberty’s operations and requested that the Commission limit Liberty’s rate increases.

6. Conclusion
This Decision resolves the entire proceeding. This Decision approves the Settlement Agreement except for rejecting the residential fixed charge and addresses the remaining disputed issues. This Decision authorizes Liberty a TY 2025 revenue requirement of $231,938,000. This Decision also authorizes Liberty to have a ROE of 9.75%, a cost of debt of 5.87%, a capital structure of 47.5% debt and 52.5% equity, and a ROR of 7.91%. The Summary of Results of Operations for 2025 are Attachment B to the Proposed Decision. As set forth in Ordering Paragraph 10 below, within 60 days of the issuance of this Decision, Liberty shall submit to the Commission’s Energy Division a Tier 2 Advice Letter to implement the provisions of this Decision.

7. Procedural Matters
This Decision affirms all rulings made by the ALJ and assigned Commissioner in this proceeding. All motions not ruled on are deemed denied.

8. Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision of ALJ Patrick Petersen in this matter was mailed to the Parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code Section 311 and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3. Comments were filed on March 5, 2026, and reply comments were filed on March 10, 2026 and on March 11, 2026. On March 13, 808
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 37 -
2026, the Settling Parties filed a Joint Status Update to accept the modification to the Settlement Agreement if the Commission provided 60 days for Liberty to submit a Tier 2 Advice Letter to the Commission’s Energy Division to implement the terms of the Proposed Decision. We have carefully reviewed and considered the parties’ comments and made appropriate changes to the proposed decision where warranted. We find that all further comments not specifically addressed by revisions to the Proposed Decision do not raise any factual, legal, or technical errors that would warrant modifications to the Proposed Decision.

9. Assignment of Proceeding
Matthew Baker is the assigned Commissioner and Patrick Petersen is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.

Findings of Fact

1. On October 1, 2025, Liberty, Cal Advocates, TURN, A-3 CC, TERG and SBUA filed the Amended Settlement Motion for approval and adoption of the Settlement Agreement attached to this Decision as Attachment A, Appendix A.

2. The Settlement Agreement is the result of negotiated compromise of the positions of Liberty, Cal Advocates, TURN, A-3 CC, TERG and SBUA.

3. Tahoe SPARK was the only party that did not execute the Settlement Agreement.

4. The Settlement Agreement avoids undue and costly litigation regarding the revenue requirements.

5. The Settlement Agreement is uncontested.
809
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 38 -

6. Section 4.16 of the Settlement Agreement does not specify the timeframe for application of the fixed charge. Liberty’s residential fixed charge will be determined by a Commission resolution that addresses Advice Letter 248-E.

7. This proceeding’s factual record is insufficiently developed for the Commission to consider and determine Scoped Issues 4 and 12.

8. Liberty’s service territory is forested and subject to significant wildfire risks.

9. Liberty’s wildfire insurance premiums and related costs have increased significantly in recent years.

10. Liberty’s testimony sufficiently established that it implemented its riskbased decision-making process and framework.

11. Liberty’s Marginal Cost Of Service study was sufficient for the Commission to distinguish between permanent and non-permanent residential classifications.

12. Liberty’s cost of debt of 5.87% was supported by Cal Advocates and uncontested by the other Parties.

13. A ROE of 9.75% reflects an appropriate balance that takes into consideration Liberty’s interest in maintaining credit quality and attracting capital, ratepayer affordability, and fairness.

14. This Decision’s impacts on affordability and disconnection for nonpayment are reasonable, balancing objectives including rate stability, bill impact, and cost causation.

15. The Settling Parties’ Joint Status Update accepted the Commission’s modification to the Settlement Agreement provided the Commission orders 810
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 39 -
Liberty to submit a Tier 2 Advice Letter to the Commission’s Energy Division to implement the terms of the Decision within 60 days.

Conclusions of Law

1. The Settlement Agreement, except for Section 4.16 regarding a residential fixed charge, is reasonable in light of the whole record of this proceeding.

2. The Settlement Agreement, except for Section 4.16 regarding a residential fixed charge, is consistent with law.

3. The Settlement Agreement, except for Section 4.16 regarding a residential fixed charge, is in the public interest.

4. The Commission rejects Section 4.16 of the Settlement Agreement under Rule 12.4 because it is not reasonable in light of the whole record, is not consistent with law, and is not in the public interest.

5. The Amended Settlement Motion should be granted and the Settlement Agreement should be adopted, except for Section 4.16 of the Settlement Agreement regarding a residential fixed charge that should be rejected because it is not reasonable in light of the whole record, is not consistent with law, and is not in the public interest.

6. The Proposed Decision’s rejection of Section 4.16 of the Settlement Agreement regarding a residential fixed charge constitutes a modification of the Settlement Agreement.

7. Under Rule 12.4(c), the Settling Parties should be allowed a reasonable time to elect to accept the Proposed Decision’s adoption of the Settlement Agreement except for the rejection of Section 4.16 regarding a residential fixed charge or to request other relief.
811
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 40 -

8. It is reasonable to require the Settling Parties to state in their Comments to the Proposed Decision whether they elect to accept the Proposed Decision’s adoption of the Settlement Agreement except for the rejection of Section 4.16 regarding a residential fixed charge or to request other relief.

9. The Commission should not determine and resolve Scoped Issues 4 and 12 in this Decision because of the insufficiencies in the evidentiary record in this proceeding.

10. A 30% Equal Percent of Marginal Change / 70% System Average Percentage Change revenue allocation is reasonable.

11. Liberty’s proposed cost of debt of 5.87% is reasonable.

12. A ROE of 9.75% for Liberty is reasonable because it balances the interests of Liberty’s investors and ratepayers.

13. A ROR of 7.91% for Liberty is reasonable because it balances the interests of Liberty’s investors and ratepayers.

14. Liberty’s revenue requirement of $231,938,000 is reasonable because it balances the interest of Liberty’s investors and ratepayers.

15. It is reasonable for the Commission to maintain the non-permanent residential class and reject Liberty’s proposal to eliminate it.

16. This proceeding should be closed.

O R D E R
IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The October 1, 2025, Amended Joint Motion of Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC, the Public Advocates Office at the California Public Utilities Commission, the A-3 Customer Coalition, Tahoe Energy Ratepayers Group, 812
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 41 -
Small Business Utility Advocates, and The Utility Reform Network for Approval and Adoption of the Multi-Party Settlement Agreement on Revenue Requirement Issues is granted, and the October 1, 2025 Settlement Agreement attached as Attachment A to this Decision is adopted, except that Section 4.16 of the Settlement Agreement is rejected.

2. Settling Parties shall state in their Comments to the Proposed Decision whether they elect to accept the Proposed Decision’s adoption of the Settlement Agreement except for the rejection of Section 4.16 regarding a residential fixed charge or to request other relief.

3. Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC is authorized to collect, through rates and through authorized ratemaking accounting mechanisms, a test-year 2025 revenue requirement of $231,938,000.

4. Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC is authorized a return on equity of

9.75%.

5. Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC is authorized a rate of return of

7.91%.

6. Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC is authorized a cost of debt of

5.87%.

7. Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC’s permanent and non-permanent rate classes shall remain separate.

8. A revenue allocation of 30% based on Equal Percentage of Marginal Cost and 70% based on System Average Percentage Change is adopted. 813
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
- 42 -

9. Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC in its next General Rate Case shall conduct a more comprehensive and data-driven Marginal Cost of Service study that leverages Advanced Metering Infrastructure interval data.

10. Within 60 days of the issuance of this Decision, Liberty shall submit to the Commission’s Energy Division a Tier 2 Advice Letter implementing the provisions of this Decision.

11. The balance recorded in Liberty’s General Rate Case Revenue Requirement Memorandum Account from January 1, 2025 until the date the new tariffs are implemented, pursuant to this Ordering Paragraph, shall be amortized in rates from the date the new tariffs are implemented over a 36-month period.

12. Application 24-09-010 is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated March 19, 2026, at Sacramento, California.

JOHN REYNOLDS
President

KAREN DOUGLAS

MATTHEW BAKER

CHRISTINE HARADA
Commissioners
I reserve the right to file a dissent.
/s/ DARCIE L. HOUCK
Commissioner
814
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
Decision 26-03-017
Application 24-09-010
Dissent of Commissioner Darcie L. Houck
Application of Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC (U 933-E) for Authority to Among Other Things, Increase Its Authorized Revenues for Electric Service, Establish Marginal Costs, Allocate Revenues, And Design Rates, as of January 1, 2025.

Decision 26-03-017 adopted a multi-party settlement on nearly all issues in dispute in Application 24-09-010. I am broadly supportive of this settlement. I am also supportive of the resolution of most of the other items at issue here.

However, I find that this decision adopts a return on equity (ROE) that fails to balance ratepayer and shareholder interests as required by Federal Power Commission et al. v. Hope Natural Gas Co. (“Hope”)1, Bluefield Waterworks & Improvement Co. v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia et al (“Bluefield”)2 and FPC v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. (“Natural Gas Pipeline Co.”). 3 For this reasons, I
cannot support the decision with the majority of my colleagues, and I respectfully register my dissent.

In Hope, the Court held that “...the fixing of "just and reasonable" rates, involves a balancing of the investor and the consumer interests.”4 Moreover, the Court held in the same decision that “[rates] which enable the company to operate successfully, to maintain its financial integrity, to attract capital, and to compensate its investors for the risks assumed certainly cannot be condemned as invalid, even though they might produce only a meager return.”5In Natural Gas Pipeline Co. the Court wrote that “[the] consumer interest cannot be disregarded 1 Federal Power Commission et al. v. Hope Natural Gas Co. (“Hope,” 320 U.S. 591, 64 S.Ct. 281 (1944)).
2 Bluefield Waterworks & Improvement Co. v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia et al. (“Bluefield,” 262 U.S. 679, 43 S.Ct. 675 (1923)).
3 Federal Power Commission v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. (“Natural Gas Pipeline Co.” 315 U.S. 575 (1942)).
4 Hope , 320 U.S.at 603 (1944).
5 Hope , 320 U.S.at 605 (1944).
815
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
in determining what is a "just and reasonable" rate. … stockholders are not the only persons whose rights or interests are to be considered. The rights of the public are not to be ignored.”6
In the instant case, the Applicant requested a rate of return of 11%. Cal Advocates submitted testimony testifying that the Applicant’s ROE should be

9.25%. The Decision rightly finds that the Applicant’s modeling was “less reliable” and used “atypical inputs that inflated [its] ROE request.”7 This Decision finds no similar flaws with Cal Advocates’ modeling yet adopts an ROE 50 basis points higher than that submitted by Cal Advocates without explanation. By granting an unexplained premium over the only credible ROE submission in this proceeding, I fear that this Decision reinforces longstanding utility incentive to request unreasonably inflated ROEs on the well-founded understanding that this Commission will grant an ROE in between its request and any intervenors’ suggestion regardless of credibility. Thus, I feel this Decision improperly valued the rights of the shareholder over the consumer interest and so I must dissent.
6 Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 315 U.S. at 607-608.
7 D.26-03-017 at 31.
816
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
A-1

ATTACHMENT A
(Settlement Agreement with Amended Appendix A and
Appendix B Summary of Results of Operations 2025)
(END OF ATTACHMENT A)
817
A.24-09-010 ALJ/PPE/avs
B-1

ATTACHMENT B
(Summary of Results of Operations 2025)
(END OF ATTACHMENT B)
818
Dear Valued Customer,
At Liberty, we are committed to providing you with safe, reliable, and efficient energy.

We are excited to announce that we will begin upgrading your current electric meter to a new Advanced Meter in the coming months.

Why the Change?
These new digital meters are a key part of our effort to modernize the energy grid.

Once fully activated, your advanced meter will offer several benefits:
· Better Information: Access near real-time data about your energy usage through a user-friendly web portal, helping you manage costs more effectively. · Faster Service: We will be able to read meters, reconnect service, and identify power outages remotely, leading to faster response times. · Improved Reliability: Precise data helps us better plan for the future and offer pricing plans that match your specific energy needs.

Installation Timeline
Our technicians from Professional Meters (PMI) will be working in your area soon. While we have a phased rollout, most installations will occur over the next several months.

Projected End Date Projected Start Date Service Area
March 2026 February 2026 Portola / Loyalton / Verdi
March 2026 March 2026 Markleeville / Topaz
June 2026 March 2026 South Lake Tahoe
West Shore (Tahoe City below
Fanny bridge to Emerald Bay) June 2026 May 2026
N. Lake Tahoe (Tahoe City,
Palisades to Kings Beach) July2026 June 2026
Truckee / Glenshire (South
Truckee, Glenshire, Northstar,
Hobart Mills, Stampede)
August 2026 July 2026
Subject: Modernizing Your Energy Service with New Advanced Meters 819
What to Expect During Installation
· No Action Required: You do not need to be home or make an appointment. · Brief Interruption: You will experience a very short power outage (usually only a few minutes) while the meter is swapped.
· Identification: Installers will drive vehicles with Liberty contractor signage and carry official identification. They will knock on your door to notify you before starting work.
· Confirmation: After the meter exchange is complete, a door hanger will be left at your residence with more details.

Privacy and Security
Your privacy is our priority. Advanced meters do not transmit personally identifiable information (like names or account numbers), and all data is sent over highly secure, encrypted networks.

Have Questions?
For more detailed information, specific neighborhood timelines, how to opt out, or to view our full list of Frequently Asked Questions, please visit our website at www.libertyutilities.com/smartmeters.

If you prefer to schedule a specific appointment time for your installation, you may contact our installation center at 855-229-5562.

Thank you for being a Liberty customer as we work to build a smarter, more reliable grid for our community.

Sincerely,
Liberty Customer Service Team
820
This Valentine’s season, we’re excited to share that we will be upgrading your electric meter. In the coming
months, Liberty will begin installing new advanced
meters. This modern technology is designed to
enhance reliability, efficiency, and your overall energy experience.

Fall in love with an advanced
meter upgrade
Additional news
What you have to look forward to
These new digital meters are a key part of our effort to modernize the energy grid. Once fully activated, your advanced meter will offer several benefits.

Better information: Access near real-time data about your energy usage to help you manage costs more effectively.

Faster service: We will be able to read meters, reconnect service, and identify power outages remotely, leading to faster response times.

Improved reliability: Precise data helps us better plan for the future and offer pricing plans that match your specific energy needs.

Installation timeline
Our technicians from Professional Meters (PMI) will be working in your area soon. While we have a phased rollout, most installations will occur over the next several months.

For more detailed information, specific neighborhood timelines, how to opt out, or to view our full list of frequently asked questions, please visit www.libertyutilities.com/smartmeters or scan the QR code to the right.

If you prefer to schedule a specific appointment time for your installation, you may contact our installation center at 855-229-5562.
821
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Ste. 203 | South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 | (530) 542-6000 | www.cityofslt.gov

Page 1 ends

April 21, 2026
California Public Utilities Commission
Consumer Affairs Branch
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102 – 3298
Subject: Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC
Dear Commissioners and Staff,
On behalf of the South Lake Tahoe City Council, I would like to express dissatisfaction with our electric utility provider, Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC on a number of important issues to our constituents. The City Council requests that the CPUC hold Liberty accountable to South Lake Tahoe residents and businesses for customer service, transparency and affordability expectations.

The recent closure of the in-person payment and customer service desk without notice in South Lake Tahoe has been a particular concern. For many of our residents, in-person service is the most practical and accessible option for managing utility bills. An important customer base operates in an un-banked and/or cash-only manner. These customers want to pay their bills and it is much harder to do so now, especially when the alternative payment location information on the website is inaccurate.

In addition, Liberty’s recent Advice Letter 287-E about emergency procurement for an energy supplier expressed a tone of urgency that caught on in the media, triggering a great deal of concern by residents and businesses that we could be without power by May 2027. This is now an issue that our locals are tracking closely. The City requests that Liberty be held to a higher level of outreach effort both to the community and directly to local government leadership within their service area going forward on important ratepayer issues. As the CPUC evaluates Liberty’s advice letter and future energy procurement approvals, the City expects that the process will be transparent and affordability impacts to Liberty customers will be the priority consideration.

The City has also been made aware that the Commission recently settled Liberty’s General Rate Case. Though we are disappointed to see rates go up yet again, we understand that the case is settled and that the CPUC settled a revenue increase significantly lower than what Liberty had Commented [SL1]: 11.5% instead of 19.1% 822
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Ste. 203 | South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 | (530) 542-6000 | www.cityofslt.us

Page 2 ends

proposed. We are pleased to see CPUC advocating affordability through the General Rate Case process. What we need next is a good faith effort in outreach to the community to participate in a transparent process to determine implementation of the final customer rates.

We need to see immediate action from Liberty to reinstate an in-person cash payment and customer service options in the community, improve communications and transparency, and prioritize energy affordability for customers.

Sincerely,
Cody Bass
Mayor, City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
CC:
823
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: April 21, 2026
Agenda Item #:17
Agenda Item: Collaborative Bear Process and Protocol
Executive Summary: After a presentation from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife on December 9, 2025, City Council passed a motion directing staff to "to establish a collaborative response protocol group including the City Police Department, bear groups, Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Tahoe Refuse, and homeownersâ€™ associations, and other interested parties; and to report back to Council on findings and/or a draft of protocols." The Council will receive a report on the collaborative process and City Council will have the opportunity to provide direction on next steps.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion providing direction regarding Collaborative Bear Process and Protocol on: (1) increasing fines for violations related to trash management and providing wildlife access to food; (2) designating the City as a Bear Sanctuary City or Bear Wise Community; (3) establishment and funding of a City Bear Liaison position; (4) formal written correspondence from City Council to CDFW and/or Bear League requesting specific actions; (5) amending the Vacation Home Rental Ordinance to explicitly require property owners/managers to provide Bear Aware education materials to renters; (6) providing pilot program funding to partner with South Tahoe Refuse to provide container cleaning service; and (7) continuation of City facilitation of discussions between CDFW, Bear League and community partners regarding management of habituated bears.

Responsible Staff Member: Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report-Collaborative Bear Process
02-Staff Report - Bears 12.9.25.pdf
03-Bear Meeting report to Council.pdf
04-Annual 2025 bear calls.pdf
05-bear map 2025.pdf
06-2026 Bear Response Flow Chart.pdf
07-2022 Black Bear Policy with 2024 Addendum 1.pdf
08-Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California_April 2025.pdf 09-CDFW presentation for SLT City Council Meeting Dec 2025.pdf 10-Bear League Sterilization letter.pdf
11-black bear management practices 50 states_federal.pdf 824
City Council report April 21, 2026 Page 1 of 15
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to
City Council
Meeting Date: April 21, 2026
Title: Collaborative Bear Process and Protocol
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Members: Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police and Sara Letton, Sustainability Coordinator
Background
August 12, 2025 Summary
On August 12, 2025, the City Council heard public comment regarding humanbear interactions in South Lake Tahoe. In response, Council requested that staff return with a report that addressed the City’s legal authority over bear management and options for local policy advocacy. This request reflected growing public concern about bear-human conflict, damage to property, and the City’s role in response and prevention.

December 9, 2025 Summary
On December 9, 2025, the City Attorney and Chief of Police presented a staff report to City Council. The report reviewed local ordinances related to trash service, feeding wildlife, approved containers, required collection service, and the timing of trash set-out. That report noted that the City already has enforcement tools in place, including violation penalties that generally range from $150 to $300.

CDFW Presentation Summary
During that same meeting California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) presented on bear conservation, protection, and management.

CDFW’s role was presented as the state agency with legal authority over bear management in California. CDFW uses hazing as one tool to change undesirable bear behavior and that Tahoe-specific “Trap, Tag, Haze” protocols provided an added layer of review before management action is taken specifically for Tahoe. CDFW participates in an interagency bear team, have an electric mat program, disseminate Bear Wise educational materials. CDFW data show that 9% of bears cause 60% of damage and 825
City Council report April 21, 2026 Page 2 of 15
encounters with humans. The staff report further stated that CDFW’s management process is guided by law, policy, science, and documented review.

Direction Given
On December 9, 2025, Council passed a motion directing staff to “establish a collaborative response protocol group including the City Police Department, bear groups, Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Tahoe Refuse, and homeowners’ associations, and other interested parties; and to report back to Council on findings and/or a draft of protocols.” Discussion:

Staff convened collaborative meetings among identified stakeholders on January 9, 2026 and March 13, 2026, both over four hours long, revealing both shared goals and misalignment. Prior to the first meeting, the attendees were provided with the current PD response protocols, the CDFW presentation to council, the 2025 Police Department (PD) calls for service related to bears, STR animals in trash report, the URLs to the Bear League’s website, Bear Wise, CDFW, the Tahoe Interagency Bear Team, and an outline for the meeting.

Summarily, participants generally agreed that eliminating attractants is the most effective long-term strategy for reducing bear-human conflict. However, there was no agreement on how to manage bears that were already habituated to humans, human generated food, and human spaces. The largest divide remained between the Bear League and CDFW on the topics of relocation, refuge options, euthanasia, and depredation. The following is an elaboration on those discussions.

Expressed Priorities and Concerns
Human Life: Protection of human life remained the highest public safety priority. CDFW gives priority to public safety wildlife incidents defined as an incident where a bear makes physical contact with a person causing injury. The South Lake Tahoe Police Department (SLTPD) similarly approaches bear calls from a public safety standpoint.

Bear Life: The Bear League agreed that no bear should be euthanized other than a public safety bear. The Bear League advocated for more refuge, sanctuary, sterilization, and other non-lethal approaches such as diversionary feeding (a continuation of reliance on human sourced food).

The Bear League viewed the added community costs as justified if those costs prevented a habituated conflict bear from being euthanized.

Property Damage Concerns: Property damage was a major concern for residents and HOAs. During the meetings, some HOAs reported that each 826
City Council report April 21, 2026 Page 3 of 15
bear break-in may cost between $2,000 and $10,000 in repairs. These costs were described as unsustainable, including for homeowners who had already hardened their homes and removed known attractants.

Residents may continue to incur significant costs from repeated bear break-ins. How many incursions, how much damage, and how much inconvenience is a resident willing or expected to tolerate to preserve a habituated conflict bear? It also raises the question of when insurance may stop covering repeated losses.

Human Accountability: Participants broadly agreed that human behavior is a major cause of bear conflict. Repeated concerns included trash, bird feeders, outdoor pet feeding, BBQs, open garages, open windows, outdoor coolers, and other food-related attractants. Attractants are the central issue in bear-human conflict and there is a need for stronger community compliance and better education.

Resident Costs / Impacts of Cooperating with CDFW: An unfortunate reality is social media shaming and doxing as possible impacts on residents who cooperate with CDFW. Neighborhood conflict, protest activity, and tension over traps on private property have been amplified over social media. The unfortunate consequence is that habituated bears continue to eat trash and leave damage in our neighborhoods. This effectively removes a response alternative from CDFW formerly available to residents because of overt community ostracization to save a habituated conflict bear. This keeps habituated conflict bears in the community, and those bears teach cubs the same dangerous/problematic habits.

Legal Concerns: California law gives CDFW authority to engage and manage bears statewide. There is no legal mechanism for CDFW to transfer stewardship of these activities to the City of South Lake Tahoe or to the Bear League. State legislative action would be required to allow such a transfer.

Trapping, capture, relocation, and other “take” actions require CDFW authority and/or a scientific collection permit. Proactive hazing authority by volunteers is not established in any official or legal documents, nor is that authority granted to the Bear League by CDFW.

HOA board members expressed liability concerns during the meetings.

HOA representatives stated that failure to address a known bear-related safety threat could expose board members to individual liability. One representative also said the HOA could not advise a homeowner against seeking a depredation permit because of liability concerns. Inaction on a 827
City Council report April 21, 2026 Page 4 of 15
known safety risk may create legal exposure for HOA decision-makers and others with responsibility over property conditions.

Assigning the Bear League to respond to bear calls coming into dispatch in place of police officers could create the appearance that the Bear League is acting as an ‘agent of the government.’ This concern was one reason the Police Department did not commit the dispatch center to direct follow-up calls to the Bear League, over other entities, after each call for service. However, the Bear League currently serves several functions in the community. This includes proactive attractant mitigation, proactive hazing patrol, and immediate response to reports involving bear sightings, bear in yard, bear in house, and bear denned under house. Additionally, the Bear League does education, including: ‘what to do’ and ‘Living With Bears’, bear wiring; and mat education. The Bear League also supports the community by providing equipment such as bear mats.

Engagement
Meeting participants provided significant input that is a clear reflection that within the community this is not an issue that can be viewed from a single perspective.

Some HOA participants were concerned about the perpetuation of conflict bears.

Other HOA representatives thought more could be done around the issue of trash containment, storage, presentation, and pick up to minimize the attractants.

One significant point made by the HOAs was that the newly approved rise of the VHRs would exacerbate the attractant issue. While the participation of the HOAs was considered a benefit in representing a ‘community’ perspective, one must realize there are areas that are not governed by HOA CCRs but this became a representative sample.

South Tahoe Refuse and Clean Tahoe were present at the meeting and were able to explain some processes and dispel rumors about collection practices, warning processes, and the inferred simplicity of replacing containers. It will be important to engage both South Tahoe Refuse and Clean Tahoe as this process continues. This will be explained later in this report.

Within the South Shore there are other wildlife collaborators. It will be important to engage these organizations as they enhance the City’s ability to carry the message to our residents and visitors. To this end, and not present at these meetings, VHR agents and platforms will be a necessary means to reach our ever-changing visitors on the importance of how they can successfully visit while leaving our bear population non-dependent on human refuse for food.

Additionally, for topical depth and perspective, extensive outside research was conducted on this immense and contentious issue for insight into successful programs in other municipalities, states, and federal parks. 828
City Council report April 21, 2026 Page 5 of 15
Attractant Management
The greatest area of agreement centered on attractant management.

Participants agreed that long-term success depends on reducing bear access to human food sources, especially trash. There was broad support for stronger education, better compliance, and more focused prevention coupled with enforcement.

Education by HOAs VHRs, STR, Clean Tahoe, Bear League, and City:

The meetings produced several ideas for expanded public education.

These included outreach to HOAs, vacation home rental (VHR) operators, apartments, mobile home parks, and neighborhood-based communication channels. Recommendations included messaging to the community about bird feeders, outdoor pet feeding, BBQs, and other attractants.

Recommendations also included providing bear materials on VHR websites and coordinating with VHR agents. Clean Tahoe, the Bear League, Lake Tahoe Wildlife Center, STR, and the City were all identified as potential partners in public education. Also noted was that Bear Wise educational materials are already available and endorsed by state and federal agencies, although the Bear League prefers, and offered, its own educational materials.

Higher Fines by City; HOA CCR and Fines: Meeting participants discussed stronger penalties for attractant violations. The group identified possible fine values for attractant-related violations across residential and commercial properties, ie) first violation is a warning, second is a $200/$1000 fine for residential/commercial, the third violation would be a $500/$2500 for residential/commercial. These suggested values were substantially higher than that currently listed in the Master Fee Schedule but approached a value similar to VHR violations. However, when a violation coincided with a VHR property, a permit revocation would occur for repeated violations, as it would land on the party responsible. At the HOA level, enforcement is limited because HOA representatives stated they had recently been restricted by case law to a maximum $100 fine for HOA violations. Even so, the group agreed that HOAs can review their CCRs for restrictions related to bird feeders, outdoor pet feeding, BBQs, and feeding bears.

STR Services: STR participated in discussions about possible service changes to reduce attractants. It was noted that the new bear-resistant trash carts are working well in the community. Additional options were discussed including bin cleaning, retrieving trash from bear boxes located more than 10 feet from the curb, and replacing current recycling bins with bear-resistant models. STR reported that customers may request off-site single bin cleaning for $25. STR previously noted that citywide replacement of recycling bins with bear-resistant containers could cost in 829
City Council report April 21, 2026 Page 6 of 15
the realm of $5 million and would not likely be palatable to all ratepayers.

STR also confirmed that cleaning recycling bins with ammonia would not interfere with service.

Data-based decision making: Data collection and data sharing remained an important topic throughout both meetings because the extent of any problem is actually unknown. People certainly agreed that bear encounters continue but there is no source of data that tells the overarching story about the extent of bear problems in our community.

Participants discussed the value of a central repository of bear-related data for the South Shore to support better mapping, reduce duplicate reporting and response, and identify patterns and hotspots. It was quickly apparent that data collection and sharing is incomplete and disparate across organizations.

Yosemite Study; Data Capture: CDFW’s bear biologist attended the March meeting and described his prior experience in Yosemite dealing with a long-term problematic bear situation. The approach was bold. They decided not to mitigate the problems for an entire year while only collecting data. The collected data was exceptionally valuable in guiding later action. The report describes that effort as documenting more than 600 incidents and about $650,000 in damage in one year (late 1990s early 2000s). Attractant reduction helped reduce incidents over time, but that lethal management was required to bring this problem population under control. This resulted in incident numbers dropping to a tiny fraction of what it had been. This model may not be palatable to, or congruent with, conditions in South Lake Tahoe without some significant adjustment.

Data Sharing by the Organizations: The meetings included discussion of data sharing among CDFW, SLTPD, STR, Clean Tahoe, and the Bear League. Although there was support for better coordination, there was no full agreement on how all data should be collected, stored, or shared.

Clean Tahoe offered to be the central repository. While STR, Clean Tahoe, SLTPD, and CDFW are willing to pool data toward a shared understanding of the scope of the problem, the Bear League is unwilling to share data about bear calls.
 CDFW is a public agency, and its data is subject to public disclosure rules. CDFW is a key source of incident and response information.  SLTPD already collects bear call data and shares monthly information with the Bear League, CDFW, and LTWC. SLTPD is serving as a central repository for South Shore bear call data, as most emergent and non-emergent calls are received there. This maintains the ability to screen bear calls for mere assistance or escalating public safety needs. This proves to be the current best practice for assessing public safety.
830
City Council report April 21, 2026 Page 7 of 15
 STR and Clean Tahoe are willing to collect and share relevant data on ‘animals in trash’ incidents. STR and Clean Tahoe’s efforts in logging trash issues, posting notices, and relaying violations were appreciated.  The Bear League’s response data is private. A request made for 2025 bear call data was denied based on a fundamental unwillingness to accept that their activity and data might be viewable to CDFW because City-held documents are subject to the Public Records Act.

Additionally, the Bear League was unwilling to provide the Chief of Police their policies, procedures, and protocols outside a supervised review. The Chief requested these documents so that a review of mission, training, and internal regulation could be performed. This remained a major barrier to a fully shared data system. These actions demonstrated a general unwillingness to be a fully collaborative partner.

Bear Data Will Be Incomplete Due to Different Sharing Practices:

Without shared data, there is a limit to any usefulness in mapping, hotspot analysis, and coordinated response planning. Importantly, it means that City Council will be unable to understand the full magnitude and depth of this issue. Anecdotes and extreme examples presented as the norm become the dominant form of perspective reinforcement or bias confirmation.

Habituated Bears
Although all parties supported reducing future bear-human conflict through attractant control, there was no shared approach to managing the bears that are habituated, not suitable for relocation, and for which placement is not an option. This remained the most difficult issue discussed during both meetings.

HOAs and Liability Concerns: HOA representatives raised concerns about both damage and liability. One representative stated that a known safety threat, such as an unaddressed bear problem or a particular recommendation for responding to a bear problem, may expose HOA board members to personal liability. Another representative stated that if a homeowner requests a depredation permit and trap placement, then no one, including the Bear League, should enter that property. HOAs were concerned about their limited enforcement tools and the financial impact of repeated break-ins.

CDFW Protocol and Context for Laws / Protocols: CDFW’s
management framework is based on state law and defined response categories. CDFW is the legal steward of bears in California and there is no mechanism for the agency to transfer stewardship of a bear to the City or to another entity such as the Bear League. When management options 831
City Council report April 21, 2026 Page 8 of 15
have been exhausted and no relocation or placement option exists, euthanasia or lethal removal may occur after review and consideration. In depredation cases, state law allows a landowner or tenant to request a permit to kill a bear that is damaging or threatening property, and CDFW must issue such a permit when legal requirements are met.

Bear League Recommendations for a Bear-Resilient House: The Bear League supports household-level deterrence and prevention, including educational materials, bear wire or mats, as well as immediate response guidance and aid. There was some disagreement over how effective these tools are in every circumstance, with one HOA stating that bear wire may fail when a bear has already learned to push through temporary discomfort to reach food. The Police Department recognizes the unconventional and unsanctioned but immediate response capabilities of the Bear League. The Police Department recognizes the utility of this Non-Governmental Organization that provides an intermediate response falling between CDFW’s slower research-based response and the police department’s immediate public safety response.

Bear Sanctuary vs. Bear Wise Community: A clear disagreement emerged over city designations. The Bear League staunchly advocated for the title “Bear Sanctuary City,” arguing that the title would help with fundraising for research and relocation, but not offering a clear understanding how this would differ from other approaches. CDFW supported the concept of a “Bear Wise Community” instead. Bear Wise is an existing research driven collaboration from experts across the United States that supports living with bears. This program has been vetted and supported by state and federal wildlife agencies. The programmatic materials are built out, not affiliated, and ready for distribution. No group consensus was built here because there did not seem to be enough interest from all those present at the March meeting.

Calls for Service
Past Procedure for Dispatch / PD: Historically, SLTPD handled bear calls from an exclusively public safety perspective and provided callers with contact information for related organizations when requested.

Current Procedure for Dispatch / PD: Meeting attendees agree that confusion remains in the community about who to call about a bear and what happens when a government agency is contacted. Attendees reported that some residents hesitate to call because they believe doing so will lead to euthanasia of a bear. Calls involving sick or injured bears must go to CDFW. SLTPD Dispatch will continue taking and screening bear calls for public safety needs and, if no immediate threat to life, provide the phone number for CDFW or the Bear League as requested by 832
City Council report April 21, 2026 Page 9 of 15
the caller. This allows the police department to be the continuing repository for years’ worth of bear call data that remains searchable by several criteria in RMS.

What Happens When CDFW Is Called: When CDFW is called, the response depends on the nature of the incident and the bear category involved. CDFW may assess the situation, use hazing, review placement or relocation options, or issue a depredation permit if requested and when policy and legal conditions are met. Notably, CDFW faces significant difficulty using traps in South Lake Tahoe at this time because of staff safety concerns. This withdrawal limits the tools available for habituated bears in South Lake Tahoe. To be clear, CDFW is not placing traps in South Lake Tahoe at this time.

What Happens When the Bear League is Called: the action taken by the Bear League when receiving a call for service is unknown. If there is an active public safety issue, the Bear League asserts they call the police department. For deconfliction, the Bear League has stopped calling the police department for the purpose of response notification.

Next Actions: Regarding Attractant Management
HOAs Will Try Some New Strategies: HOAs concluded several next steps they will take. These include reviewing CCRs related to bird feeders, outdoor pet feeding, BBQs, and feeding bears; considering how to identify residents placing trash out improperly; and discussing how much cost, inconvenience, or damage residents are willing to tolerate before stronger action is needed. HOAs may invite both CDFW and the Bear League to speak at HOA meetings.

Propose New Fee Structure for Animal-in-Trash Violations: Meeting participants supported the idea of the City revisiting fine structures for attractant-related violations, including animal-in-trash violations.

Discussion included possible stronger penalties for repeated problems aligned with VHR-related enforcement for responsible parties when renters repeatedly violate city ordinance.

Next Actions: Regarding Habituated Bears
Police Response: SLTPD will continue to respond from a public safety perspective. There was interest from meeting participants in creating a wildlife liaison or bear liaison role to support outreach, education, coordination, and response. This idea was presented by CDFW on December 9, 2025 and general support was demonstrated during the stakeholder meetings. No one else explicitly volunteered to fund the 833
City Council report April 21, 2026 Page 10 of 15
position, this option is discussed more later in the Financial Considerations section of this Staff Report.

Bear League Desires to Pilot Sterilization Project and Build a Sanctuary: The Bear League presented a proposal for an
immunocontraception project with Oakland Zoo during the March 2026 stakeholder meeting and later at the March council meeting. The City of South Lake Tahoe and CDFW staff objected to how their involvement was characterized in this letter as neither entity had been provided a chance to review the proposal or formally endorsed it before the letter was finalized.

The Bear League also expressed interest in creating a sanctuary or refuge approach for habituated bears as mentioned above. This idea did not get fleshed out with the group. The expectations and funding associated with a bear sanctuary or refuge is not clear at this time.

CDFW Will Continue as Is: CDFW will continue to act under its existing legal authority, policies, and science-based procedures. CDFW remains the agency responsible for statewide bear management. It is important to note that CDFW is limited in its ability to respond due to a wide area of responsibility, staffing limitations, and staff safety concerns in this community as stated above. These limitations have resulted in CDFW discontinuing Trap, Tag, Haze in South Lake Tahoe.

Next Actions: Collaborator Commitments
Police Department
 Repository and distributor of data
 Centralized collaborator with stakeholders
 Provide Bearwise messaging to South Lake Tahoe Vacation Home Rental industry
 Respond to violations of trash management code
South Tahoe Refuse
 Will contact CSO division for enforcement when necessary  Educate, gather data, and refer repeat violators to Code Enforcement.  Will share data on ‘animal in trash’ incidents
Clean Tahoe
 Will share data on animal in trash incidents
 Will assist with cataloging and statistical collection  Respond to ‘animal in trash’ clean up requests
 Educate, gather data and refer repeat violators to Code Enforcement 834
City Council report April 21, 2026 Page 11 of 15
Bear League
 Will advocate for creation of refuge or sanctuary options for habituated conflict bears
 Will respond to community requests for assistance, mats, wire, etc.  Will haze bears
 Will do bear evictions
 Will call PD if necessary for public safety
 Willing to reach out to VHR agents
Homeowners’ associations
 Willing but limited in HOA enforcement because of recent case law, but will issue CCR violations
 Will do education on bears with membership
 Will look into private security patrols to prevent overnight habituation of bears
 Will seek modification of trash containers to assist with content denial for bears
 Advocate to amend 10 ft South Tahoe Refuse bear box rule

1. Modification of CCR standards to allow them closer to curb

2. Seeks STR allowance for service from bear box greater than 10’ CDFW
 Will respond to bear calls in South Lake Tahoe, will not place traps  Will request PD assistance with staff safety for any bear response Discussion considerations in moving forward:

Wildlife Liaison Officer for Hazing and Eviction: One concept discussed during the meetings was of a wildlife liaison or bear liaison position within the city. This role would focus on education, coordination, outreach, and wildlife-related field response. In December, CDFW described Siskiyou County’s wolf liaison model as an example of a similar position. Siskiyou County funded a .75 FTE to fill this role. If established, the City employee in this role would respond to bear calls, haze bears, evict bears and follow through with the educational component of living in a city that sees significant bear human interaction.

This role aligns with the CDFW suggestion that a bear liaison be associated with a government agency, rather than utilizing a non-profit as an intermediary. The Chief of Police spoke with another agency about this position, the role became significant in undermining bear human conflict 835
City Council report April 21, 2026 Page 12 of 15
with proactive municipal activity to push education, response, enforcement, and outreach. Guidance was provided on the job definition, requirements, and responsibilities of such a role from other agencies, both municipal and non-profit. One agency suggested that this role could be a contract employee of CDFW; in this manner it would come with education, training, experience, authority and an understanding of the role.

A wildlife liaison program would involve both direct and indirect costs. If directed by the City Council to establish a City Bear Liaison position, the City Manager would recommend appropriate staffing and job description as part of the annual budget.

Bear Habitat – Refuge: The idea of a refuge or sanctuary for habituated bears had been discussed, but long-term placement options for bears are limited because of their long lifespan, space needs, the stress, and depression of captivity in adult bears. Any refuge model would likely require:
 CDFW permission
 Property identification and acquisition
 Facility development and support
 Full-time staffing
 Medical costs
 Subsidization
Funding for a Bear Refuge or operations has not been identified.

STR – Modification of Containers and/or Service
The idea of replacing all of the recycling carts with bear-resistant carts identical to the trash carts was proposed. Notably all trash carts are bear resistant, not bear proof. Replacing all recycling bins with bear-resistant containers could cost nearly $5 million citywide, roughly estimated. This is a cost that would need to be rate-based, with an estimate of $250 per customer to support this change. This did not seem to receive a favorable review from meeting attendees.

STR stated that off-site cleaning is available for $25 per container per occasion. Cleaning trash or recycling carts is a way to decrease the attraction by bears. However, if this were provided as part of the weekly service the cost would be significant and, unless funded by other sources, would require customer rate increases.
836
City Council report April 21, 2026 Page 13 of 15
Current STR practices do not support the additional cost of retrieving trash from bear boxes located more than 10 feet from the curb. More complex bear-resistant equipment or latches may affect labor time and operational cost. Considering recent rate increases, this was not an attractive option for meeting attendees.

Potential Impacts to Police Department Operations
If City leadership supports policies that reduce or pause bear removal, the public will require an explanation of the costs they are expected to incur; ongoing or escalating property damage or the need for additional City staffing for mitigation programs. If habituated conflict bears remain uncontrolled and become public safety bears, the burden of response may eventually fall on the Police Department in circumstances with highly visible and community wide emotional impact.

Next Actions: City Council
Staff seeks direction from Council on the following issues related to minimizing human bear conflict in South Lake Tahoe:
1) Amend the master fee schedule to increase fines for trash and providing wildlife access to food violations (SLTCC 4.150, 4.05.090) 2) Declare South Lake Tahoe a Bear Sanctuary City or Bearwise Community
The declaration of South Lake Tahoe as a Bear Sanctuary City or Bear Wise Community may attract media attention and/or community group fundraising. However, it would not change the public safety response of the police department nor would it change the statewide policy of CDFW. CDFW maintains state authority over bears. The BearWise community declaration is a commitment to coexist with black bears responsibly. It
emphasizes the importance of never feeding or approaching bears, securing food and garbage, removing bird feeders, and never leaving pet food outdoors. City Council would need to define what a Bear Sanctuary City means for South Lake
Tahoe.
3) Consider establishing and funding a City Bear Liaison position a. Would conduct hazing, eviction, community education, and area denial efforts
837
City Council report April 21, 2026 Page 14 of 15
b. Collaborate with CDFW and Bear League
c. Maintain and report bear activity data
4) Formal correspondence to CDFW
a. Requesting continuation of Trap, Tag, Haze program in South Lake Tahoe
b. Consideration of relocation process for bears to avoid lethal removal
5) Formal correspondence to Bear League
a. Requesting their members not interfere with CDFW staff and/or equipment in data collection, processes, including hazing, tagging, and trapping
b. Requesting data sharing with the City
6) Amend the VHR Ordinance to include a requirement for property managers and owners to provide Bear Aware material to renters, acknowledgement of review, and agreement to abide.
7) Discuss with STR the feasibility of a pilot program for STR to provide regular trash and recycling container cleaning services. a. Likely funded by customer rate payers or City general fund. b. Data collection to determine effectiveness would be necessary. 8) Continuation of City facilitation of discussions between CDFW, Bear League and community partners regarding management of habituated bears.

Policy Considerations: This work supports the City’s 2025–2030 Strategic Priority Three: Ensure Public Safety.

Financial Implications: As discussed throughout this report, establishing a City Bear Liaison position or funding a trash container cleaning program in partnership with STR would require general fund expenditures. If directed, these specific expenditures would be included in the annual budget process.

Environmental Impacts: This is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore exempt.

Attachments
Attachment 2 – Staff Report to Council 12-09-2025
838
City Council report April 21, 2026 Page 15 of 15
Attachment 3 – Bear meeting report to council 1-09-2026 Attachment 4 – Annual 2025 bear calls
Attachment 5 – bear map 2025
Attachment 6 – 2026 Bear Response flow chart
Attachment 7 – 2022 CDFW Black Bear Police with 2024 addendum Attachment 8 – CDFW Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan 2025 Attachment 9 – CDFW presentation slides to Council Dec 2025 Attachment 10 – Bear League Immuno-sterilization letter Attachment 11 – Bear management practices 50 states – 2 Fed 839
City Council Report December 9, 2025 Page 1 of 4
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: December 9, 2025
Title: Black Bear Management in South Lake Tahoe
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Members: Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police; Heather Stroud, City Attorney

Background: On August 12, 2025, Councilmember Roberts requested, and Councilmember Jinkens seconded, that staff bring back this report with legal analysis of the city’s authority over bear management and opportunities for policy advocacy. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”), as the state agency charged with wildlife management, has agreed to provide a presentation on their policies and procedures for bear management as part of this item. Under California Fish & Game Code section 1802, CDFW “has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species.” A copy of CDFW’s Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California (Apr. 14, 2025) is included. One of the main goals of this Plan is to conserve and manage black bear populations that are ecologically functional including conserving and enhancing black bear habitat. Section 3.9 of the Plan includes a discussion of human-black bear conflict. Also attached is a copy of CDFW’s Black Bear Policy (issued Feb. 16, 2022, as updated Feb. 28 2024), which includes detailed information about managing human-bear conflicts including sections specific to the Lake Tahoe Basin where a Trap/Tag/Haze Pilot Management Project has been implemented.

While the resolution of issues with nuisance bears that have become habituated to humans and bears causing public safety concerns has been the exclusive domain of the CDFW, the City Police Department also responds on a regular basis to calls into dispatch involving bears. Most of the calls the Police Department responds to involve calls of a bear in a house, whether the bear is alone or with the occupants inside, the goal of which is to resolve this incident without injury to human or bear. The Police Department has historically hazed the bears to train (or attempt to train) them that interaction with humans is detrimental to their well-being and remaining wild. The Police Department has responded less frequently to traffic collisions with a bear and the aftermath of bear injury, as Caltrans or Lake Tahoe Wildlife Care generally are the lead on those calls, or to calls for bears getting into trash. The Police Department has not been involved in euthanizing conflict bears or public safety bears.

CAD data shows the following bear calls from 2020-2025:
2020 190
2021 344
2022 390
2023 280
2024 145
840
City Council Report December 9, 2025 Page 2 of 4
2025 196 (as of 9/15/25)
Total 1545
EDSO (Tahoe Valley Campground):
2021 1
2022 15
2023 3
2024 4
2025 5
Total 28
Bear Traffic Collisions: 8 from Dec 15, 2022- Sept 15, 2025 Bears euthanized: 1 from traffic collision injuries
The following data was provided by CDFW and depicts the number of physical contact encounters between a bear and a human on the California side of the Tahoe basin and in South Lake Tahoe.

According to CDFW, the actual number may be greater as people may not report all incidents to CDFW or may report late, leading to physical evidence no longer being present or viable.

Tahoe Basin
Total
South Lake Tahoe
Only
2020 2 1
2021 2 1
2022 2 1
2023 4 3
2024 1 0
2025 2 2
Issue and Discussion:

While the City lacks authority to directly regulate wildlife management, there are actions that the City can take to prevent bears from becoming habituated to humans and causing human conflict and public safety issues: (1) coordination with CDFW; (2) prioritizing enforcement of existing City ordinances; and (3) considering adoption of additional ordinances within local authority. (1) Coordination with CDFW:

The Police Department understands there is misinformation about the management of Black Bears in South Lake Tahoe. Because of this, and the fact that CDFW has ongoing scientific research regarding bears habitation, migration, and habituation in South Lake Tahoe; the CDFW and the SLTPD met with the following takeaways:
- CDFW is going to call SLTPD for safety assistance anytime they need to go out to a home for official business.
- The City will provide public messaging pertaining to bear proofing homes, rather than either intentionally or unintentionally inviting irreversible bear behavior into our neighborhoods. o Bears learning their food source is at homes in neighborhoods, rather than in the wild is bad.
841
City Council Report December 9, 2025 Page 3 of 4
- SLTPD to focus on trash management enforcement (not having overflowing trash cans, trash bags left out in the open next to trash cans, trash cans out on days other than trash day).
- CDFW has more steps and higher threshold for bear mitigation in the Tahoe Basin than it does elsewhere.
o CDFW policy mandates DNA matches to a specific bear at house break ins prior to any bear management (Tahoe Basin specific).
- Electronic bear mats can be beneficial for bears to receive a negative message when attempting to enter a home.
(2) Prioritizing Enforcement of Existing Ordinances
The City has several ordinance on the books already that may help to mitigate human-bear conflict issues, namely South Lake Tahoe City Code chapter 4.150 (Solid Waste, Recycling, and Organic Materials), Section 3.50.440 (Conditions of operation) of Article V (Vacation Home Rentals) of Title 3 (Finance), and Section 4.05.490 (Feeding of wild domestic animals or nondomesticated animals).

The City’s trash management regulations require residential and commercial trash to be stored, secured, and set out for collection in a manner to prevent access by animals including bears.

Applicable provisions include requirements to:
• Use approved and appropriately sized containers with closed and secured lids. SLTCC §

4.150.140 (Commercial containers); 4.150.110 (Residential containers). • Mandatory weekly collection for residential properties and commercial establishments generating food waste. SLTCC § 4.150.140 (Commercial containers); SLTCC § 4.150.110 (Residential containers).
• Placement of containers for collection at the curb no earlier than 6:00am on collection day (residential) or 6:00pm the day before collection (commercial). SLTCC § 4.150.210 (Placement of residential containers for collection purposes); SLTCC § 4.150.220 (Placement of commercial containers for collection purposes). • Enforcement tools include the ability to issue citations and fines, bring a public nuisance action, or for repeat offenders to require larger containers, more frequent collection, mandating safety-improved dumpsters with tight-fitting or animal-resistant lids, or require a bear box for residential properties. SLTCC § 4.150.510 (Violations of chapter declared a nuisance); SLTCC § 4.150.150 (Repeat offendors).
o Citation amounts for trash violations range from $150 to $300 for a first violation.

For enforcement of these regulations, the City works with its franchisee, South Tahoe Refuse (“STR”) and its subcontractor Clean Tahoe. STR’s drivers are trained to report all incidents that they come across during the course of collection where there is a trash mess or the cart is overloaded. They check the trash cart to be sure it locks correctly, note the incident on their onboard tablet, and the incident is then recorded into our Customer Account system. In response to each of those incidents, STR Customer Service contacts the account holder to notify them of the issue and provide education. These incidents are compiled in monthly reports. From April-June 2025, STR documented 39 such incidents in the City (an area with nearly 11,000 customers). STR reports a customer to the City for code enforcement after three incidents/attempts at education.

Since implementing the 3-cart program in September 2024, STR has not had any customers with more than 3 incidents.
842
City Council Report December 9, 2025 Page 4 of 4
Clean Tahoe also receives reports from residents about containment problems and animal messes and responds to each report. When Clean Tahoe comes across a violation, they have a similar process as STR and issue a notice to the homeowner. They also report repeat offenders to City Code Enforcement. From April-June 2025, Clean Tahoe addressed 89 incidents of animal access to trash in the City. Clean Tahoe also carefully tracks education efforts and notices they provide. Since September 2024, Clean Tahoe has issued 1,004 notices for improper setout/containment. Both STR and Clean Tahoe report a dramatic improvement in trash containment since issuing the locking animal-resistant carts.

The City’s Vacation Home Rental (“VHR”) regulations include additional trash requirements for VHRs, namely, the requirement to use an animal-resistant recycling cart for storing recycling if no bear box is installed, and if a bear box is installed, that it be sized to fit a minimum number of trash cans based on the size of the home. These requirements are in SLTCC section 3.50.440(R).

Violations of the VHR rules are subject to citations and substantial fines ($1500 for a first violation, $3000 for a second violation within a year, and $5,000 for a third violation within a year).

The City Code also includes a provision prohibiting feeding wildlife. Section 4.05.490(A) states:
“No person shall knowingly feed or in any manner provide access to food to any feral or nondomestic mammalian animal. Violations of this section shall be deemed an infraction.” Thus, the Police Department could issue a criminal citation or an administrative citation and fine, which would currently be $250 for a first violation.

Prioritizing enforcement of these existing code provisions could be achieved by considering increasing fine amounts (except for VHRs which are at the maximum allowed under state law) and shifting code enforcement resources to violations of these provisions. (3) Consideration of Enacting New Ordinances
The City Council could direct staff to bring back one or more ordinances establishing new regulations to reduce bear-human conflicts. Potential areas within the City’s authority include:
• A requirement to install a bear mat and/or electric wiring in certain circumstances such as repeated bear break-ins.
• Review trash regulations to address any loopholes (i.e. open trash cans used for outdoor public disposal at businesses, allowing commercial customers to set out trash at 6pm the night before collection).
• Require Bear Aware educational materials be provided at VHR check-in.

Financial Implications: None.

Environmental Considerations: Receiving this report and providing direction on coordination, enforcement, and potential future regulation is not a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) (general policy and procedure making).

Policy Considerations:

This report supports 2025-2030 Strategic Priority Three: Ensure Public Safety 843
Police Department - 1352 Johnson Blvd - South Lake Tahoe, California 96150 - (530) 542-6100 -FAX (530) 542-6146 Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police
City Council
1901 Lisa Maloff Dr.

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police
1352 Johnson Blvd.

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
RE: Report to City Council on Bear Summit One
January 22, 2026
Esteemed Council Members,
Bear Summit January 2026 Meeting Summary
Council Direction Summarized:

Get allied agencies and interested parties to the same table. From a collaborative effort develop ordinance change recommendations, determine new ordinances for incorporation, and develop a bear response protocol.

Purpose:

Identify community partners for best practice in bear-human interaction prevention.

Develop response protocol.

Outreach efforts:

The City and the PD most often hear of bears that frequent the Keys. One purpose for this meeting was to get a cross-sectional perspective on the impact of bears city-wide.

Several of the HOAs were invited to give their experience with bears, including financial impacts and outside agency response. One of the components for including the HOAs was their ability to assist in bear code compliance and enforcement. We recognized that public utilities act as a reporting/sanction arm for interactive bear prevention, to that end South Tahoe Refuse was included. To foster a collaborative process and allow enough time for each attending organization to relay their interest/concern, attendance was limited to 12 people, and the initial meeting was scheduled for four hours. The following were attending organizations:
o Lake Park HOA
o Sky Meadows HOA
o Al Tahoe HOA
o Tahoe Keys POA
o Tahoe Meadows HOA
o Tahoe Tyrol HOA
844
Police Department - 1352 Johnson Blvd - South Lake Tahoe, California 96150 - (530) 542-6100 -FAX (530) 542-6146 Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police
o Bear League (two reps)
o California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Regional Manager o California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Biologist
o South Tahoe Refuse
o Leona Allen Interested party
o Sara Letton CSLT Sustainability Coordinator
o Jeff Roberson Chief of Police
o Joe Irvin City Manager
Standing PD response protocols in place:

See attached General Orders in attachment one
Meeting Outline Talking Points:
• Foundational Principles for meeting
• Prevention Framework (Primary Strategy)
• Graduated Response System
• Agency Roles & Coordination
• Euthanasia - Depredation Permit Process
• Public Engagement & Accountability
• Implementation Timeline
• Funding & Resources
• Success Metrics
• Conflict Resolution
• Closing Discussion
Perceptions of Success:

After introductions, the participants were asked what success looked like, the following are responses:
o Public Education (including tourists)
o Bears stop getting killed
o Non-lethal bear management
o Coordination on reduction of conflict bears in homes
o Reduce harassment of professionals
o Minimum bear access to trash
o Something different
o Evaluate bear can management
o Create a hub of education/communication
o Education/Enforcement/Engineering
o Make it clear who to call
845
Police Department - 1352 Johnson Blvd - South Lake Tahoe, California 96150 - (530) 542-6100 -FAX (530) 542-6146 Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police
Summary of discussion.

Prior to the meeting, the attendees were provided with the current PD response protocols, the CDFW presentation to council, the 2025 PD calls for service related to bears, STR animals in trash report, the URLs to the Bear League’s website, Bear Wise, CDFW, the Tahoe Interagency Bear Team, and an outline for the meeting.

While the meeting was to have structure as demonstrated in the meeting outline. It became clear in the first few minutes that we were not going to be able to adhere to the meeting outline. Because of the flow of the discussion, the outline was used loosely, allowing some of the meeting’s points to be addressed while giving the attendees a greater opportunity to express their experiences and frustrations.

Some HOAs noted that each bear break-in costs between $2000-$10,000 in repairs and that this is an unsustainable cost for homeowners. This includes homeowners that have hardened their homes and removed attractants. I was hoping to capitalize on the HOAs as a partner in managing things unseen, unknowable, or not prioritized by the PD. I was informed that HOAs were recently relegated to a maximum $100 fine for HOA violations. This includes the ability of HOAs to regulate their owners on VHRs.

There was a discussion about the need for a city employee who is not only a bear liaison, but a wildlife liaison. The programmatic costs (both in opportunity and money) of that program were discussed for a short time.

This discussion morphed into a discussion on marketing campaigns. Many great ideas were discussed on this point, and will likely be utilized in the future.

During the discussion it became clear that local lore confused the message on who to call for a response to a bear issue. Summarily everyone agreed that there is a community belief that if the government is called about a bear, that bear will be euthanized. It’s not clear that a media campaign from the city will undermine this generally held belief. To undermine this belief within the group, CDFW explained that bear traps are used to study the bears according to their ‘Tahoe plus’ bear response policy that was discussed during the December 9th, 2025 council meeting. However, this led to a broader discussion on multiple data entry points on bear sighting/response/conflict that may not necessarily be duplicative elsewhere. This gave me direction on how our Communication Center can better address these calls for service.

The Bear League lobbied for the title of ‘Bear Sanctuary City’ indicating the label would allow extraordinary fund raising to benefit research and bear relocation. When asked about the distinct need for the phrase ‘Sanctuary City’, the Bear League was adamant it 846
Police Department - 1352 Johnson Blvd - South Lake Tahoe, California 96150 - (530) 542-6100 -FAX (530) 542-6146 Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police
was necessary and the title ‘Bear Wise City’ would not find the same benefit; CDFW however supported the pursuit of a Bear Wise city.

This group was able to identify fair fine values for attractant violations and included the potential for VHR permit revocation for repeated renter violations. This broad spectrum included residences and commercial properties. This led to identification of problemed commercial bear properties.

At the request of CDFW some communication center procedures regarding bear calls were modified, additionally SLTPD bear data will be shared with multiple participants.

Points of contention:

Titles: Bear Sanctuary City vs. Bear Wise City
Habituated Bears: relocation, diversionary feeding, sterilization, euthanasia Neighbor conflict: presence of bear trap on private property, SM shaming, protest Conclusion:

While the group agreed on the future goal of reduction and eventual elimination of bearhuman interaction within the city (and the south shore more generally) there was no clear means by which to deal with the present issue of habituated bears. CDFW, some HOAs, and the bear league are still at odds over the necessity for bear euthanasia outside of a human injury caused by a bear.

Although we met for four hours with a single fifteen-minute break, the CM and I determined the need to continue this dialogue as there was little consensus on the crux of the issue, euthanizing habituated bears.

Ultimately there was unanimity on preventing future bear-human interaction through attractant management. However, the unbridgeable chasm is how the currently habituated bears are to be handled.

A future meeting is planned, I will keep you up to date.

I request that this summary be shared only among Council at this time.

Respectfully,
Jeff Roberson
Chief of Police
South Lake Tahoe Police Department
530-542-6521 | [email protected]
847
Inc # Type Date Day of Week Time Location
2501150005 BEARS 01/15/2025 Wednesday 04:58:14 775 TAYLOR WAY 2501150066 BEARS 01/15/2025 Wednesday 16:45:01 775 TAYLOR WAY 2501150070 BEARS 01/15/2025 Wednesday 17:06:44 674 TAHOE KEYS BLVD 2501170059 BEARS 01/17/2025 Friday 18:32:50 3350 ASH AVE 2501190004 BEARS 01/19/2025 Sunday 01:18:39 931 PARK AVE 2501250014 BEARS 01/25/2025 Saturday 03:09:35 3496 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2502020019 BEARS 02/02/2025 Sunday 02:54:26 46 BEACH DR 2502070046 BEARS 02/07/2025 Friday 15:00:56 1390 GLENWOOD WAY 2502210079 BEARS 02/21/2025 Friday 20:12:21 3684 FOREST AVE 2502270041 BEARS 02/27/2025 Thursday 11:22:50 2748 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2503060050 BEARS 03/06/2025 Thursday 16:06:41 2201 JEAN AVE 2503070087 BEARS 03/07/2025 Friday 22:03:21 838 PLACER AVE 2503150072 BEARS 03/15/2025 Saturday 21:16:20 838 PLACER AVE 2503150076 BEARS 03/15/2025 Saturday 23:20:17 2649 ARMSTRONG AVE 2503160005 BEARS 03/16/2025 Sunday 01:36:37 2649 ARMSTRONG AVE 2503180052 BEARS 03/18/2025 Tuesday 16:48:29 1874 10TH ST 2503180065 BEARS 03/18/2025 Tuesday 21:21:28 2649 ARMSTRONG AVE 2503180071 BEARS 03/18/2025 Tuesday 23:17:59 2649 ARMSTRONG AVE 2503180075 BEARS 03/18/2025 Tuesday 23:37:30 1821 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2503190045 BEARS 03/19/2025 Wednesday 16:54:03 2208 HELEN AVE 2503200034 BEARS 03/20/2025 Thursday 13:59:12 1226 EMERALD BAY RD 2503300051 BEARS 03/30/2025 Sunday 22:54:01 735 COLORADO CT 2504070006 BEARS 04/07/2025 Monday 02:34:40 3471 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2504090059 BEARS 04/09/2025 Wednesday 17:51:23 2196 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2504190060 BEARS 04/19/2025 Saturday 18:37:25 675 EMERALD BAY RD 2504200044 BEARS 04/20/2025 Sunday 19:00:14 BELLAMY CT
2504230040 BEARS 04/23/2025 Wednesday 18:03:09 2170 SOUTH AVE 2504300007 BEARS 04/30/2025 Wednesday 03:08:09 3820 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2505020002 BEARS 05/02/2025 Friday 01:28:50 1018 AL TAHOE BLVD JAN 6 BEAR CALLS
FEB 4 BEAR CALLS
MARCH 12 BEAR CALLS
APRIL 6 BEAR CALLS
848
2505020057 BEARS 05/02/2025 Friday 19:45:12 1930 MARCONI WAY 2505060058 BEARS 05/06/2025 Tuesday 22:08:17 3729 VERDON LN 2505100042 BEARS 05/10/2025 Saturday 13:46:45 1200 TATA LN 2505100080 BEARS 05/10/2025 Saturday 20:20:08 1801 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2505140012 BEARS 05/14/2025 Wednesday 09:25:18 1396 TATA LN 2505160116 BEARS 05/16/2025 Friday 23:38:28 CARSON AVE/ARMSTRONG AVE 2505180074 BEARS 05/18/2025 Sunday 23:43:27 2040 13TH ST 2505190003 BEARS 05/19/2025 Monday 03:42:12 2030 E ST
2505220035 BEARS 05/22/2025 Thursday 12:40:06 2220 CATALINA DR 2505230034 BEARS 05/23/2025 Friday 15:10:57 1935 F ST
2505230065 BEARS 05/23/2025 Friday 21:22:45 3741 PRIMROSE RD 2505240031 BEARS 05/24/2025 Saturday 10:04:59 1040 EMERALD BAY RD 2505250052 BEARS 05/25/2025 Sunday 15:10:18 766 PANTHER LN 2505280010 BEARS 05/28/2025 Wednesday 07:13:50 2219 VENICE DR 2505280063 BEARS 05/28/2025 Wednesday 20:31:56 1903 10TH ST 2505280080 BEARS 05/28/2025 Wednesday 23:04:49 2104 TEXAS AVE 2505290003 BEARS 05/29/2025 Thursday 02:54:51 4000 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2505300078 BEARS 05/30/2025 Friday 21:46:32 675 EMERALD BAY RD 2505300092 BEARS 05/30/2025 Friday 23:53:17 940 JULIE LN 2506010025 BEARS 06/01/2025 Sunday 10:05:28 746 LASSEN DR 2506030044 BEARS 06/03/2025 Tuesday 14:53:51 2214 BARTON AVE 2506030083 BEARS 06/03/2025 Tuesday 22:30:25 4143 CEDAR AVE 2506060015 BEARS 06/06/2025 Friday 03:10:05 1821 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2506060023 BEARS 06/06/2025 Friday 08:40:16 1879 VENICE DR 2506060083 BEARS 06/06/2025 Friday 19:52:14 1883 VENICE DR 2506090052 BEARS 06/09/2025 Monday 19:14:33 3008 OAKLAND AVE 2506140023 BEARS 06/14/2025 Saturday 10:25:54 1004 LAKEVIEW AVE 2506140060 BEARS 06/14/2025 Saturday 18:25:04 1801 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2506150068 BEARS 06/15/2025 Sunday 21:27:28 2061 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2506160011 BEARS 06/16/2025 Monday 08:20:51 1954 MARCONI WAY 2506190038 BEARS 06/19/2025 Thursday 11:46:29 3332 ASH AVE 2506220039 BEARS 06/22/2025 Sunday 11:44:30 2220 CATALINA DR 2506220064 BEARS 06/22/2025 Sunday 17:59:11 2241 CATALINA DR 2506220074 BEARS 06/22/2025 Sunday 19:59:45 2220 CATALINA DR 2506220078 BEARS 06/22/2025 Sunday 22:02:33 4118 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2506250003 BEARS 06/25/2025 Wednesday 00:29:13 3535 LAKE TAHOE BLVD MAY 20 BEAR CALLS
849
2506260010 BEARS 06/26/2025 Thursday 01:28:59 1300 MELBA DR 2506270060 BEARS 06/27/2025 Friday 11:37:34 1670 SHOP ST 2506270138 BEARS 06/27/2025 Friday 20:02:09 LAKE TAHOE BLVD/FRIDAY AVE 2506290015 BEARS 06/29/2025 Sunday 08:11:17 1029 TATA LN 2506290017 BEARS 06/29/2025 Sunday 08:33:17 1921 CATHEDRAL CT 2506290091 BEARS 06/29/2025 Sunday 20:03:04 2111 LUKINS WAY 2506290109 BEARS 06/29/2025 Sunday 23:33:03 2020 ALOHA DR 2506300048 BEARS 06/30/2025 Monday 13:13:43 1670 SHOP ST 2507010009 BEARS 07/01/2025 Tuesday 02:14:57 3715 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2507010076 BEARS 07/01/2025 Tuesday 21:31:18 4047 PINE BLVD 2507060059 BEARS 07/06/2025 Sunday 15:16:01 1137 DEDI AVE 2507060088 BEARS 07/06/2025 Sunday 20:50:28 MORRO DR
2507100004 BEARS 07/10/2025 Thursday 00:45:53 829 SONOMA AVE 2507110005 BEARS 07/11/2025 Friday 00:47:55 2161 CATALINA DR 2507110034 BEARS 07/11/2025 Friday 11:45:19 924 PARK AVE 2507120011 BEARS 07/12/2025 Saturday 01:30:28 3051 HARRISON AVE 2507130016 BEARS 07/13/2025 Sunday 03:42:43 817 TATA LN 2507130019 BEARS 07/13/2025 Sunday 04:31:14 225 BEACH DR 2507130062 BEARS 07/13/2025 Sunday 16:25:45 705 GLORENE AVE 2507130106 BEARS 07/13/2025 Sunday 23:33:39 787 EMERALD BAY RD 2507140007 BEARS 07/14/2025 Monday 04:27:19 728 GLORENE AVE 2507140086 BEARS 07/14/2025 Monday 23:06:57 12TH ST/TAHOE ISLAND DR 2507150022 BEARS 07/15/2025 Tuesday 10:28:51 2030 E ST
2507150083 BEARS 07/15/2025 Tuesday 20:28:08 1901 LISA MALOFF WAY 2507160002 BEARS 07/16/2025 Wednesday 00:34:27 668 TYNER WAY 2507160046 BEARS 07/16/2025 Wednesday 11:48:18 2159 MORRO DR 2507170082 BEARS 07/17/2025 Thursday 19:38:39 496 CHRISTIE DR 2507180060 BEARS 07/18/2025 Friday 16:23:22 2309 WYOMING AVE 2507180111 BEARS 07/18/2025 Friday 22:06:40 3565 NEEDLE PEAK RD 2507200005 BEARS 07/20/2025 Sunday 00:58:49 3535 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2507200011 BEARS 07/20/2025 Sunday 01:28:31 357 ALA WAI BLVD 2507200023 BEARS 07/20/2025 Sunday 06:52:35 780 CLEMENT ST 2507200073 BEARS 07/20/2025 Sunday 19:55:04 3561 NEEDLE PEAK RD 2507200077 BEARS 07/20/2025 Sunday 20:21:54 1360 JOHNSON BLVD 2507210097 BEARS 07/21/2025 Monday 20:19:11 COMSTOCK WAY/CONESTOGA ST 2507230005 BEARS 07/23/2025 Wednesday 04:42:42 1030 TATA LN JUNE 24 BEAR CALLS
850
2507230068 BEARS 07/23/2025 Wednesday 15:56:58 3780 STEWART WAY 2507250114 BEARS 07/25/2025 Friday 22:31:53 864 SAN FRANCISCO AVE 2507260022 BEARS 07/26/2025 Saturday 08:48:56 828 HAZEL DR 2507270035 BEARS 07/27/2025 Sunday 10:15:30 750 HAZEL DR 2507290017 BEARS 07/29/2025 Tuesday 10:34:15 2107 LUKINS WAY 2507300084 BEARS 07/30/2025 Wednesday 22:10:41 BLACKWOOD RD/SPRUCE AVE 2507310053 BEARS 07/31/2025 Thursday 12:23:52 789 TUOLUMNE DR 2508010022 BEARS 08/01/2025 Friday 07:25:26 515 EMERALD BAY RD 2508010036 BEARS 08/01/2025 Friday 11:59:41 824 JULIE LN 2508010068 BEARS 08/01/2025 Friday 19:16:20 2140 12TH ST 2508010082 BEARS 08/01/2025 Friday 21:45:34 864 STATELINE AVE 2508010097 BEARS 08/01/2025 Friday 23:51:54 1137 EMERALD BAY RD 2508020023 BEARS 08/02/2025 Saturday 05:09:17 3342 TREEHAVEN DR 2508020028 BEARS 08/02/2025 Saturday 08:36:29 2095 LUKINS WAY 2508020112 BEARS 08/02/2025 Saturday 21:38:31 765 EMERALD BAY RD 2508030009 BEARS 08/03/2025 Sunday 01:57:30 3535 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2508030083 BEARS 08/03/2025 Sunday 21:49:41 612 DANUBE DR 2508040057 BEARS 08/04/2025 Monday 17:46:17 3853 FIGUEROA LN 2508050076 BEARS 08/05/2025 Tuesday 19:56:41 2189 MONTEREY DR 2508050079 BEARS 08/05/2025 Tuesday 20:15:16 2078 TRAVERSE CT 2508060004 BEARS 08/06/2025 Wednesday 00:16:21 3845 PIONEER TRL 2508060062 BEARS 08/06/2025 Wednesday 13:47:31 2264 ARIZONA AVE 2508070016 BEARS 08/07/2025 Thursday 08:31:20 2264 ARIZONA AVE 2508070031 BEARS 08/07/2025 Thursday 12:11:20 2191 ROYAL AVE 2508070085 BEARS 08/07/2025 Thursday 21:58:43 1091 ASPENWALD RD 2508090010 BEARS 08/09/2025 Saturday 02:39:04 1 BELLAMY CT 2508090047 BEARS 08/09/2025 Saturday 13:55:42 1030 TATA LN 2508090111 BEARS 08/09/2025 Saturday 22:34:08 3535 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2508100044 BEARS 08/10/2025 Sunday 14:43:33 1571 VENICE DR 2508110004 BEARS 08/11/2025 Monday 00:59:40 753 TAYLOR WAY 2508110030 BEARS 08/11/2025 Monday 10:51:39 401 WARD WAY 2508120061 BEARS 08/12/2025 Tuesday 19:45:41 788 GLORENE AVE 2508130019 BEARS 08/13/2025 Wednesday 09:40:26 2187 SHASTA CT 2508140009 BEARS 08/14/2025 Thursday 06:04:30 693 ANITA DR 2508150036 BEARS 08/15/2025 Friday 16:21:39 2051 LUKINS WAY 2508150066 BEARS 08/15/2025 Friday 21:59:06 3845 PIONEER TRL JULY 34 BEAR CALLS
851
2508160026 BEARS 08/16/2025 Saturday 11:07:41 3421 SPRUCE AVE 2508160078 BEARS 08/16/2025 Saturday 20:19:30 1886 CASCADE CT 2508160085 BEARS 08/16/2025 Saturday 21:20:35 2681 KNOX AVE 2508160094 BEARS 08/16/2025 Saturday 22:59:46 2695 KNOX AVE 2508170008 BEARS 08/17/2025 Sunday 02:49:20 439 ALA WAI BLVD 2508190014 BEARS 08/19/2025 Tuesday 02:58:15 3730 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2508190053 BEARS 08/19/2025 Tuesday 18:08:26 2286 COLORADO AVE 2508210022 BEARS 08/21/2025 Thursday 11:10:35 2200 BUTLER AVE 2508210072 BEARS 08/21/2025 Thursday 20:48:07 4127 PINE BLVD 2508220012 BEARS 08/22/2025 Friday 08:13:29 721 PANTHER LN 2508220016 BEARS 08/22/2025 Friday 09:24:56 2190 SHASTA CT 2508220051 BEARS 08/22/2025 Friday 18:35:48 930 BAL BIJOU RD 2508220079 BEARS 08/22/2025 Friday 23:06:07 425 CAPRI DR 2508230018 BEARS 08/23/2025 Saturday 07:00:41 2277 ARIZONA AVE 2508230034 BEARS 08/23/2025 Saturday 12:00:39 1352 JOHNSON BLVD 2508230054 BEARS 08/23/2025 Saturday 14:50:52 453 LIDO DR 2508230081 BEARS 08/23/2025 Saturday 18:50:34 712 EL DORADO AVE 2508230108 BEARS 08/23/2025 Saturday 23:44:30 3668 SPRUCE AVE 2508240065 BEARS 08/24/2025 Sunday 16:21:08 SKI RUN BLVD/WILLOW AVE 2508240086 BEARS 08/24/2025 Sunday 21:08:05 3536 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2508240087 BEARS 08/24/2025 Sunday 21:15:05 584 ALPINE DR 2508240093 BEARS 08/24/2025 Sunday 22:38:21 3853 PIONEER TRL 2508260007 BEARS 08/26/2025 Tuesday 01:53:26 1150 RUFUS ALLEN BLVD 2508260021 BEARS 08/26/2025 Tuesday 09:31:43 2232 MORRO DR 2508270018 BEARS 08/27/2025 Wednesday 09:37:18 838 CLEMENT ST 2508270057 BEARS 08/27/2025 Wednesday 19:46:05 3535 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2508280062 BEARS 08/28/2025 Thursday 17:41:17 3371 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2508280102 BEARS 08/28/2025 Thursday 22:27:37 3600 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2508290022 BEARS 08/29/2025 Friday 07:57:34 1038 GLENWOOD WAY 2508290067 BEARS 08/29/2025 Friday 16:31:22 861 SECRET HARBOR DR 2508290091 BEARS 08/29/2025 Friday 20:34:29 3987 MANZANITA AVE 2508300003 BEARS 08/30/2025 Saturday 00:57:27 3072 SACRAMENTO AVE 2508300017 BEARS 08/30/2025 Saturday 08:04:08 556 GARDNER ST 2508300064 BEARS 08/30/2025 Saturday 14:53:17 1727 VENICE DR 2508300129 BEARS 08/30/2025 Saturday 22:17:15 1150 RUFUS ALLEN BLVD 2508310008 BEARS 08/31/2025 Sunday 01:53:24 1150 RUFUS ALLEN BLVD 2508310015 BEARS 08/31/2025 Sunday 03:00:27 1150 RUFUS ALLEN BLVD AUGUST 65 BEAR CALLS
852
2509010001 BEARS 09/01/2025 Monday 00:08:22 586 GLORENE AVE 2509010014 BEARS 09/01/2025 Monday 03:54:01 1150 RUFUS ALLEN BLVD 2509010021 BEARS 09/01/2025 Monday 09:43:14 2026 15TH ST 2509010070 BEARS 09/01/2025 Monday 22:39:59 4143 CEDAR AVE 2509020006 BEARS 09/02/2025 Tuesday 03:47:45 3535 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2509040083 BEARS 09/04/2025 Thursday 23:46:13 2013 12TH ST 2509050076 BEARS 09/05/2025 Friday 18:52:18 806 TAHOE KEYS BLVD 2509050091 BEARS 09/05/2025 Friday 21:27:03 3535 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2509060004 BEARS 09/06/2025 Saturday 01:15:37 1032 BLUE LAKE AVE 2509060065 BEARS 09/06/2025 Saturday 21:12:20 1032 BLUE LAKE AVE 2509070022 BEARS 09/07/2025 Sunday 12:31:20 2323 SKY MEADOWS CT 2509080030 BEARS 09/08/2025 Monday 10:29:45 750 ROGER AVE 2509080065 BEARS 09/08/2025 Monday 17:13:55 TAHOE KEYS BLVD/CALIFORNIA AVE 2509090066 BEARS 09/09/2025 Tuesday 18:36:13 1177 SKI RUN BLVD 2509100062 BEARS 09/10/2025 Wednesday 21:27:38 3535 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2509110031 BEARS 09/11/2025 Thursday 11:25:17 918 TAHOE ISLAND DR 2509110062 BEARS 09/11/2025 Thursday 17:04:22 2062 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2509120086 BEARS 09/12/2025 Friday 20:14:26 3640 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2509140009 BEARS 09/14/2025 Sunday 02:25:45 2140 WHITE SANDS DR 2509140043 BEARS 09/14/2025 Sunday 17:58:46 3535 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2509140067 BEARS 09/14/2025 Sunday 22:06:16 3640 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2509150011 BEARS 09/15/2025 Monday 07:58:50 981 SILVER DOLLAR AVE 2509150025 BEARS 09/15/2025 Monday 10:54:56 1901 LISA MALOFF WAY 2509160091 BEARS 09/16/2025 Tuesday 20:55:19 999 LAKEVIEW AVE 2509170007 BEARS 09/17/2025 Wednesday 02:32:58 3344 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2509170053 BEARS 09/17/2025 Wednesday 17:36:44 1621 VENICE DR 2509170062 BEARS 09/17/2025 Wednesday 19:04:23 1030 TATA LN 2509170069 BEARS 09/17/2025 Wednesday 20:20:50 4074 PINE BLVD 2509190087 BEARS 09/19/2025 Friday 23:11:33 3640 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2509230006 BEARS 09/23/2025 Tuesday 01:35:17 3072 SACRAMENTO AVE 2509230069 BEARS 09/23/2025 Tuesday 18:52:43 785 TUOLUMNE DR 2509240017 BEARS 09/24/2025 Wednesday 08:16:12 860 SECRET HARBOR DR 2509250047 BEARS 09/25/2025 Thursday 14:27:26 914 COMSTOCK WAY 2509270013 BEARS 09/27/2025 Saturday 05:22:00 917 RAINBOW DR 2509300001 BEARS 09/30/2025 Tuesday 01:52:13 2484 BERTHA AVE 2509300064 BEARS 09/30/2025 Tuesday 20:03:57 3411 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2509300070 BEARS 09/30/2025 Tuesday 21:44:19 631 ANITA DR 853
2510010051 BEARS 10/01/2025 Wednesday 16:28:23 1231 TATA LN 2510020018 BEARS 10/02/2025 Thursday 09:20:46 952 CAVE ROCK AVE 2510030011 BEARS 10/03/2025 Friday 08:51:52 2224 TAHOE VISTA DR 2510030056 BEARS 10/03/2025 Friday 20:02:17 PIONEER TRL/LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2510050026 BEARS 10/05/2025 Sunday 10:57:15 814 TAHOE ISLAND DR 2510050029 BEARS 10/05/2025 Sunday 11:42:57 1156 EMERALD BAY RD 2510050034 BEARS 10/05/2025 Sunday 13:12:55 1020 EMERALD BAY RD 2510050041 BEARS 10/05/2025 Sunday 14:31:53 947 TANGLEWOOD DR 2510050076 BEARS 10/05/2025 Sunday 22:59:27 2681 KNOX AVE 2510060054 BEARS 10/06/2025 Monday 17:25:39 742 GARDNER ST 2510060058 BEARS 10/06/2025 Monday 19:20:54 1080 JULIE LN 2510060061 BEARS 10/06/2025 Monday 20:31:50 1621 VENICE DR 2510070005 BEARS 10/07/2025 Tuesday 00:59:03 742 GARDNER ST 2510070024 BEARS 10/07/2025 Tuesday 08:36:58 1981 ALOHA DR 2510070048 BEARS 10/07/2025 Tuesday 13:50:12 742 GARDNER ST 2510070067 BEARS 10/07/2025 Tuesday 19:26:07 4118 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2510080003 BEARS 10/08/2025 Wednesday 02:53:46 2487 OSBORNE AVE 2510080004 BEARS 10/08/2025 Wednesday 03:06:37 2484 BERTHA AVE 2510080005 BEARS 10/08/2025 Wednesday 05:39:17 516 EMERALD BAY RD 2510090003 BEARS 10/09/2025 Thursday 01:27:22 3818 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2510090072 BEARS 10/09/2025 Thursday 18:01:59 2012 10TH ST 2510100018 BEARS 10/10/2025 Friday 08:43:10 1921 CATHEDRAL CT 2510100074 BEARS 10/10/2025 Friday 20:25:56 2072 TRAVERSE CT 2510110024 BEARS 10/11/2025 Saturday 11:36:33 2214 BARTON AVE 2510110084 BEARS 10/11/2025 Saturday 23:24:46 3480 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2510120004 BEARS 10/12/2025 Sunday 00:52:38 4100 PINE BLVD 2510120053 BEARS 10/12/2025 Sunday 17:00:52 868 TAHOE ISLAND DR 2510130010 BEARS 10/13/2025 Monday 07:45:22 764 TUOLUMNE DR 2510130017 BEARS 10/13/2025 Monday 10:09:54 379 CRYSTAL CT 2510130047 BEARS 10/13/2025 Monday 17:44:00 474 CAPRI DR 2510140009 BEARS 10/14/2025 Tuesday 06:13:18 LAKE TAHOE BLVD/SIERRA BLVD 2510140010 BEARS 10/14/2025 Tuesday 06:50:38 2155 CATALINA DR 2510140028 BEARS 10/14/2025 Tuesday 10:50:30 2236 CATALINA DR 2510160005 BEARS 10/16/2025 Thursday 04:42:34 3344 SANDY WAY 2510160059 BEARS 10/16/2025 Thursday 20:01:32 2372 TAHOE VISTA DR 2510180045 BEARS 10/18/2025 Saturday 15:23:28 720 PATRICIA LN SEPTEMBER 36 BEAR CALLS
854
2510190026 BEARS 10/19/2025 Sunday 13:06:15 2418 PONDEROSA ST 2510210019 BEARS 10/21/2025 Tuesday 12:13:18 720 PATRICIA LN 2510220008 BEARS 10/22/2025 Wednesday 07:27:07 3721 PIONEER TRL 2510220041 BEARS 10/22/2025 Wednesday 14:36:09 3324 TREEHAVEN DR 2510220052 BEARS 10/22/2025 Wednesday 16:21:16 WILDWOOD AVE/LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2510220072 BEARS 10/22/2025 Wednesday 23:49:52 4133 CEDAR AVE 2510230006 BEARS 10/23/2025 Thursday 04:04:01 2684 BERTHA AVE 2510240099 BEARS 10/24/2025 Friday 19:16:38 4130 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2510250079 BEARS 10/25/2025 Saturday 22:36:21 4140 CEDAR AVE 2510260032 BEARS 10/26/2025 Sunday 13:36:19 2030 E ST
2510260062 BEARS 10/26/2025 Sunday 20:24:15 1234 MELBA DR 2510280048 BEARS 10/28/2025 Tuesday 17:29:17 4104 LAKESHORE BLVD 2510290014 BEARS 10/29/2025 Wednesday 05:22:13 1080 JULIE LN 2511010034 BEARS 11/01/2025 Saturday 11:32:03 1950 H ST 2511010098 BEARS 11/01/2025 Saturday 23:16:15 528 TAHOE KEYS BLVD 2511020007 BEARS 11/02/2025 Sunday 01:07:56 1028 LODI AVE 2511020006 BEARS 11/02/2025 Sunday 01:53:15 3535 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2511020063 BEARS 11/02/2025 Sunday 21:19:53 3640 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2511030054 BEARS 11/03/2025 Monday 18:01:57 942 EMERALD BAY RD 2511030073 BEARS 11/03/2025 Monday 21:42:19 607 LUCERNE WAY 2511030074 BEARS 11/03/2025 Monday 23:03:38 1200 MELBA DR 2511040042 BEARS 11/04/2025 Tuesday 15:08:57 950 EMERALD BAY RD 2511040051 BEARS 11/04/2025 Tuesday 17:57:23 960 GLORENE AVE 2511040062 BEARS 11/04/2025 Tuesday 22:36:24 4114 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2511040065 BEARS 11/04/2025 Tuesday 23:36:23 2081 TRAVERSE CT 2511070059 BEARS 11/07/2025 Friday 18:49:23 4000 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2511070072 BEARS 11/07/2025 Friday 21:44:28 4143 CEDAR AVE 2511070084 BEARS 11/07/2025 Friday 23:01:22 1203 TATA LN 2511080027 BEARS 11/08/2025 Saturday 14:47:11 3530 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2511080057 BEARS 11/08/2025 Saturday 20:45:18 HEAVENLY VILLAGE WAY/BELLAMY CT 2511110004 BEARS 11/11/2025 Tuesday 01:44:20 1143 DEDI AVE 2511110032 BEARS 11/11/2025 Tuesday 13:47:24 B ST/DEDI AVE 2511110046 BEARS 11/11/2025 Tuesday 19:56:02 4104 LAKESHORE BLVD 2511120018 BEARS 11/12/2025 Wednesday 09:25:45 VIKING WAY/LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2511120057 BEARS 11/12/2025 Wednesday 16:29:27 1821 13TH ST 2511150040 BEARS 11/15/2025 Saturday 12:09:28 808 TAHOE ISLAND DR OCTOBER 48 BEAR CALLS
855
2511150088 BEARS 11/15/2025 Saturday 22:41:18 3715 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2511160016 BEARS 11/16/2025 Sunday 07:57:50 1884 DELTA ST 2511160040 BEARS 11/16/2025 Sunday 13:35:43 1273 BONANZA AVE 2511160054 BEARS 11/16/2025 Sunday 16:52:21 2128 HELEN AVE 2511170060 BEARS 11/17/2025 Monday 18:42:16 3715 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2511170064 BEARS 11/17/2025 Monday 19:51:46 1886 VENICE DR 2511170069 BEARS 11/17/2025 Monday 20:28:00 1000 EMERALD BAY RD 2511180038 BEARS 11/18/2025 Tuesday 14:53:38 1234 MELBA DR 2511180040 BEARS 11/18/2025 Tuesday 15:44:38 2093 WEST WAY 2511180042 BEARS 11/18/2025 Tuesday 15:48:29 1078 FAIRWAY AVE 2511190003 BEARS 11/19/2025 Wednesday 00:49:20 990 EMERALD BAY RD 2511190060 BEARS 11/19/2025 Wednesday 19:20:25 1040 EMERALD BAY RD 2511200004 BEARS 11/20/2025 Thursday 03:26:02 1186 JOHNSON BLVD 2511200006 BEARS 11/20/2025 Thursday 04:46:59 803 HAZEL DR 2511200025 BEARS 11/20/2025 Thursday 13:59:11 814 TAHOE ISLAND DR 2511200037 BEARS 11/20/2025 Thursday 16:25:12 814 TAHOE ISLAND DR 2511200054 BEARS 11/20/2025 Thursday 19:37:15 4097 PINE BLVD 2511210042 BEARS 11/21/2025 Friday 15:45:50 3893 PIONEER TRL 2511210079 BEARS 11/21/2025 Friday 23:39:48 3535 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2511220034 BEARS 11/22/2025 Saturday 13:57:17 497 TAHOE KEYS BLVD 2511230017 BEARS 11/23/2025 Sunday 11:16:18 3871 FIGUEROA LN 2511240018 BEARS 11/24/2025 Monday 07:18:00 2214 JEAN AVE 2511260009 BEARS 11/26/2025 Wednesday 04:11:22 1888 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2511260036 BEARS 11/26/2025 Wednesday 11:21:28 484 CHRISTIE DR 2511270026 BEARS 11/27/2025 Thursday 18:07:16 761 LAKEVIEW AVE 2511270035 BEARS 11/27/2025 Thursday 21:06:28 3630 PARADISE AVE 2511270041 BEARS 11/27/2025 Thursday 22:52:59 4130 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2511280006 BEARS 11/28/2025 Friday 03:41:48 1670 SHOP ST 2511280045 BEARS 11/28/2025 Friday 16:20:32 757 MODESTO AVE 2511280046 BEARS 11/28/2025 Friday 16:26:48 900 SKI RUN BLVD 2511290072 BEARS 11/29/2025 Saturday 20:28:10 3705 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2511300013 BEARS 11/30/2025 Sunday 02:46:52 1040 MARTIN AVE 2512010051 BEARS 12/01/2025 Monday 17:35:02 1 BELLAMY CT 2512030047 BEARS 12/03/2025 Wednesday 15:45:08 1931 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2512110007 BEARS 12/11/2025 Thursday 06:29:03 528 TAHOE KEYS BLVD 2512110050 BEARS 12/11/2025 Thursday 16:25:20 2260 ARIZONA AVE NOVEMBER 54 BEAR CALLS
856
2512110051 BEARS 12/11/2025 Thursday 16:34:47 783 TAHOE ISLAND DR 2512140051 BEARS 12/14/2025 Sunday 19:18:23 804 CLEMENT ST 2512150001 BEARS 12/15/2025 Monday 00:24:24 804 CLEMENT ST 2512190001 BEARS 12/19/2025 Friday 00:05:27 1888 LAKE TAHOE BLVD 2512200024 BEARS 12/20/2025 Saturday 11:33:18 960 LINDA AVE 2512220028 BEARS 12/22/2025 Monday 11:36:23 2258 TEXAS AVE 2512220046 BEARS 12/22/2025 Monday 13:51:18 770 TAHOE KEYS BLVD 2512220060 BEARS 12/22/2025 Monday 16:15:27 2209 TEXAS AVE 2512220065 BEARS 12/22/2025 Monday 17:22:56 1277 DEDI AVE 2512250044 BEARS 12/25/2025 Thursday 17:56:42 1825 13TH ST 2512270025 BEARS 12/27/2025 Saturday 12:22:59 2187 BIG PINE AVE 2512290051 BEARS 12/29/2025 Monday 17:12:48 1825 13TH ST 2512300062 BEARS 12/30/2025 Tuesday 19:05:11 1080 JULIE LN 332 Incidents
DECEMBER 16 BEAR CALLS
857
858
Call
goes to
PD
Call
goes to
Bear
League
Circs need PD follow up
Public
Safety
Bear
Respond: Haze, Evict, Drive
Officer(s) Dispatched
CAD Data Taken
Notify PD for deconfliction
NOT
Public
Safety
Bear
Bear
Incident
NOT
Public
Safety
Bear
Circumstance
is not as
reported
WIR-noted
CSO assesses
for violation
Officer
Assessment of
circs and scene
Call
goes to
CDFW
LED-
response
Biologist-
response
Private Data retention
Officer(s)
neutralize public
safety threat
No Action—bear
back to nature
Haze if necessary
Circs of Call Assessed for
follow up
CDFW Number Offered
Bear League Number Offered
No Harm/No
Foul
CSO assesses
for violation
Traffic Collision
w/ Bear Bear On Scene--
Injured
Call LTWC
Call CDFW
Euthanize
if
necessary
Bear Left Scene
Monitor
Assess For Cubs
PD Monthly
Reporting to
CDFW
Bear League
LTWC
2026 SLTPD
Bear Incident
Routing
859
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
1 of 19
Number: 2022-01
Date Issued: February 16, 2022
Expires: Until Superseded
To: Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff
Subject: Black Bear Policy in California: Public Safety, Depredation, Conflict, and Animal Welfare
Executive Summary
The purpose of this policy is to describe the Department’s response, methods, and decision-making processes in managing human/bear conflicts in California. The last time the Department holistically reviewed and updated its various bear policies was in 2000.

Good wildlife management requires periodic review and update of policies to ensure adaptive improvements are made based on sound science. A review at this time is also prudent because human/wildlife interactions are increasing, requiring greater staff time in the areas of management and response in the field when interactions occur. As interactions increase, general public engagement with the Department on human/bear conflicts does too.

The major point of this policy update is to clarify categories of human/bear conflicts the Department and citizens experience and provide guidance to staff and the public how such categories will be handled. While the following policy describes a comprehensive range of different situations, the core types of human/bear conflicts are: (1) public safety; (2) property damage; and, (3) continued human/bear interactions where the individual bear(s) have become habituated to human food sources, which increases risk of conflict. The Department’s updated policy seeks to improve management in each of these core situational categories, provide clarity to staff and the public, and present a comprehensive humane set of strategies and actions.

This policy applies statewide although defined sections are specific to the Lake Tahoe Basin.
860
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
2 of 19
The organization of the policy is presented here to allow readers to go directly to a specific section.

Overview and Background
Definitions

1.0 Incident Response

2.0 Public Safety Bear Response

3.0 Depredation Bear Response

4.0 Conflict Bear Response

4.1 No Harm/No Foul Bear Response

4.2 Habituated Bear Response

4.3 Incident Specific Approach

4.3.1 Documentation for Conflict Bear Placement
and Relocation

4.3.2 Determination for Conflict Bear Relocation or
Placement

4.4 Animal Welfare Bear Response

4.4.1 Sick or Injured Bear Response

4.4.2 Orphaned Bear Response

4.4.2.1 Rehabilitation Selection
Criteria

4.4.2.2 Procedures for Returning
Orphaned Bear to Wild

5.0 Responsibilities of the Wildlife Health Lab and Wildlife Forensics Lab

6.0 Training

7.0 Outreach and Education Resources
Appendix A: Public Safety Wildlife Response Guidelines
Appendix B: Lake Tahoe Basin “Trap/Tag/Haze” Pilot Management Project 861
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
3 of 19
Overview and Background
Black bears are an important component of California’s ecosystem and a valuable resource for the people of California. They are also one of the species most frequently involved in human/wildlife conflict throughout the state. In many areas, their natural behavior, foraging habits, distribution, and numbers have been altered by human encroachment and access to anthropogenic food sources, which may lead to altered behaviors resulting in decreased fear of people and increasing incidents of human/bear conflict.

This dynamic is particularly pronounced in the wildland-urban interface where human decisions about food and garbage can put both people and bears at risk. The Department recognizes this situation and seeks to avoid and minimize these conflicts by implementing measures to shift the behavior of bears back to their natural use of habitats and fear of humans, and to address concerns of public safety, public responsibility, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation. The Department is committed to addressing human behaviors that reduce the likelihood of keeping bears wild. Outreach on these behaviors can be found on the Department’s Keep Me Wild webpage. A summary of the Department’s outreach and education efforts is provided at the end of the policy in section 7.0.

This policy supersedes the following documents: Public Safety Wildlife Guidelines 2072 (for bears), Statewide Black Bear Policy 2071, Black Bear and Human Interactions Policy, Criteria for Taking Management Bears, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife North Central Region Lake Tahoe Basin Bear Management Guidance. It provides information and guidance to the public and Department staff responding to human/bear conflicts or welfare bear incidents.

Upon the effective date above, the policy will be implemented by Department staff for the purposes of providing a consistent approach to bear management in California. The policy will be reviewed and evaluated on an ongoing basis to provide the most up to date guidelines for bear management in California. Long-term success must involve collaboration with local entities and citizens with a common commitment to preventive approaches to bear conflict, such as the use of bear-proof garbage containers. As these relationships evolve, this policy will be updated. Upon revision and executive approval, the effective date will be updated to reflect a new date consistent with the revisions.

Definitions
Animal Welfare: There is no universally accepted definition of animal welfare. For the purpose of this policy animal welfare is the physical, psychological, social, and environmental well-being of an animal. It is the Department’s responsibility to consider animal welfare, within the context of population, ecosystem, and public health and safety, whenever managing bears. These considerations can be complex, subjective, and at times contradictory especially when applied to free-ranging, native wildlife. In implementing this policy the Department will follow Department Bulletin Number 2018-02 Department of Fish and Wildlife Animal Welfare Policy.
862
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
4 of 19
Conflict Bear: A bear that requires action by the Department or the public due to its behavior or its situation. Included in this category are No Harm/No Foul bears, habituated bears, and animal welfare bears. Implicit in this definition is that a range of types of Conflict Bears creates a range of possible management actions.

Depredation Bear: A bear that is threatening to, damaging, or destroying property for which a revocable depredation permit has been requested and can be issued in accordance with the Fish and Game Code.

Habituated Bear: A bear that shows little to no overt reaction to people as a result of being repeatedly exposed to anthropogenic stimuli without substantial consequence.

Hazing: A technique where deterrents are administered to a bear to immediately modify the bear’s undesirable behavior. Techniques may include, but are not limited to, use of pyrotechnics, noise makers, non-lethal projectiles, paint ball, scent deterrent, and dogs.

Incident: A bear has, or is likely to, damage property, pose or become a public safety threat, or be in danger of not being able to return safely to appropriate habitat given its location or health status.

No Harm/No Foul Bear: A bear that has strayed into an area where an incident could occur, has not engaged in nuisance activity or caused property damage, and may require assistance to return to nearby suitable habitat.

Orphaned Bear Cub: A cub of the year that is unable to survive in the wild without intervention, and is not associated with a sow.

Orphaned Yearling Bear: A bear in its second calendar year of life, after January 1 but before July, that is unable to survive in the wild without intervention, and is not associated with a sow.

Public Safety Bear: A bear demonstrating aggressive action that has resulted in physical contact with a human; or a bear exhibiting an immediate threat to public health and safety, given the totality of the circumstances. Immediate threat refers to a bear that exhibits one or more aggressive behaviors directed toward a person that is not reasonably believed to be due to the presence of responders. Public safety includes situations where a bear remains a threat despite efforts to allow or encourage it through active means to leave the area.

Rehabilitation: Captive care or treatment of a welfare bear with the goal of returning the animal to the wild after it has recovered and is able to live independently.

Relocation: A situation in which a bear is trapped/captured and moved to suitable habitat.

Relocation bears must be tagged or otherwise identified in a persistent and distinctive manner and collared if feasible.

Response Guidance Team (RGT): Group consisting of the Regional Manager (RM), Chief of Wildlife Branch (CWLB), Chief of Law Enforcement Division (CLED), Deputy Chief of 863
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
5 of 19
Law Enforcement Division (DCLED), Deputy Director of the Wildlife and Fisheries Division (DDWFD), the Wildlife Health Lab (WHL) Environmental Program Manager (EPM), Assistant Chief (AC) of Law Enforcement where the incident is occurring, the Deputy Director of the Office of Communications, Education, and Outreach (OCEO) or their named designees who are available to evaluate a situation and provide personnel to assist as needed in conflict situations.

Take: means hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.

Welfare Bear: An orphaned, sick, or injured bear that may require veterinary care.

1.0 Incident Response
Three types of bear incidents require Department response: Public Safety Bear, Depredation Bear, and Conflict Bear. For non-public safety incidents, the regional wildlife program is the lead and is expected to respond within 48 hours. For the Department, LED is the only entity that can designate a Public Safety Bear. LED will respond to Public Safety Bears appropriately. If necessary, additional assistance can be requested through the appropriate chain of command. The type and level of response will be consistent with the reported incident (i.e., public safety, depredation, conflict).

If an Incident Command System (ICS) is established for a bear incident, the incident commander’s directives will be followed by all on-site employees. For most incidents, regional wildlife program staff or LED personnel will respond to the incident and provide detailed information about the incident to their chain of command. All incidents are to be documented through the Department’s online Wildlife Incident Reporting (WIR) system.

Incidents can be handled by regional wildlife program staff or LED personnel, unless either the AC or EPM deems the circumstances require executive input. In Conflict Bear incidents where management options have been exhausted, the decision to remove the bear from the population (i.e., lethally taken, relocated, or captured for long-term captivity), may only be made by the RM or RGT. Specific decision authority is described below.

Experience shows that internal and external communication is important to enhancing the public’s understanding of bear and human conflicts. A communication plan should be developed within the Incident Response depending on circumstances surrounding the incident. RGT communication will be conducted by any means available including phone, email, and other information technology-based communication platforms. OCEO is part of the RGT and will designate a single point-of-contact for media calls. OCEO will be responsible for information dissemination to the media and public as necessary.

As soon as possible but not later than 48 hours after receiving a report of a bear incident from a Reporting Party (RP), the initial staff receiving the report shall enter the required information into the WIR system and assess such information to determine if it requires further action. The assessment will include consideration of whether the animal could become a depredation or potential human/bear conflict. Volunteers or seasonal staff may 864
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
6 of 19
be assigned to respond to reports of sightings where the RP does not indicate the existence of any potential or actual threat to public health and safety. Appropriate responses may be either by phone or email directly to the RP and shall emphasize nonlethal measures to prevent a human/bear conflict (e.g. Keep Me Wild).

2.0 Public Safety Bear Response
The Department’s foremost consideration is the protection of human life. Responding to public safety wildlife incidents are a priority for the Department, and a Public Safety Bear shall be humanely euthanized as quickly as possible by a Department official or a peace officer.

A Public Safety Bear as defined above and determined by LED or a law enforcement officer from a law enforcement agency, may be lethally taken at any time. Law enforcement officers from a law enforcement agency outside the Department are authorized to deem a bear a public safety situation. For the Department, only LED may make such a determination. If reasonable, before the bear is taken, the regional or LED chain of command will be notified and will provide detailed information to region, LED, WHL, and executive. The bear carcass will be handled to preserve evidence and submitted through the WHL to a California Animal and Food Safety (CAHFS) Laboratory for a full public safety postmortem workup following WHL and CAHFS protocols.

For incidents where the bear is determined to be an imminent threat to the public, but cannot be immediately located for euthanasia, an ICS will be established. The ICS will remain active until the Incident Commander determines an immediate threat to the public no longer exists.

In cases where extenuating circumstances indicate another attack is unlikely or the initial attack was provoked, the AC will collaborate with the RM. They may recommend to the RGT that the bear is no longer a public safety threat and allow management options other than euthanasia. Any decision to cease capture efforts will be made by the AC after consultation through the LED chain of command and with the RGT.

Refer to Appendix A of the policy for a step-wise process for public safety wildlife responses when there is no attack on a human and also for response when there is an attack on a human.

3.0 Depredation Bear Response
Depredation within this policy means damage caused to personal property by bears. Fish and Game Code section 4181 and regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 401) provide for issuance of a revocable depredation permit to landowners or tenants who experience property damage from bears as determined by Department staff. The legal authority to kill animals damaging or destroying land or property was enacted by the Legislature in the 1950s. A lot has changed in California since then.
865
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
7 of 19
Historically, these laws, wildlife management, poaching of wildlife, and other factors contributed toward a relationship with wildlife where many species were shot, trapped, and eliminated as nuisance or “vermin” during the 1800s and into the 1900s. As time changes, values change, and wildlife management evolves. Existing law allows any owner or tenant of land or property that is being damaged or destroyed or is in danger of being damaged or destroyed by specific animals, including bears, to request from the Department a permit to kill the animal involved. This ability has existed for Californians since at least 1957. The Department engages with citizens seeking this permission contemporaneous to the 21st century.

Today, this permit shall be issued by the Department after an application by an owner or tenant of land or property but only upon satisfactory evidence of the damage or destruction.

Importantly, the permit shall contain information about why the permit was necessary, what efforts were made to solve the problem without killing the bear, the corrective actions that should be implemented to prevent a reoccurrence, and proper disposal of the carcass. The Department emphasizes that this process requires information from the applicant whether any efforts, and if so, what efforts, were made to solve the problem without the need for lethal action. If no such efforts have been made, the Department will work with the applicant to propose non-lethal efforts first, as an alternative to the applicant pursuing their option under Fish and Game Code section 4181 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 401.

Furthermore, the Department may, at its discretion, add terms and conditions to the permit necessary to protect wildlife and ensure public safety, including but not limited to conditions that require the permittee to implement corrective actions (e.g., hazing; eliminating unnatural food or attractants by removing trash and bear-proofing food storage areas; enclosing animal pens; installing fencing or electric fencing, motion lights and sprinklers, noise machines, guard animals; or securing and blocking access to crawl spaces or other potential denning sites), ensure only a single animal is taken, or take other actions. If information is available to help identify the bear that caused the damage, this should be used to ensure the correct bear was trapped/captured before it is removed or lethally taken.

The Department responder shall document the incident through the Department’s WIR system.

A person knowingly feeding a bear could be subject to criminal penalties pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 251.3. If a department responder determines persons are feeding a bear, they should notify LED immediately.

Section 4181.1(a) states any owner of livestock or the livestock owner’s employee may immediately take a bear encountered in the act of, inflicting injury to, molesting or killing livestock if the taking is reported to the Department no later than the next working day and the carcass is made available to the Department. If this occurs, LED should be notified for verification and reporting.

Decision Authority: The decision to issue a depredation permit shall be made by an EPM or RM consistent with this updated policy. It is expected that the EPM and RM are in frequent communication on the type and status of depredation requests in the Region. The 866
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
8 of 19
RM will regularly brief executive staff on type and status of decisions. If it is determined the target Depredation Bear is a sow with dependent young, then the EPM will coordinate with the RM, and the RGT should be consulted prior to issuance of a depredation permit.

4.0 Conflict Bear Response
A variety of Conflict Bear situations may arise where no imminent threat to the public exists and no depredation permit has been issued. These cases can range from a bear in a populated area that has caused No Harm/No Foul to a bear that is displaying habituation to human supplied food sources and has lost its instinctual fear of people. It is also the case that a Conflict Bear situation where no depredation permit has been issued may turn into an imminent threat to public safety. Careful consideration of the individual bear, the context and conditions, and available resources are required to determine the best course of action for any given situation to ensure the best chances of success in terms of safety and animal welfare.

This section of the policy recognizes the increase in human/bear conflicts in California, particularly in the Lake Tahoe Basin. As the Department implements a response, it is actively engaged with individuals, neighborhoods, homeowners’ associations, and others with an appreciation for the challenges and the potential for conflict situations to turn into management situations necessitating the Department to respond to truly habituated bears.

This section of the policy defines a step-wise approach ranging from “No Harm/No Foul” conflicts to those that may end with a management action to humanely euthanize an animal.

Early communication between regional wildlife program staff, WHL, and LED is critical.

Information about the Conflict Bear shall be conveyed through the appropriate chain of command. Communication with the RGT should be done by any means available including phone, email, and other information technology based communication platforms.

4.1 No Harm/No Foul Bear Response
While not the only example, the classic example of a No Harm/No Foul bear conflict is a bear in a tree in a neighborhood. In situations where suitable habitat is readily accessible, a No Harm/No Foul Bear should be encouraged to return to that habitat by removing attractants, antagonists, or distractions and, if necessary, by hazing. The Department may relocate the bear to suitable habitat if the foregoing methods are unsuccessful or determined unsafe for the bear, staff and/or the public. Trapping/capturing or chemical immobilization may be necessary in order to move a bear. Ear tags shall be placed and biological samples (i.e., DNA) collected from all bears immobilized by the Department for purposes of future identification. Special “do not consume” or “call before consuming” eartags are to be used if chemical immobilization occurs within two weeks of or during the general and archery bear season. An Immobilization Data Sheet shall be completed (with ear tag number) and forwarded to the WHL where all pertinent information, including ear tag color, location and number, will be captured in a database for future reference in the 867
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
9 of 19
event an ear-tagged bear is recaptured. Prior to trapping/capturing and relocation, documentation (as defined below in 4.3.1) must be approved by the RM or designee.

Decision Authority: The decision to trap/capture and relocate a No Harm/No Foul bear shall be made by the RM or designee.

4.2 Habituated Bear Response
The instinct for a bear to return to a known food source overrides what should be a natural tendency to avoid people. The more bears become accustomed to human food sources, the more likely they are to interact with people, which ultimately exposes them to situations where their behavior is less desirable, increasing risk for conflict. The Department’s related “Keep Me Wild” program is a public campaign to help California’s wild animals from becoming habituated and falling victim to unnecessary conflict and even death resulting from access to human food and garbage. The Keep Me Wild Campaign is publicly advertised and provides tips for keeping animals like bears away from homes and what to do if humans encounter a bear. The Department will seek opportunities to increase human awareness of the serious dangers of habituation to bears.

4.3 Incident Specific Approach
Each incident will be evaluated and a response will be determined on a case-by-case basis according to specific facts and circumstances. The staff approach to a possibly habituated bear should employ methods from the tool box of resources available based on the evidence and science. The tool box of resources for managing bears is evolving and may include approaches such as those described in Appendix B: Lake Tahoe Basin “Trap/Tag/Haze” Pilot Management Project. Additional management approaches require resources that are currently not available to the Department for statewide bear management. Efforts to understand bear management approaches are costly and time consuming requiring additional staffing, equipment, and cooperation among partner groups.

The most desirable outcome for a habituated bear is avoidance of humans and a return to its natural behavior and habitat. Department staff should recommend corrective actions by property or livestock owners such as managing attractants (removal of all non-natural food items), managing the site (fencing, educating people about bear avoidance or temporarily removing public access), or managing the bear (hazing methods). This emphasis on nonlethal corrective actions first is a prudent management structure designed to cure the habituation, remedy the conflict, and create the best outcome for the bear itself. Relocation, placement, or euthanasia of Conflict Bears will be employed only when all feasible corrective measures are exhausted and will follow steps described in 4.3.1-4.3.2.

The Department recognizes that, unfortunately, some bears may be so habituated that the conflict will persist. The reality is some bears may learn a behavior. They may show little to no reaction to people. They may continue to break into dwellings or frequent areas like campgrounds, increasing the likelihood of conflicts.
868
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
10 of 19
Therefore, regional wildlife program staff will determine a course of action until the issue is resolved, or it appears corrective actions have been exhausted and the situation remains unresolved. Regional wildlife program staff will provide a briefing document containing pertinent information to their supervisor, who will evaluate whether additional management options should be employed to address the situation. Where feasible, best efforts will be made to collect scientific data and genetic samples from any bear regardless of the type of conflict, incident or action. Consideration in the briefing document will be given to the documented timeline of conflict incidents detailing the risk posed to human health and property, the pattern of incidents, whether behavior is becoming increasingly bold or threatening, and the outcome of corrective measures. If the supervisor believes additional management efforts are unlikely to succeed, this information will be provided to the EPMs of the Region and the WHL, who will develop a recommendation to either euthanize the bear, relocate the bear, or place the bear in captivity, based on criteria below. This recommendation will be provided to the RGT.

4.3.1 Documentation for Conflict Bear Relocation or Placement Relocation or placement of a bear in a care facility requires careful consideration. Science is developing regarding the long-term efficacy of relocating animals. Often relocated bears return to the habitat in question over long distances. Placement of a bear means a lifetime of captivity for a once wild animal. Moreover, appropriate facilities for placement may not be available. However, relocation and placement are responsible management actions for the Department to consider as an alternative to lethal actions.

For any Conflict Bear, in order to consider relocation or placement, documentation must contain the following information and be made readily available for decision making.

1. Description and current status of the bear (tag number, if available).

2. Details of timeline and type of conflict.

3. Rationale for placement or relocation.

4. Efforts to implement corrective actions.

5. Hazing efforts implemented and the bear’s response.

6. Information from other state, federal, or local agencies, including law enforcement.

7. Availability of trained staff and necessary equipment including GPS collar if bear will be relocated. Include a list of staff involved.

8. Relocation – suitable habitat and release site identified, time of relocation, and approvals accepted.

9. Communication plan with OCEO to media or interested parties. Notify affected local, state, or federal landowners of the intent to relocate the bear, and notify all other Region/Branches that may be impacted by the relocation. 869
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
11 of 19

10.Placement – The WHL will initiate outreach to determine space availability at accredited and quality facilities, both in and out-of-state, for the particular placement candidate bear. The decision to permanently place an animal should be considered an option only if rehabilitation and release back to the wild is deemed infeasible and the bear is determined to be a good candidate for permanent placement.

11.Relocation Approval - A No Harm/No Foul bear may be relocated to nearby suitable habitat with approval from the RM or designee (Section 4.1). All other relocation efforts require approval of the RM and RGT (Section 4.3.2). Because the act of relocation may be time sensitive, the approval may be communicated and approved via text or email, and saved for retrieval if needed.

4.3.2. Determination for Conflict Bear Relocation or Placement The determination of whether to attempt placement, relocation, or euthanasia will be made by considering animal welfare and the likelihood of successful placement or relocation. The ethics and animal welfare concerns associated with removing a wild animal from its natural habitat and into captivity, whether for short-term evaluation or permanent placement, are important considerations. Adult bears may be poor candidates for placement due to the chronic stress of adjusting to captivity after living only in wild conditions. Cubs are usually better candidates for successful placement. Due to their long lifespans and the large area required for housing, long-term placement options for bears are limited.

WHL determines appropriate placement options by considering accreditation and quality of available facilities. Information is maintained on all zoos and sanctuaries in the state regarding inspection history and prior placement outcomes. WHL also determines the availability of out-of-state facilities by contacting the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the American Sanctuary Association or the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries. If an unaccredited facility outside of the state has availability, WHL consults their last two U.S.

Department of Agriculture inspection reports and their permitting status with the appropriate state wildlife agency to evaluate suitability. Although placement in the state is preferred, decisions regarding placement are made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the temperament and age of the animal, and the availability of a quality facility. If no placement option is available, the Department will consider relocation or euthanasia.

After evaluation and a decision against relocation or placement, the bear should be euthanized in the field to prevent the unnecessary stress of capture and captivity. If longterm placement is available, a bear may be housed temporarily at WHL, with approval from the WHL EPM, to evaluate whether the bear’s temperament is conducive to long-term captivity. If placement is decided against, humane euthanasia will be performed.

Decision Authority: The decision to use corrective measures shall be made by regional wildlife program staff in consultation with the RM or designee. The decision to place or relocate shall be made by the RM or CWLB in consultation with the RGT. A recommendation for potential placement of the habituated bear will be made by WHL and 870
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
12 of 19
approved by the RGT. The decision to euthanize a habituated bear shall be made by the RGT.

4.4 Animal Welfare Bear Response
The Department strives to sustain the welfare of bears by allowing them to express their normal behavior and avoiding situations that subject them to undue pain and fear. These considerations can be complex, subjective, and at times contradictory especially when applied to free-ranging, native wildlife. The Department will consider animal welfare when managing human/bear conflict, minimizing suffering to individual animals while attempting to protect their freedom to exercise natural behaviors. In general, animal welfare bears fall into two categories: sick or injured bears, and orphaned bears.

4.4.1 Sick or Injured Bear Response
In the case of sick or injured bears, responding personnel should assess injuries to the best of their ability. A WHL veterinarian should be consulted if the responder is unsure as to the severity of illness or injuries or otherwise requires guidance or assistance regarding handling or disposition of the bear. Bears with severe trauma that includes severe bone breaks or severe head trauma should be considered for immediate euthanasia in the field due to poor prognosis and to reduce suffering of the animal.

Decision Authority: A plan for response to a sick or injured bear will be recommended to the RM by the WHL. The decision to euthanize a sick or injured bear will be made by the RM or CWLB in consultation with the WHL.

4.4.2 Orphaned Bear Response
On occasion, black bear cubs or yearlings may be found orphaned (both defined above).

Orphaned cubs are eligible for rehabilitation only at permitted wildlife rehabilitation facilities specifically approved by the Department for bear rehabilitation. It is unlawful for the public to pick up and possess orphaned bears (Fish and Game Code sections 2000 and 2002; California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 679(b)). Occasionally, orphaned yearlings, when they might normally still be associated with a sow, require Department response for conflict or welfare situations. Yearling bears offer unique challenges in a rehabilitation setting, they are more likely to injure themselves or damage their enclosures, and are generally more difficult to successfully manage and release back to the wild. As such, orphaned yearlings may be considered for rehabilitation on a case-by-case basis and in consultation with a WHL veterinarian.

The following guidelines should be used to assist personnel in implementing this policy as it relates to orphaned bears and dependent yearlings.

4.4.2.1 Rehabilitation Selection Criteria
Orphaned bears may be candidates for rehabilitation if all the following conditions are met:

1. The orphaned cub or yearling is clearly dependent and unable to survive in the wild. 871
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
13 of 19

2. The orphaned cub or yearling shows little to no evidence of habituation to humans.

Starving cubs or yearlings may appear habituated upon initial presentation, but often resume wild behavior once adequately fed.

3. There is a consensus between Department personnel in the region and the WHL EPM or his/her designee that a given cub or yearling is suitable for rehabilitation. If consensus is not reached, the final decision about whether a cub or yearling meets the criteria will be made by the WHL EPM.

4.4.2.2 Procedures for Returning Orphaned Bear to Wild

1. WHL should be consulted regarding all orphaned bears determined to be potential candidates for rehabilitation and release. The animals should be held in a secure container and kept in a quiet location with little or no human contact. The bear(s) should be given food and water as appropriate. The WHL will determine if the orphaned bear should be transported to WHL or directly to a permitted orphaned bear rehabilitation center.

2. All rehabilitated orphaned bears shall be ear tagged immediately once placed at the rehabilitating facility. Prior to release, relocation approval must be agreed upon by RM and CWLB or designee.

3. Release of rehabilitated orphaned bear(s) will be done in appropriate habitat and may entail a “soft” release where hibernation behavior is triggered and the hibernating bear is placed in natural or artificially constructed den(s) during the appropriate time of winter or early spring, or a “hard” release in late winter or early spring where the cub/yearling either has come out of hibernation or was never hibernating and is released awake with light to moderate hazing in an area where food resources are available.

4. The release of a rehabilitated orphaned bear shall be supervised by Department personnel. WHL or Region will coordinate through OCEO regarding communication with news media.

5.0 Responsibilities of the Wildlife Health Lab and Wildlife Forensics Lab (WFL)
Public Safety animals that do not injure or kill a person will be necropsied by the WHL or an independent diagnostic laboratory approved by WHL. WFL will provide genetic analysis of the bear.

A Public Safety animal that injures or kills a person will be necropsied by an independent diagnostic laboratory in consultation with the WHL and WFL. Public Safety animals killed in an attack on a person must be examined by WFL personnel or a qualified person approved by WFL supervisor using specific procedures established by WFL.

If a human death occurs, coordination of the autopsy between the proper officials and WFL is important so that WFL personnel can take appropriate samples for examination. 872
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
14 of 19
In the event of human injury, it is important for WFL to gather any relevant physical evidence that may corroborate the authenticity of a wildlife attack, prior to the treatment of injuries, if practical. If not practical, directions for sampling may be given over the telephone to the LED or the emergency room doctor.

6.0 Training
Training is a necessary part of a professional and reasoned response to bear conflict incidents. The Department has provided and will continue to provide training opportunities for staff who respond to wildlife conflict incidents.

Wildlife Fundamentals Class - Provides an introduction to capture and restraint of wildlife, disease considerations when working with wildlife, personnel and animal safety, and Department policies regarding wildlife handling, wildlife rehabilitation, and restricted species. The Department will provide this class at least once per year.

Wildlife Restraint and Chemical Immobilization Class - Provides specific training on the uses and applications of chemical immobilization techniques. It also provides instruction on how to approach wildlife incident responses and determine when capture and handling of wildlife is appropriate. The Department or other appropriate entities will continue to provide this class at least once per year (or more) for appropriate staff qualified to engage in chemical restraint.

Academy Training for Law Enforcement - Basic introduction for all wildlife officers on responding to wildlife incidents and wildlife incident reporting (WIR) system will occur during academy training.

Continued Law Enforcement Training - Focused training for wildlife officers related to policy and procedures, public safety wildlife incidents, and media relations will be implemented throughout the law enforcement division’s (LED) daily training bulletin system. This bear policy will be reviewed and acknowledged by all wildlife officers annually.

Ongoing Coordination and Cross-Training - Coordination and cross-training within and between Department programs on responding to wildlife incidents. The RGT will meet not less than twice a year to review efforts and discuss effectiveness of this policy.

Wildlife Incident Report Training - Training specific to use of the online WIR system. This training will be introduced as a component of each class described, but also be offered once a year as a focused stand-alone training course.

Annually, the Department will evaluate the training program and needs with the Wildlife Branch, LED and OCEO. The Department’s Office and Training and Development will assist in such review and implementation of training wherever possible. 873
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
15 of 19

7.0 Outreach and Education Resources
Staff utilizing this policy are expected to be familiar with the Department’s various outreach and education efforts with the public regarding human/bear conflicts. Below is a summary of those efforts and links to further information for each.

Importantly, the Department relies upon interactions with affected landowners and citizens to establish a record related to human/bear conflicts to inform management decisions. Two such information sources are data obtained pursuant to depredation requests and the Department’s WIR portal.

Depredation requests are received by the Department from individuals who experience property damage as a result of bears. The depredation request is documented through the WIR database and allows for issuance of a depredation permit under certain circumstances. Information collected during the depredation permit request process includes time, date, damage caused by the bear, and deterrents that may have been in place to prevent the occurrence. After reviewing the information the Department may issue a depredation permit.

WIR is a database that is accessible to the public through the Department’s website as well as Department staff. The database houses information related to bear incidents throughout California. Information on incidents can be entered by the public or Department staff. The WIR database is used to issue depredation permits when requested and reviewed by the Department.

Currently, the WIR can be accessed on the Department website at https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/wir/incident/create. Effective outreach and education requires the Department to create a more user-friendly WIR portal for the general public on the Department’s website. Within 12 months of the effective date of this policy, the Department will seek feedback from stakeholders, coordinate with its Data and Technology Division, and establish and more user-friendly WIR.

The purpose of improved data management is to maintain a data base of reports and information that can be queried for specific information on identify of bears, photos, locations, behaviors, evidence of avoidance and non-lethal measures used, descriptions and photos of property damage, timelines of events, and hot spots for habituated bear behavior.

The Department acknowledges that in some situations the general public is fearful of providing data related to the possible outcome of euthanizing an animal. The Department will establish a “tip line” web portal for residents to report habituated bear behaviors anonymously. All information related to a request for a depredation permit will be subject to public records laws.

Across the state the Department implements its Keep Me Wild campaign. This effort is designed to educate the public on measures they can take to keep bears wild. Outreach on these behaviors can be found on the Department’s Keep Me Wild website. 874
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
16 of 19
The Department also utilizes Bear Naked Truth, a blog designed to objectively disseminate information on bear management actions. Though focused on the Lake Tahoe Basin, often information from outside the area is included.

The Department will increase outreach and education in the Lake Tahoe Basin by offering to meet periodically with homeowners’ associations and other neighborhood groups to provide information on trash storage, trap/tag/haze efforts, and other bear management issues. The Department will offer to brief local governments on a quarterly basis at County Board of Supervisors meetings regarding bear management. This interaction through public county meetings is based on a similar effort the Department conducted in northern California for wolf management issues.
____________________
Charlton H. Bonham, Director
875
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
17 of 19

APPENDIX A
Public Safety Wildlife Response (No Attack on a Human)
A. Secure the scene.

B. Humanely euthanize the Public Safety Bear unless there are extenuating circumstances.

C. Notify Dispatch and the RGT.

D. Gather information for report and enter into the WIR system.

Public Safety Wildlife Response (Attack on a Human)
A. Secure the scene and ensure proper medical aid if there is a victim. Identify the victim and obtain the victim’s name, address, and phone number.

B. Notify the appropriate Dispatch Center. Dispatch shall notify the field investigator's supervisor. LED chain of command will notify the appropriate RM, DDWFD, CLED, DCLED, CWLB, Wildlife Forensic Lab (WFL),WHL, OCEO, and if necessary local law enforcement agencies.

C. Initiate the ICS. If a human death has occurred, a LED supervisor or specialist will respond to the Incident Command Post and assume the Incident Commander (IC) responsibilities. The IC holds initial responsibility and authority over the scene, locating the bear, its resultant carcass, and any other physical evidence from the attack. The IC will ensure proper transfer and disposition of all physical evidence.

D. Treat the area as a crime scene. In order to expedite the take of the offending animal and preserve as much on-scene evidence as possible, the area of the incident must be secured immediately by the initial responding officer. The area should be excluded from public access by use of flagging tape or similar tape (e.g., "Do Not Enter") utilized at crime scenes by local law enforcement agencies. One entry and exit port should be established.

Only essential authorized personnel should be permitted in the excluded area. A second area outside the area of the incident should be established as the command post.

E. In cases involving a human death, WFL personnel will direct the gathering of evidence and secure items such as clothing, tents, sleeping bags, objects used for defense during the attack, objects chewed on by the animal, or any other materials which may possess the attacking animal's saliva, hair, or blood.

F. If the victim is alive, advise the attending medical personnel about the Carnivore AttackVictim Sampling Kit for collecting possible animal saliva stains or hair that might still be on the victim. If the victim is dead, advise the medical examiner of this evidence need. This sampling kit may be obtained from the WFL.
876
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
18 of 19
G. It is essential to locate the offending animal as soon as practical. The assistance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services (WS) may be arranged by the LED or designee contacting the local WS District Supervisor.

H. If an animal is killed, the IC will notify the chain of command. Treat the carcass as evidence. Use clean protective gloves and (if possible) a face mask while handling the carcass. Be guided by the need to protect the animal's external body from: loss of bloodstains or other such physical evidence originating from the victim; contamination by the animal's own blood; and contamination by the human handler's hair, sweat, saliva, skin cells, etc. Tape paper bags over the head and paws, and then tape plastic bags over the paper bags. Plug wounds with tight gauze to minimize contamination of the animal with its own blood. Place the carcass inside a protective durable body bag (avoid dragging the carcass, if possible).

I. WFL will receive from the IC and/or directly obtain all pertinent physical evidence concerning the primary questions of authenticity of the attack and identity of the offending animal. WFL has first access and authority over the carcass after the IC. WHL will immediately contact and coordinate with the health department the acquisition of appropriate samples for rabies testing. Once WFL has secured the necessary forensic samples, it will then release authority over the carcass to WHL for disease studies.

J. An independent diagnostic laboratory approved by WHL will conduct necropsy and disease studies on the carcass. The WHL will retain primary authority over this aspect of the carcass.

K. In the event that a Public Safety Bear cannot be located and taken, and the immediate threat no longer exists, the RGT shall re-assess the incident and consider re-classifying the bear.
877
Department of Fish and Wildlife

DEPARTMENTAL BULLETIN
19 of 19
Appendix B
Lake Tahoe Basin Black Bear “Trap/Tag/Haze” Pilot Management Project The Lake Tahoe Region has the second highest density of black bears in North America, with several bears per square mile at times. When bears become habituated to obtaining food by raiding garbage cans, entering homes, and generally associating food with people, they are extremely difficult to deter and are increasingly creating public health and safety issues.

In addition, climate change is rapidly altering natural habitat, and this too is seen in the Lake Tahoe Basin where hotter and drier weather may cause cascading impacts to bear behaviors and life strategies. On top of those changes, catastrophic fires that have occurred in the Lake Tahoe Basin degrade bear habitat and may be pushing bears into more human conflicts in search of food.

Recognizing these events and the increase of human/bear conflicts, the Department is implementing a pilot management project in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The trap/tag/haze project allows the Department to identify bears and provide a deterrent to habituated behaviors the bear may be displaying. A cage trap is used to capture bears in areas where they regularly show up and have been causing issues with habituated behaviors such as raiding trash cans, breaking in cars or houses, or entering campsites. Once captured, the bears are immobilized and tagged with ear tags or GPS collars to readily identify the individual bear. Biological samples (i.e., DNA), and scientific data related to health and biometrics are also gathered during this time. Upon release of the bear, the Department uses bean bag rounds discharged from a firearm and loud noises to haze the bear from the undesired location and to deter future habituated behaviors.

The Department will evaluate the data from the trap/tag/haze project in the coming years to determine if the management methods show an indication of deterring habituated behaviors or not. The trap/tag/haze project also allows for LED and scientific staff to readily identify bears that may display habituated behaviors and track those behaviors over time providing data on how the behaviors may be learned by other adult bears or cubs. The policy incorporates trap/tag/haze as a pilot management project in the Lake Tahoe Basin to create additional flexibility for the Department for these purposes: (1) further evaluate the effectiveness of management actions to reduce bear habituation; (2) employ active management through hazing to reduce bear habituation; and, (3) to increase Department management flexibility when landowners may elect to not request a depredation permit, (4) monitor when a habituated bear may eventually transition to a public safety situation.

The Department will continue to evaluate additional hazing tools during the pilot management project. Other such tools may include a program to utilize specially trained dogs under professional handling to haze bears upon release to increase chances the bear subject to hazing modifies their behavior.
878
State of California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
M e m o r a n d u m
Date: February 28, 2024
To: Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff
From: Charlton H. Bonham
Director
Subject: Statewide Guidance for Assessing Black Bear Depredation Permit Requests – Addendum 1 to the CDFW 2022-01 Black Bear Policy in California California has a robust black bear (Ursus americanus) population that human activity often intersects with. As urban areas expand across the state into black bear habitat these environments are becoming closer to one in the same providing ample anthropogenic food sources and increasing the likelihood of human-black bear interactions. Management of these interactions requires the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to continually evaluate existing and innovative approaches to black bear management, including responsibilities shared by the public, homeowners, farmers, and ranchers to reduce the likelihood of attracting black bear to themselves or their property. Minimizing human-black bear interaction will also require consistency across CDFW in how requests for black bear depredation permits are evaluated.

As outlined in the CDFW 2022-01 Black Bear Policy in California, depredation permit requests shall contain information about why the permit was necessary, what efforts were made to solve the problem without killing the bear, the corrective actions that should be implemented to prevent a reoccurrence, and proper disposal of a carcass.

CDFW emphasizes that this process requires information from the applicant whether any efforts, and if so, what efforts, were made to solve the problem without the need for lethal action. If no preventive measures or efforts have been made, CDFW will collaborate with the applicant to propose non-lethal efforts first, as an alternative to the applicant pursuing their option under Fish and Game Code section 4181 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 401. The following guidance is designed to meet the requirements of the Black Bear Policy in California and provide approving authorities with a consistent method of evaluating black bear depredation permit requests.

Guidance
These considerations are meant to guide approving authorities in evaluating requests for depredation permits. It is likely that a combination of these considerations is likely to be observed in most cases involving depredation permit requests. In evaluating depredation permit requests approving authorities should focus on the desired intent of the CDFW Black Bear Policy in California which considers personal responsibility for 879
Statewide Guidance for Assessing Black Bear Depredation Permit Requests – Addendum 1 to the CDFW 2022-01 Black Bear Policy in California February 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

reducing attractants on a property, documentation of damage, and reasonable measures taken to reduce the likelihood of the need for a depredation permit.

Considerations when evaluating property damage for depredation permit request:
• Minimal Damage that may be mitigated with deterrents. o Ripped or removed screens.
o Scratches.
o Trash spread around.
o Food spread around.
o Teeth marks on property.
o Removal of loose chicken wire.
o Pulling off boards or weakly attached items.
• Typical types of damage that may be mitigated with deterrents (damage may be consistent with a depredation permit issuance).
o Broken windows.
o Broken doors.
o Broken cabinets.
o Broken appliances.
o Damaged fencing.
o Damaged chicken coops.
• Major damage that is consistent with a depredation permit issuance. o Flooding due to broken pipes or valves.
o Severely broken kitchen cabinets and appliances.
o Rips or tears to furniture or carpet.
o Destruction of chicken coop or livestock pens.

Evaluation of common preventative measures to be considered prior to issuing depredation permit:
• Is there a presence and/or availability of attractants to black bears? o Was there food or scented attractants available to black bears outside of the building?
o Were windows or doors left open to allow for scent attraction to the building? o Are bear proof trash receptacles being used on site?
o Were animals properly housed in enclosed night pen or chicken coop? • Is the area properly fenced or protected?
o Is there appropriate height (5-8 feet) fencing around the crop or livestock? o Is an electrical fence used to protect animals?
o Is barbwire incorporated into fencing?
o Is the fence structurally sound to prevent entrance of black bears? o Were windows or doors left open?
880
Statewide Guidance for Assessing Black Bear Depredation Permit Requests – Addendum 1 to the CDFW 2022-01 Black Bear Policy in California February 28, 2024

Page 3 ends

o Were crawl spaces or deck spaces properly secured?
Communication:

Communication with executive staff on black bear depredation permit requests and approvals should be carefully considered in each situation. If the answer to one or more of the questions below is yes, executive communication is strongly advised prior to, during, or after issuance of a permit.
• Is the offending black bear a sow with cubs?
• Who owns/occupies the dwelling?
• Was the dwelling occupied?
• Does the black bear have a name?
• Has there been previous media on the issue?
• Is the black bear collared?
• Has the black bear been moved before?
• Did the incident(s) occur in a highly populated area? • Are their local, state, or federal agencies involved? • Are there non-governmental organizations involved?
• Are there local elected officials involved?
Issuance:

Information on depredation and conflict incidents shall be documented in the Wildlife Guidance Response SharePoint site. Incident details will be reviewed by approving authorities in evaluating the request for a depredation permit. The summary of the details may help determine the incident specific approach as outlined in the CDFW 2022-01 Black Bear Policy and will aid approving authorities to determine appropriate response.

It is desired that CDFW take steps towards assuring that black bears taken under depredation permits are the offending animal and are properly identified when possible.

Methods of identification can include such things as tags, visual markings, or DNA.

The issuance of non-lethal depredation permits for black bears is not described in the 2022 Black Bear Policy in California or Fish and Game Code. Mitigation measures or preventative actions if deemed necessary should be communicated to depredation permit requestors prior to the consideration or issuance of a lethal depredation permit.

Notifications of depredation permit denials shall be made by approving authorities or their designee.

Depredation permit requests are a wildlife management issue. Law Enforcement Division (LED) assistance will be at the discretion of the Chief or their designee.

Assistance from LED should not be assumed without prior approval. 881
Statewide Guidance for Assessing Black Bear Depredation Permit Requests – Addendum 1 to the CDFW 2022-01 Black Bear Policy in California February 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

If reasonable preventative measures and approaches such as those described above do not resolve or stop reoccurrence, then action may be taken by CDFW to treat the black bear as a conflict bear as described in the 2022 Black Bear Policy in California. 882
Black Bear Conservation and
Management Plan for California
APRIL 2025
883
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 2 Authors and Acknowledgements
EDITORS:

ARJUN DHEER, Statewide Black Bear Coordinator
BRETT FURNAS, Science Support and Big Game Conservation Supervisor MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP:

MARIO KLIP, Game Conservation and Connectivity Program Manager SCOTT GARDNER, Wildlife Branch Chief
CHAD DIBBLE, Wildlife and Fisheries Division Deputy Director CHARLTON BONHAM, Director
884
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 3 This document was produced through the efforts of a variety of contributors spanning a vast range of expertise. CDFW’s Black Bear Program expresses its deep gratitude to CDFW management and leadership, headquarters and regional staff, scientific aids, and volunteers. Many organizations dedicated to black bear and wildlife conservation and management play a pivotal role in the conservation and management of California’s black bears, contributing expertise, money, and time towards this document. Collaborating agencies—National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Defense, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Department of Transportation—have been critical to making this work possible. Moreover, multiple universities have greatly enhanced CDFW’s black bear monitoring and research capacity. CDFW’s Black Bear Program also expresses its thanks to internal, peer, public, and Tribal reviewers who took the time to review, provide feedback, and contribute to this Plan, surpassing 5,000 comments in total. The conservation and management of black bears in California is a collaborative effort and will always continue to be so.

Recommended Citation:

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2025. Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California. Sacramento, California, USA.
885
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 4 Statement from CDFW Director
There are few wildlife species in California more iconic than black bears (Ursus americanus). While they are widely recognized and appreciated for their intrinsic and ecological value, opinions sometimes differ on how best to manage black bears in our state. Today, 40 million people share California’s diverse habitats with an estimated 60,000 black bears, one of the largest bear populations in the United States. These factors make California bear management and conservation a complex and intricate undertaking.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife is proud to present a Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California that aims to balance the complex viewpoints about this species.

Over the past few years, the plan was developed through accelerated research coupled with extensive outreach and input from the public, scientists, hunting and non-hunting organizations, Tribes and other important partners. We received and attempted to address over 5,000 comments on this plan, a testament that Californians care deeply about bears and want the best possible outcomes for them, ecosystems and for our communities. The plan sets forth a framework for using the best available science to inform future regulatory recommendations about hunting and other actions using an adaptive management approach. It also provides a roadmap of how the department intends to rigorously monitor bear populations throughout the state and addresses the premier conservation challenges facing bears including how monitoring data can be best leveraged to inform effective management decisions.

Conserving and managing ecologically functional black bear populations invariably involves other wildlife species. Given the keystone role bears play in the ecosystems they inhabit – as predators, seed dispersers, scavengers, and more – their interactions with other wildlife species are critically important to understand. This plan accounts for these intricacies and aims to better understand them. Moreover, we are in a time of substantial global change with ongoing environmental pressures including climate disruption, persistent periods of drought, megafires and habitat fragmentation.

This plan also underlines the need to understand how these factors affect black bears.

It is imperative that we use the best available science to conserve and manage our state’s impressive biodiversity and that we are focused on engaging and including all Californians in this process. We invite you to join us as we seek to advance black bear conservation and management through the implementation of this plan.

Charlton H. Bonham
Director, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
886
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 5 Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................8 Chapter 2. Black Bear Biology and Ecology ..................................................................................................... 13

2.1 Physical Characteristics..................................................................................................................................... 14

2.2 Denning .................................................................................................................................................................. 14

2.3 Reproduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 15

2.4 Mortality.................................................................................................................................................................. 15

2.5 Food Habits............................................................................................................................................................ 16 Chapter 3. Conservation and Management Framework............................................................................ 17

3.1 Ecologically Functional Populations............................................................................................................. 18

3.2 Habitat..................................................................................................................................................................... 20

3.3 Genetic Diversity and Connectivity .............................................................................................................. 22

3.4 Disease..................................................................................................................................................................... 22

3.5 Animal Welfare...................................................................................................................................................... 23

3.6 Regulated Hunting.............................................................................................................................................. 24

3.7 Viewing.................................................................................................................................................................... 30

3.8 Black Bear Interactions with other Wildlife................................................................................................. 30

3.9 Human-Black Bear Conflict .............................................................................................................................. 32

3.10 Climate Change, Wildfire, Drought, and Land Use................................................................................ 36

3.11 Tribal Authority and Perspectives............................................................................................................... 38

3.12 Rulemaking Process......................................................................................................................................... 40 Chapter 4. Population Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 42

4.1 Bear Conservation Regions.............................................................................................................................. 43

4.2 Integrated Population Model.......................................................................................................................... 45

4.3 Other Population Indicators and Harvest Metrics................................................................................... 52 Chapter 5. Other Data for Informing Conservation and Management............................................... 53

5.1 Genetic Diversity.................................................................................................................................................. 54

5.2 Movement Ecology and Connectivity.......................................................................................................... 54

5.3 Disease..................................................................................................................................................................... 55

5.4 Animal Welfare...................................................................................................................................................... 55

5.5 Human Interactions with Black Bears........................................................................................................... 56 887
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 6 Chapter 6. Adaptive Management....................................................................................................................... 58

6.1 Conserving and Managing Ecologically Functional Black Bear Populations and their Habitats................................................................................................................................................................ 59

6.2 Conserving and Managing Genetically Diverse Black Bear Populations......................................... 61

6.3 Conserving and Managing Disease-Resilient Black Bear Populations............................................. 61

6.4 Providing Black Bear Hunting Opportunities............................................................................................ 61

6.5 Managing Human-Black Bear Conflict and Consideration of Animal Welfare............................... 61

6.6 Communication and Outreach About Black Bears.................................................................................. 62

6.7 Co-management of Black Bears with Tribes and other Partners........................................................ 62

6.8 Periodic Review and Updating of the Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California ................................................................................................................................................................. 63 Chapter 7. Research, Resources, and Organizational Support Required for Plan Implementation .................................................................................................................................................. 64

7.1 Data Collection..................................................................................................................................................... 65

7.2 Data Management.............................................................................................................................................. 65

7.3 Data Analysis......................................................................................................................................................... 66

7.4 Collaboration and Co-management............................................................................................................. 66 Literature Cited.............................................................................................................................................................. 67 Appendix 1: Glossary .................................................................................................................................................. 85 List of Figures
Figure 1. Commonness and rareness of wildlife species...................................................................................... 18 Figure 2. Black bear range map for California........................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3. California black bear hunting map............................................................................................................. 26 Figure 4. Plot showing the number of human-black bear conflict reports submitted to CDFW’s Wildlife Incident Reporting system each year from 2017-2023 .......................................................... 32 Figure 5. Number of CDFW-issued black bear depredation permits issued and numbers of black bears killed each year from 2017-2023............................................................................................................. 34 Figure 6. Low and high burn severity amounts in California through time based on analysis of the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity database (methods described in Eidenshink et al. 2007) from 1984-2019....................................................................................................................... 37 888
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 7 Figure 7. Bear Conservation Regions (BCRs) ..............................................................................................................43 Figure 8. An example of age and sex structure data for black bears in California........................................45 Figure 9. A flowchart showing the components and framework of the integrated population model (IPM) .............................................................................................................................................................................47 Figure 10. Preliminary estimated population trends in all California Bear Conservation Regions where hunting occurs based on the integrated population model (IPM) each year from 2014-2024 49 Figure 11. Prior and posterior distributions of five black bear vital rate parameters from the integrated polulation model (IPM) across the five Bear Conservation Regions (BCRs) ...............................51 Figure 12. Analysis of emotional sentiments expressed within black bear social media posts from California from 2010-2022...........................................................................................................................57 Figure 13. Adaptive management framework for using population data, and other information, to inform black bear conservation and management in California..........................................60 List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of black bear comments, interests, and views expressed by California Native American Tribes...................................................................................................................................39 Table 2. Administrative process and general timeline for adopting California Code of Regulations Title 14 regulations affecting black bear hunting, conservation, and management...................................41 Table 3. Average estimated black bear population sizes in nine bear conservation regions (BCRs) across California between 2020-2024..............................................................................................................48 889
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
890
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 1 9 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
The black bear (Ursus americanus) is an iconic species that garners a high degree of public interest in California, as it does across North America (Graber and White 1983, Klip 2012). The relationship between black bears and people is complex, however, and public attitudes and opinions concerning black bears are diverse (Siemer et al. 2023). Black bears are highly valued for various reasons. For example, black bears are culturally significant to many Native American Tribes, are a favored game species to many hunters, are sought after for viewing and photography opportunities, and are widely recognized for their intrinsic value and ecological role as an omnivorous predator. Black bears can also be a source of conflict when they use areas of high human activity (i.e., they become habituated to people), seek out anthropogenic food sources and cause property damage (i.e., they become food-conditioned), prey upon livestock, contribute to reducing ungulate populations (Monteith et al. 2014, Wittmer et al. 2014) below desired management thresholds, or threaten public safety through aggressive or predatory behavior (Hopkins et al. 2010). Given the diverse array of values surrounding black bears, a comprehensive statewide plan guiding their conservation is necessary.

It is difficult to define the differences between wildlife conservation and management (Appendix 1). The former terminology is broader than the latter, such that conservation can partly include some aspects of management. Further, Fish and Game Code (FGC) section 1801 declares wildlife “conservation” a policy for California. For these reasons, this document is referred to as a “conservation and management plan” (Plan) which considers both passive and active management strategies for maintaining black bear populations throughout California while mitigating humanblack bear conflict (HBC).

The previous black bear “management plan” of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) was developed more than two decades ago [California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1998] when black bear population size estimates were based on less contemporary methods than what is currently available. Until recently CDFW applied an indirect population modeling approach using age information inferred from tooth samples collected annually by hunters (Fraser 1976). While annual age data collected from hunter harvested tooth samples remain an important source of information, this modeling approach has long been recognized to be error prone, especially when there are changes in hunter effort and other analytical assumptions (Harris and Metzgar 1987). At an April 2022 meeting of the California Fish and Game Commission (“Commission”), CDFW presented preliminary results of an updated, more accurate, integrated population modeling approach to make better use of black bear age data and other data sources (CDFW 2022b) and committed to revise its management plan to include details about improved black bear population monitoring.

CDFW is the state trustee agency responsible for the conservation of wildlife and their habitats (FGC § 1802). It is charged with implementing and enforcing regulations set by the Commission, as well as providing biological data and expertise to inform Commission decision-making on a wide variety of issues affecting wildlife. The Commission enacts wildlife regulations in a manner that considers information on populations, habitat, food availability, and animal welfare (FGC § 200-203). Issues of 891
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 1 10 regulation include recreational harvest, use of protected areas, permitting of wildlife rehabilitation facilities, and listing of species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), among others.

State policy set by the legislature recognizes a balance between protecting wildlife for their intrinsic and ecological values; providing for beneficial and recreational uses including regulated hunting; and mitigating economic, human safety, and public health damages caused by wildlife (FGC § 1801). An essential concept recognized in this policy is that wildlife is a renewable resource and that, through regulated management, abundant and thriving populations can be perpetuated.

Through California Executive Order B-10-11 (2011), state policy reaffirmed that California Native American Tribes have sovereign authority over their territories and activities, and thus crossjurisdictional issues require effective government-to-government consultation between state agencies and Tribes. The policy of CDFW is to notify and consult with Tribes regarding proposed activities affecting fish, wildlife, and plant resources and other Tribal interests, and to encourage collaborative relationships resulting in co-management of resources, such as black bears (CDFW 2014).

Black bears are classified as a game mammal in California (FGC § 3950) such that regulated hunting of the species includes licensing, fees, harvest season and area, and other restrictions (Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 365, 366, 367.5, FGC § 4750-4763). CDFW also manages black bears associated with HBC, which may include issuing lethal depredation permits when non-lethal efforts to address problems prove ineffective (FGC § 4181, CDFW 2024a). The current decisionmaking process for addressing HBC and other related issues such as animal welfare is described in a policy developed by CDFW (2024a).

Regulated hunting has been a central component of wildlife conservation in California and throughout North America for over a century (Geist et al. 2001, Organ et al. 2012). For example, CDFW conservation and management activities that benefit both game and non-game species alike (e.g., population monitoring, research, land acquisition, habitat improvement, law enforcement etc.) are substantially funded by revenues generated from hunting license fees and from taxes on firearms and ammunition pursuant to the Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (see Section 3.6). Additionally, partnerships between CDFW and hunting-focused non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play important roles in habitat creation and protection that benefit a wide variety of species. Specific to black bears, hunters also provide CDFW with tooth samples from harvested animals (over 1,000 samples annually). Age estimates from these samples constitute a key source of scientific data that is critical to efficient estimation and monitoring of black bear populations throughout California.

Changing societal views towards hunting highlight the need for wildlife managers to ensure they are adequately considering the perspectives of non-hunters (Peterson and Nelson 2017). Wildlife managers have also been criticized for undervaluing the perspectives and contributions of Native Americans—both those that hunt and those that do not—to wildlife conservation (e.g., Hessami et al. 2021). Recognizing these concerns, the Commission has a policy statement addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion that acknowledges prejudices and barriers experienced by historically 892
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 1 11 marginalized and underserved communities regarding access to nature and regulatory decisionmaking processes. This policy commits the Commission to a set of actions for correcting these inequities. CDFW shares this goal; it will seek to broaden input beyond traditional constituencies while continuing to value hunting as an important tradition and conservation and management tool.

In consideration of the background and history summarized above, CDFW’s goals for black bear conservation and management apply to both black bears and people:

Black Bear Conservation and Management Goals:

1. Conserve and manage black bear populations that are ecologically functional, diseaseresilient, and genetically diverse statewide and regionally, and conserve and enhance their habitats.

2. Provide opportunities for black bear hunting, viewing, and public education; minimize human-bear conflict; consider animal welfare in black bear conservation and management; and be inclusive of all Californians in black bear conservation and management decisions.

CDFW’s approach to achieving these goals includes monitoring black bear populations and using these data in an adaptive and structured decision-making process to inform conservation actions and policies about hunting, other human interactions with black bears, and responses to climate change, land use, and other conservation stressors. This Plan includes background on black bear biology (Chapter 2) and the ecological and social framework for black bear conservation and management (Chapter 3), describes the monitoring and modeling approach for tracking black bear populations (Chapters 4 and 5), explains how this information will be applied in decision making (Chapter 6), and lists the resources and next steps needed to successfully implement the Plan (Chapter 7). Specific recommendations about hunting rules (e.g., tag quotas, season dates, methods of take) for black bears will not be made in this Plan. However, the information in this Plan and the implementation thereof will inform future regulations to establish or adjust hunting seasons for black bears (FGC § 302). Additionally, those rule changes generally require changes to CCR Title 14 regulations by the Commission or statutory changes to FGC by the California Legislature.

This Plan was written and developed by two primary editors along with considerable input from a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) comprised of internal CDFW staff with subject matter expertise across a variety of fields and geographical locations relevant to black bear conservation and management in California. A team of statistical modelers and data scientists developed the population modeling framework presented within the Plan and CDFW management and leadership reviewed the Plan’s contents. The Plan also underwent Tribal (January 2024 – March 2024), peer (January 2024 – March 2024), and public (April 2024 – June 2024) review periods. Nine California Native American Tribes, three peer reviewers, and over 5,000 public commenters provided feedback on the Plan. In addition, two listening sessions were held with California Native American Tribes in May 2023 to understand their perspectives on black bear conservation and management and comanagement of black bears between CDFW and Tribes. Updates on the status and the contents of 893
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 1 12 the Plan while it was being developed were given at several Commission and Wildlife Resources Committee meetings which provided opportunities for the public to discuss and comment on the Plan. Moreover, an informational public meeting was held in May 2024. In the interest of transparency and being inclusive of all Californians pursuant to FGC section 1801, comments received during the public review period have been published along with the contents of this Plan. 894
CHAPTER 2

BLACK BEAR BIOLOGY

AND ECOLOGY
895
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 2 14 CHAPTER 2. BLACK BEAR BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY

2.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Black bears are large, powerfully built mammals. Adult females typically weigh between 45 and 90 kg, and adult males typically weigh between 70 and 160 kg, with some individuals exceeding 220 kg (Lariviere 2001). Bears in excess of 300 kg have been found in places where anthropogenic food sources are abundant. Pelage color is generally mostly uniform and ranges from off-white, cinnamon, tan, brown, to black. Pale patches can occur on the chest (Lariviere 2001).

2.2 DENNING
Black bears typically hibernate during the winter months in response to a seasonal shortage of food.

In contrast to other winter-hibernating mammals that reduce their metabolic rate by >90% and body temperature to near 00 C (e.g., rodents), black bears only reduce their metabolic rate by 20-50% and maintain a near normal body temperature, which allows them to quickly react to danger (Hellgren 1998, Stenvinkel et al. 2013). Other hibernating mammals are slow to arouse because they must gradually warm themselves.

During hibernation, black bears remain inactive without eating, drinking, urinating, or defecating.

This too differs from other hibernating mammals, which must arouse every 4-10 days to feed, defecate, and urinate (Folk et al. 1976, Hellgren 1998). Hibernating animals recycle waste products (e.g., urea), preserve muscle and bone mass, and do not acquire bed sores—adaptations that are of interest to medical practitioners seeking to improve human health in areas such as heart and kidney disease, muscle wasting, obesity, and osteoporosis (Stenvinkel et al. 2013, Berg von Linde et al. 2015).

Under the constraints of hibernation, adult female black bears also experience the physiological demands of gestation, parturition, and lactation, which other hibernating mammals generally do not experience.

Though hibernation is an adaptive response that allows black bears to avoid thermal extremes and food shortages, it does not come without risk. Black bears can be vulnerable to anthropogenic disturbance, excessive snowfall, flooding, and inter- and intra-specific predation while denning (Beckmann and Lackey 2018, Linnell et al. 2000, Kurth et al. 2024). Occasionally, black bears will abandon their dens in response to such disturbances (Rayl et al. 2014).

Most black bears in California hibernate each year, but if sufficient food resources are available some black bears, particularly males, may remain active all winter (Graber 1989). Typically, females enter their dens earlier and emerge later than males do (Long et al. 2024). Black bear dens are often in tree cavities, rock or brush piles, underground burrows, or open-ground beds (Lariviere 2001). In California, other common documented den sites are talus slopes and cavities in downed logs or at the base of trees (Graber 1982, Koch 1983, Braden 1991, Stafford 1995). Occasionally, black bears den in anthropogenic structures (e.g., crawl spaces and under decks, Schafer et al. 2018). 896
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 2 15

2.3 REPRODUCTION
Litters typically comprised of 1-4 cubs are born in January-February. Mothers and cubs typically emerge from their dens during April-May. Cubs remain with their mothers through the following winter, and then separate prior to the breeding season (e.g., June-July). In total, cubs remain with their mothers for approximately 16 months (Lariviere 2001). Black bears have been shown to be capable of social learning in foraging behaviors from their mothers (Mazur and Seher, 2008) but are a solitary species (Suraci et al. 2017).

Reproductive success in female black bears is related to abundance and availability of quality food (Elowe and Dodge 1989, Costello et al. 2003). As adult female nutrition increases, reproductive parameters likely change in the following order: litter size increases, age of first reproduction decreases, yearling survival increases, cub survival increases, and interbirth interval decreases (Noyce and Garshelis 1994).

Adult females generally breed every other year but may breed in consecutive years if a litter is lost.

Reproductive parameters of black bears in California are generally unknown outside of Yosemite National Park, where Graber (1982) and Keay (1990) reported mean litter sizes ranging from 1.6 to 2.0, a mean age of first reproduction of 4.2 years, and a mean interbirth interval of 2.5 years.

2.4 MORTALITY
Mortality rates for black bears are relatively high during the first few years of life (18-47%; Kolenosky 1990) and common causes of death include cannibalism, infanticide, starvation, and abandonment (LeCount 1987, Elowe and Dodge 1989). Once adulthood is reached, mortality rates decrease substantially, in part because adult black bears have few natural predators and are relatively unaffected by parasites and disease (Rogers 1983). Anthropogenic causes of mortality (e.g., hunting, vehicle collisions, management removals) are the dominant causes of mortality for adult animals in both areas where harvest is allowed and where it is not, but overall rates of mortality are generally low and sustainable (Gantchoff et al. 2020). Adult female mortality rates are usually lower than those of adult males. Estimates of black bear survival rates and causes of mortality in California have not been reported in recent years. Black bears can live to an age of 30 years or longer, though in the wild, most die before they are 20 years old (Powell, Zimmerman, and Seaman, 1997). The longest-lived wild black bear ever recorded died at an age of 39.5 years, in Minnesota (Garshelis et al., 2020b). 897
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 2 16

2.5 FOOD HABITS
Black bears are omnivores, and their teeth are adapted for feeding on both plant and animal matter.

They are highly opportunistic and will eat nearly anything edible. Black bear food habits vary widely with season and location. In general, following emergence from winter dens in spring, black bears forage on green grasses and forbs, insects, and carrion. Black bears shift to eating berries when they become available (Graber 1982, Grenfell and Brody 1983) and focus on mast crops such as acorns (Quercus spp.) in the fall. Where present, manzanita berries (Arctostaphylos spp.) are an important food resource during late summer and fall (Kelleyhouse 1980), as are sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) seeds (Mazur et al. 2013). While the diet of black bears is mostly comprised of vegetation, they may prey upon newborn ungulates in the spring (Zager and Beecham 2006, Monteith et al. 2014) and scavenge the kills of mountain lions (Puma concolor) and other predators year-round, including during the winter (Elbroch et al. 2015, Allen et al. 2021). The opportunistic foraging behavior of black bears often brings them into conflict with people, as black bears will damage property such as homes, storage sheds, and vehicles while seeking out human food and garbage, damage agricultural crops, and occasionally kill livestock (CDFW unpublished data). 898
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 17 CHAPTER 3

CONSERVATION

AND MANAGEMENT

FRAMEWORK
899
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 18 CHAPTER 3. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
The framework for black bear conservation and management in California includes a mix of ecological and social factors. This chapter summarizes background information relevant to the conservation and management goals introduced in Chapter 1.

3.1 ECOLOGICALLY FUNCTIONAL POPULATIONS
It is a goal of CDFW to conserve and manage ecologically functional black bear populations because of their ecological role among the wildlife species that inhabit California. Ecologically functional populations have the abundance or density, and the appropriate population structure, that allow their ecological interactions, roles, and functions to take place (Conner 1988; Appendix 1). The maintenance of ecologically functional wildlife populations is necessary for ecosystem balance and health and is inclusive to entire ecological communities (Akçakaya et al. 2019; Ebenman et al. 2017; Grace et al. 2021). Thus, conserving and managing ecologically functional black bear populations provides a broader and more cohesive goal than putting forth an abundance target would. In California, ecologically functional black bear populations are generally abundant and common.

Abundant, common species such as black bears tend to have large, widespread ranges (Lawton 1993), and there usually tend to be relatively few common species versus many rare species within ecological communities (Preston 1948, Fig. 1). CDFW aims to use its population modeling approach to determine what abundance levels are consistent with the goal of conserving and managing ecologically functional black bear populations in California.

Figure 1. Commonness and rareness of wildlife species. As illustrated in this simulated example, ecological theory and empirical data demonstrate that there are usually a few common, abundant species versus many rare, less abundant species. In California, black bears are an example of an abundant, common species. 900
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 19 Black bears are widespread and common throughout most forested habitats of California; they are one of the most commonly occurring large mammal species in California forests (Furnas et al. 2022).

Occupancy modeling is a statistical approach for analyzing the proportion of locations a species occurs at to assess its relative abundance with respect to other species (MacKenzie et al. 2006). The geographical range of black bears in California covers 40% of the state’s land area and the average probability of black bear occurrence at any point within the 2009 range for a month sampling period is estimated at 63% based on occupancy analysis of detections from camera surveys at 2,954 locations (Furnas et al. 2022). In comparison, examples of less widespread and common species in California include Pacific fisher (Pekania pennanti, range=29%, occupancy<20%) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes, range=16%, occupancy<1%) (CDFW unpublished data).

Black bear densities, however, are not evenly distributed throughout their range in California.

Roughly half of the statewide black bear population resides in the North Coast and Cascade regions (see Fig. 7 for regional locations). Studies indicate that black bear densities typically range from 38 to 96 black bears per 100 km2 (Piekielek and Burton 1975, Kelleyhouse 1977, CDFG 1993) in these regions. About 40% of the black bear population inhabits the Northern and Southern Sierra Bear Conservation Regions (BCRs). Density is lower than in the North Coast and Cascades BCRs, with estimates of 19 to 38 black bears per 100 km2 (Sitton 1982, Grenfell and Brody 1983, Koch 1983).

Fusaro et al. (2017) reported that density within the town of Mammoth Lakes (38 black bears per 100 km2) was 3 times greater than in a nearby wildland study area, Slinkard Wildlife Management Area.

The remainder of the black bear population inhabits other areas of the state including the South Coast region, where densities are probably less than 10 black bears per 100 km2 (Stubblefield 1992, Novick et al. 1981, Moss 1972). The highest reported recent black bear densities from California are 156 black bears per 100 km2 near Klamath in Del Norte County (Arias 2007), 133 black bears per 100 km2 on the west side of the Hoopa Valley Reservation (Matthews et al. 2008), and 84 bears per 100 km2 in the Lake Tahoe basin (Owens-Ramos et al. 2022). These densities are among the highest recorded for black bears across their range, with the Klamath estimate exceeding the second-highest reported density across the species’ range, from Alaska (155 black bears per 100 km2; Peacock et al. 2011). Based on this, California may be home to the densest recorded population of black bears in the world.

Common species, such as black bears in California, have substantial effects on the broader ecological community such that the conservation and management of common species should be considered alongside concerns about rare species (Gaston and Fuller 2007). The abundance of black bears in California is likely driven by their diverse, omnivorous diet and ability to use many different habitat types and seral stages as a generalist species, and their adaptability to varied environmental conditions over time (Garshelis et al. 2020b). Due to their abundance and ecological role, black bears may serve as a potential indicator species for guiding wider conservation and management efforts as demonstrated by their foraging ecology (Steenweg et al. 2023), use of large woody debris (Mitchell and Powell 2003), association with wildfire (Furnas et al. 2022), and habitat associations with many other species (Cox et al. 1994, Simberloff 1999). For all of these reasons, it is important that black bears remain ecologically functional throughout their range in California. 901
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 20 Sustained and systematic monitoring of black bear abundance at statewide and regional scales is essential to effective conservation and management of black bears and other wildlife in California.

Quantifying a target population abundance of black bears is not solely a scientific question, because it depends on both the ecological status of black bears and the needs of human society in a state of nearly 40 million inhabitants in 2023. On one hand, ecological considerations can be used to estimate the biological carrying capacity of how many black bears available habitats can support, although this number would be expected to fluctuate up and down from year to year with environmental cycles (McClelland et al. 2021). On the other hand, the needs and desires of people may define a different, social carrying capacity of how many black bears human society is willing to tolerate on the landscape (Decker and Purdy 1998, Cleary et al. 2021). As part of its mission, CDFW is charged with balancing these potentially conflicting goals. As such, CDFW intends to meet an ecological goal of maintaining ecologically functional black bear populations by ensuring that black bears remain common and widely distributed within secure, well-connected habitats, and are not experiencing any long-term population declines of conservation concern pursuant to either FGC section 1801 or CESA. Additionally, CDFW intends to use the population modeling framework described in Section 4.2 to identify ecological carrying capacities statewide and regionally. CDFW would use these estimates, in conjunction other information on species interactions (e.g., prey and other species), human dimensions (e.g., HBC) and other factors (e.g., disease), to guide conservation and management actions via the adaptive management process described in Chapter 6.

3.2 HABITAT
Black bears occupy most mountain ranges in California outside of the Mojave and Sonoran deserts, and most of the 145,000 km2 of forested habitat that is biologically suitable for them. This Plan provides the first updated range map (Fig. 2) for black bears in California since 2009 using expert opinions from CDFW scientists and research grade records from iNaturalist and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (iNaturalist contributors 2025, CDFW unpublished data). The range layer was created from a base layer called “EcoHUC” which combines United States Forest Service (USFS) Ecoregion Subsections and HUC12s. Black bears continue to occupy the distribution first mapped by Grinnell (1937), and expanded populations now also exist in areas where black bears were formerly rare or absent, such as the Central Coast, much of Northeastern California, and the San Bernardino and San Gabriel mountains of Southern California. Range expansion in Southern California is the result of a translocation of black bears from Yosemite National Park to the San Bernardino mountains in the 1930s, which resulted in a persistent population (Brown et al. 2009).

More recently, black bears appear to have expanded into other areas of California where they were previously rare or absent, such as the Warner Mountains in Modoc County and the Mayacamas Mountains of Sonoma and Napa Counties (Fusaro et al. 2017, CDFW unpublished data). Range expansion has continued outside of California as well. In the 1980s, black bears originating in California began recolonizing habitat in the Carson Front of Nevada, where black bears had been absent for >80 years (Lackey et al. 2013, Malaney et al. 2018, Sultaire et al. 2023). 902
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 21 Figure 2. Black bear range map for California. This map was developed in 2024 using local CDFW biologists’ expert feedback, verified records from iNaturalist and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, and created from a base layer called “EcoHUC” combining USFS Ecoregion Subsections and HUC12s. The map displays resident populations, i.e., cases of black bear sightings that were deemed to be transient or unverified were not included.

Over half of the suitable black bear habitat in California is in public ownership, managed primarily by the USFS and National Park Service (NPS). Approximately 10% of California’s black bear habitat is managed as either wilderness or designated park. These areas represent large blocks of undeveloped habitat and core areas within their habitat where black bears encounter few humans. The abundance of black bear habitat in public ownership where development is restricted provides an important buffer against habitat loss. Because black bears are highly adaptable to living in human-modified environments, human development along the wildland-urban interface (WUI) in areas such as the Lake Tahoe Basin is more of a concern for management of HBC than it is for habitat loss and/or fragmentation negatively impacting black bear populations. However, habitat enhancement using fire management and other methods may serve to mitigate HBC (see Section 3.9). 903
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 22

3.3 GENETIC DIVERSITY AND CONNECTIVITY
Overall, black bear populations appear to be genetically diverse throughout California. Brown et al. (2009) identified 3-4 genetic clusters in a study of 504 black bears from across California collected by hunters and researchers. The occupation of black bears in the Central Coast region was hypothesized to have occurred relatively recently following a release from competition with extirpated brown bears (Ursus arctos), and a range expansion of black bears from the Southern Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi mountains, rather than from Southern California (Sherman and Ernest 2015).

Black bears in Northwestern California had the highest levels of genetic diversity, probably as a result of connectivity with black bear populations in Oregon and throughout the Pacific Northwest.

Similarly, there was evidence of high genetic diversity and gene flow among the interconnecting populations in Northern California and the Sierra Nevada mountains. Black bears in the Southern California and Central Coast regions were geographically isolated from larger populations to the north, but still maintained a similar level of genetic diversity as other North American black bear populations (Brown et al. 2009, Clarke et al. 2001, Paetkau et al. 1998, Paetkau and Strobek 1994).

More recently, Sherman and Ernest (2015) studied the genetic diversity of black bears in San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties. Genetic diversity in these areas was found to be lower than in other populations in California but because the area had only recently been colonized by black bears expanding from elsewhere, the authors concluded that management intervention was not warranted.

3.4 DISEASE
Black bears are susceptible to many infectious and non-infectious diseases, most of which do not significantly impact black bear populations. While there is no evidence that disease is an important factor in California black bear population dynamics or population health, there are some diseases of concern to monitor. These include emerging diseases like sarcoptic mange (Niedringhaus et al. 2019) with an unknown risk to California’s black bear populations, zoonotic diseases that could affect people like trichinellosis (Schellenberg et al. 2003), or diseases that could increase the likelihood of HBC like idiopathic encephalitis (Alex et al. 2020). As such, disease, and health in general, is important for black bear conservation and management at both the level of the individual black bear and the population.

CDFW veterinarians investigate potential diseases in black bears opportunistically through mortality investigations and actively through specific disease surveillance projects or programs. Disease and mortality investigations consist of either a full necropsy with postmortem workup and ancillary testing, or through targeted sample collection and testing, depending on the situation. Currently, CDFW maintains an active research and surveillance program for encephalitis in black bears. This emerging condition in California and Nevada black bears potentially has more than one cause. It tends to affect young black bears, often orphaned cubs of the year or yearlings. Clinical signs range from mild changes in behavior and mentation that often mimic habituation, to overt neurologic changes including head tilt, ataxia, tremors, and seizures. The disease is often seen in black bears 904
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 23 involved in conflict situations. CDFW also supports active surveillance of Yersinia pestis by providing samples from black bears and other species to the California Department of Public Health for serologic surveillance. Moreover, CDFW continues both active and opportunistic surveillance for pesticides like anticoagulant rodenticides, organophosphates, carbamates, and bromethalin in black bears. Pesticides can be direct sources of mortality for black bears and public health risks to hunters as some can accumulate in consumable portions like meat and fat.

In addition to ongoing mortality investigations and active surveillance projects in black bears, there have been and continue to be several serology-based surveillance projects. These projects utilize archived serum collected either from hunter harvest, depredation, or management actions and measure antibody prevalence to various pathogens in one or more of California’s black bear populations. These projects confirm that California’s black bears are variably exposed to multiple different pathogens including, but not limited to, Toxoplasma gondii, Borrelia burgdorferi, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Trichinella spiralis, canine distemper virus, canine adenovirus type 1, Yersinia pestis, Trypanosoma cruzi, and Francisella tularensis (Mortenson 1998, Stephenson et al. 2015, CDFW unpublished data). While serologic surveillance for antibodies is an important tool for disease and pathogen surveillance, it is only informative about exposure to pathogens—not the presence or absence of disease associated with pathogens.

CDFW continues to perform mortality investigations to support Law Enforcement and HBC programs, and to investigate abnormal mortalities. Common causes of death include trauma (thermal burns, gunshot, vehicle strike, or conspecific aggression being the most common), infections (viral, fungal, bacterial, and parasitic), and neoplasia or cancer. Infections are more commonly diagnosed in young black bears, especially cubs and yearlings. Idiopathic encephalitis, canine adenovirus type 1, and generalized dermatophytosis have been the most commonly diagnosed infections in recent years (CDFW unpublished data). Generalized dermatophytosis is often indistinguishable from sarcoptic mange and may be either a primary disease or secondary to some other infection (e.g. Ursicoptes sp. or Sarcoptes sp. mite infestation) or immunosuppression (Clothier et al. 2022). Trauma, particularly from vehicle strikes or gunshot wounds (e.g., sustained due to depredation or other conflict behavior, or from poaching) or infections secondary to trauma are more commonly seen in prime age adult black bears. With increasingly severe wildfire activity associated with climate change, black bears with thermal burns from wildfires are being seen more commonly, affecting young and old black bears alike. Neoplasias are more commonly diagnosed in old black bears, and older sows may be particularly susceptible to mammary gland tumors (CDFW unpublished data).

3.5 ANIMAL WELFARE
Animal welfare for black bears is defined in CDFW Bulletin Number 2022-01 Black Bear Policy in California: Public Safety, Depredation, Conflict, and Animal Welfare (henceforth Black Bear Policy; CDFW 2024a) as “the physical, psychological, social, and environmental well-being of an animal.” It is CDFW’s responsibility to consider animal welfare whenever managing black bears. In implementing this policy, CDFW follows Bulletin Number 2018-02 Department of Fish and Wildlife Animal Welfare Policy, which states that:
905
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 24 • Research, surveys, and experiments involving free-ranging and captive invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, birds, and mammals shall consider:
o Whether the use of animals is necessary;
o The number of animals needed to obtain valid scientific data; and o Methods to avoid or minimize pain, discomfort, and distress consistent with sound research design and practice.
• Animals shall be housed under conditions that are species-appropriate in environments that are safe and secure for animals and staff.
• Methods of euthanasia shall be consistent with current recommendations of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Panel on Euthanasia, unless alternatives have been justified and approved by the appropriate CDFW Program (Wildlife Branch, Fisheries Branch, or Marine Region).

One prominent example of how animal welfare concerns are addressed with black bears is the care and rehabilitation of injured and orphaned black bears. In the absence of being taken into captivity, most of these black bears would die. While these deaths will not result in changes to black bear population health, the experiences of the black bears themselves prior to their death would be unpleasant and there is substantial demand from the public for wildlife managers to intervene in these situations (Beecham et al. 2016). Options include non-intervention; humane euthanasia; reuniting black bears with their biological mothers; fostering black bears to wild, adoptive females; transporting black bears to a permanent captive facility; and transporting black bears to a rehabilitation facility for eventual release (Beecham et al. 2015). CDFW veterinarians work with regional staff to identify individual black bears that have been injured or orphaned and determine appropriate interventions.

Animal welfare is also an important consideration in wildlife field research. Examples include decisions regarding whether to externally mark (e.g., ear tags) and/or remotely monitor (e.g., GPS collars) black bears, what types of traps to use, what types of chemical immobilization drugs to use, etc. In these cases, actions taken by researchers to better understand black bear ecology have the possibility of causing distress, pain, or behavioral changes to black bears. Thus, it is important that the negative impacts are weighed against the benefits. Consequently, prior to initiating any research or monitoring program for black bears, capture plans are developed and reviewed by CDFW veterinarians.

3.6 REGULATED HUNTING
The use of black bear meat and other black bear resources through hunting by humans dates back to prehistory across much of the species’ range (McLaren et al. 2005, Ramsey 2013). Black bear meat provides a healthy and sustainable protein source to hunters as well as valuable non-meat resources 906
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 25 including rendered fat, hides, skulls, and claws (Unger et al. 2013, Waselkov 2020). Hunters also report physical , psychological, and emotional health benefits experienced when hunting black bears (Dunk 2002, Gundrum 2019, Hristienko and McDonald 2007).

In the United States, hunting regulations (e.g., the setting of seasons and methods of take, bag limits, etc.) are the product of municipal, state, and federal laws that began as early as 1646, when the colony of Rhode Island established a season for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) hunting and enforced penalties for hunting out of season (Organ et al. 2012). However, expectations regarding how, when, and why wildlife was harvested were implemented by indigenous people for thousands of years prior to the arrival of Europeans (Eichler and Baumeister 2018).

Outside of NPS lands such as Yosemite and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, where the hunting and trapping of any species has been prohibited since the late 1800s, the first formal regulations governing black bear hunting in California were enacted in 1948, when black bears became classified as game animals. A license became required for hunting and trapping, and a bag limit of two black bears per hunter was established. Over time, regulations have generally become increasingly restrictive, both to ensure black bear harvests are sustainable and to reflect changing public attitudes. For example, recreational trapping was prohibited in 1961, the bag limit was reduced to one in 1968, harvest of cubs or females with cubs was prohibited in 1972, a quota limiting the number of black bears harvested annually was initiated in 1990, and the use of dogs to hunt black bears was prohibited in 2013.

Since 1957, successful black bear hunters have been required to submit report cards that describe sex and age class of harvested black bears, along with the location and date of harvest. Beginning in 1982, report cards became required of all tag holders, regardless of success, and hunters were required to bring harvested black bears to CDFW for tag validation and removal of a premolar tooth, which is used to determine the black bear’s age in years. As discussed in Chapter 4, these samples are the key source of data utilized by CDFW for estimating and monitoring black bear populations and their vital rates. As demonstrated in California and elsewhere, the public (including hunters who provide age and sex information on black bears) contributes to conservation and management through scientific data collection that supports population monitoring efforts (Cretois et al. 2020, El Bizri et al 2020, Candler et al. 2022). While black bears are widespread in California, hunting is not permitted in all areas that black bears inhabit (Fig. 3). Collectively, areas without hunting can function as sanctuaries that provide a reservoir of adult females with relatively high survival rates that produce dispersing offspring and contribute to hunted populations (Beringer et al. 1998).

However, protection from hunting may not necessarily result in greater survival, and consequently, population growth rates. For example, in unhunted black bear populations near carrying capacity, cub and yearling survival may decrease in association with density dependent natural causes of death, such as starvation, intraspecific competition, and predation (Schwartz et al. 2006, Obbard and Howe 2008, Czetwertynski et al. 2007). These unhunted populations may also have high rates of HBC (Fusaro et al. 2017).
907
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 26 Figure 3. California black bear hunting map. This map shows the existing single black bear hunt zone for California as of April 2025. The black bear hunt zone was developed based on deer hunt zone boundaries. There are resident black bear populations in areas outside the hunt zone.

Regardless of the difference in population dynamics in hunted vs unhunted populations, researchers generally agree that hunting can be either an additive or compensatory form of mortality in black bears depending on the bear’s age and sex class (Gantchoff et al. 2020; Raithel et al., 2017). This, combined with their low reproductive rates, indicates that unless management objectives call for population reduction, harvest should be conservative to prevent overexploitation. Under optimal survival and reproductive rates, the maximum sustainable annual hunting mortality rate for black 908
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 27 bears has been estimated to be as high as 15.9% (Miller 1990), although Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin have reported increasing or stable black bear populations with harvest rates >20% (Hristienko and McDonald 2007).

Based on current best estimates of black bear populations statewide and regionally, hunters harvest less than 5% annually of the bears present in any BCR of the state, and under 3% overall (see Section

4.2). This harvest rate is considerably lower than the maximum sustainable harvest rates discussed above and is also lower than recent harvest rates in nearby states such as Oregon (ODFW 2022) and Washington (WDFW 2022). In some BCRs, the actual harvest rate may be as low as 1% of the black bear population. Harvest reduced substantially since the use of dogs for bear hunting was prohibited starting with the 2013 season. Since then, spot-and-stalk (Appendix 1) has been the only method of take for bears in California, with no ability for hunters to use bait, dogs, a second tag, or a spring season. Most harvest occurs in Northern California where bear densities are highest (i.e., Humboldt, Mendocino, Shasta, Siskiyou, and Trinity Counties), which typically accounts for 35-40% of the overall state harvest (CDFW 2021, CDFW 2024b, CDFW unpublished data).

Over the last 10 years (2014-2023), an average of 29,245 black bear tags were sold annually which generated $13.3 million in revenue, ranging from $1.0 million to $1.7 million per year. Additionally, pursuant to the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, a federal tax on firearms and ammunitions sales allocates between $10 and $30 million per year to wildlife and wildlife habitat conservation in California. CDFW uses a portion of these funds to staff its conservation and hunting programs for black bears and other game species. For example, over the last 10 years (2014-2023), the amount of these state and federal funds that CDFW has used annually for staff, contracts, and procurement of equipment such as GPS collars has varied between $500,000 and $4 million. These funds have also been used for a variety of black bear research projects including some of the local density studies listed in Section 4.2 that CDFW is integrating into its updated population monitoring approach.

Additionally, a portion of the revenue from bear tags is allocated to law enforcement, administration, regulatory development, and lands management.

The California State Legislature established the Big Game Management Account in 2010 (FGC § 3953) to ensure that funds generated through the purchase of pronghorn, elk, mule deer, wild pig, black bear, and bighorn sheep tags are used for acquiring land, completing projects, implementing programs to benefit these species, expanding public hunting opportunities, and related public outreach, and supporting administrative and enforcement costs. FGC section 3953 also mandates a public advisory committee, as determined by CDFW, that includes “interested nonprofit organizations that have goals and objectives related to the management and conservation of big game species” and primarily represent the interests of persons licensed to hunt in California (FGC § 3031). This public advisory committee serves in an advisory capacity to review and provide comments to CDFW on all proposed projects funded through the Big Game Management Account. 909
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 28 Since at least the 19th century, hunting and wildlife conservation organizations have promoted hunter ethics in North America. This includes concepts of fair chase, appreciation of nature, humane killing methods that avoid unnecessary pain and suffering, and avoiding waste of harvested animals (Organ et al. 1998). CDFW promotes ethical hunter behavior through hunter education programs, which hunters are required to take prior to obtaining hunting licenses.

California’s first hunter education law was enacted in 1954. Classes are offered throughout the State by more than 1,000 certified volunteer instructors, often CDFW game wardens. Along with curricula focusing on understanding firearm equipment, shooting and hunting skills, and safety, there is additional emphasis on being a responsible and ethical hunter. Students discuss (and perhaps debate) the concept of fair chase, which is defined by law, regional differences in ethical standards (e.g., hunting seasons and methods of take vary by US state) and learn how and why hunting laws are passed. Hunting ethics, which generally covers behavior that has to do with issues of fairness, respect, and responsibility not covered by laws are also discussed. Students learn that not everyone will agree on what is considered ethical hunting and thus it is important for each individual to develop their own personal code of conduct. To aid in this development, discussions might include questions the law does not address such as (1) at what distance should a shot be taken, considering the distance, hunter skill level, and personal convictions regarding whether the shot is a fair one? (2) is shooting birds on the ground, on water, or in trees acceptable? or (3) how much should one share with strangers about the locations of quality hunting locations on social media (i.e., hotspotting)? Collectively, discussions about hunting ethics can be summarized by the statement, “Just because you can, does not mean you should.”
Beyond basic hunter education courses, CDFW promotes ethical hunter behavior through advanced hunting clinics that are specific to the game being targeted (e.g., turkey, upland game, waterfowl, and big game). Topics covered in each clinic include type of firearm, ammunition, importance of sighting in the firearm, gauging distance, scouting, tracking, field dressing, shoot-don’t shoot scenarios, hunter ethics, landowner-hunter relationships, conservation, and safety. The goal of this series of hunting clinics is to develop ethical, conservation-minded, successful hunters through education, taking the hunter a step beyond the basic hunter education course.

Examples of regulations that have attempted to address ethical hunter behavior with respect to black bears include prohibition of (1) the use of traps (FGC § 3011), (2) the use of bait (CCR Title 14 § 365), and (3) the harvest of cubs and females accompanied by cubs (CCR Title 14 § 365). Many regulations are in place that describe requirements for firearms and archery equipment that promote humane harvest and fair chase (e.g., centerfire rifle cartridges are required, shotguns may hold no more than 3 shells, there are draw weight requirements for bows, etc.) (CCR Title 14 § 353 and 354).

Other examples of regulations promoting fair chase include hunting and shooting hours restrictions (CCR Title 14 § 352), prohibition on taking big game with the aid of artificial light (CCR Title 14 § 353), and regulations related to the use of motorized equipment while hunting (FGC § 3003.5, CCR Title 14 § 251). To avoid needless waste, hunters are prohibited from leaving any portion of meat normally eaten by people in the field (FGC § 4304). Because the sale of black bear parts is considered both unethical and unlawful, the possession of >1 black bear gall bladder is considered “prima facie 910
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 29 evidence that the bear gall bladders are possessed for sale” (FGC § 4758). To address issues related to poaching, unlawful sale of black bear parts, and other potential threats to black bear populations, CDFW’s Law Enforcement Division (LED) has a confidential witness program called CALTIP which encourages the public to provide CDFW with factual information leading to the arrest of poachers.

CDFW’s Black Bear Program will continue to work with LED to combat black bear poaching and assess how it influences the long-term conservation and management of the species in California.

Cultural, societal, and demographic changes have resulted in a declining participation in hunting and fishing in California since the 1970s. Recognizing the importance of sustaining interest in the hunting tradition, CDFW began state-wide participation in the federal Recruitment, Retention, and Reactivation (R3) program in 2017, with the aim of increasing statewide hunting and fishing participation by collaborating with diverse stakeholders to transform barriers into opportunities (CDFW 2019). In addition, the opportunity to purchase discounted Junior Resident Bear Tags beginning in 2020 appears to have contributed to increased hunter retention (CDFW unpublished data). Groups cooperating with CDFW in this program include Tribes, non-governmental organizations, clubs, media, industry, educators, and members of the public. An important component of the R3 program is to address barriers to participation, focusing beyond traditional hunter education and community outreach efforts that have existed for decades, by becoming socially relevant and creating spaces where both traditional hunting and fishing identities are celebrated, and new identities, inclusiveness, and difference are embraced. CDFW’s Black Bear Program is working with the R3 program to provide additional outreach and collaboration efforts with hunting and wildlife conservation organizations on black bear conservation and management.

Currently, California has the largest estimate black bear population size in the contiguous United States and one of the lowest harvest rates among the 34 U.S. states with regulated black bear hunting (current as of April 2025; CDFW unpublished data, pers. comm.). However, it is important to note that not all states (or jurisdictions outside the United States) use the same method to estimate black bear population size (CDFW unpublished data). While California’s black bear harvest has averaged 1,219 over the past 5 years, the harvest rate is only 1.7%-2.5% due to the state’s large black bear population size (Table 3). Among the 34 U.S. states with regulated black bear hunting, 26 have an annual bag limit of 1, one has an annual bag limit of 2, one has an annual bag limit of 3, and six have an annual bag limit that varies by specific hunt zone, license type, or other factors. In terms of bait, 21 do not allow the use of bait for black bear hunting, 10 allow the use of bait for black bear hunting, and three allow or disallow the use of bait for black bear hunting based on specific hunt zone, license type, or other factors. 27 states do not have a spring black bear season, six have a spring black bear season, and one has a spring black bear season based on specific hunt zone, license type, or other factors. 18 states do not allow the use of dogs for black bear hunting, 12 allow the use of dogs for black bear hunting, and four allow the use of dogs for black bear hunting based on specific hunt zone, license type, or other factors. All 34 states have an archery season for black bear hunting and/or allow archery equipment for hunting black bears. Only one state allows trapping of black bears for hunting, specific only to certain zones. Finally, 10 states do not require meat retrieval for black bears, 22 do, and two do based on specific hunt zone, license type, or other factors.
911
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 30

3.7 VIEWING
Black bear viewing has long been a popular activity with visitors to National Parks in California, such as Yosemite and Sequoia and Kings Canyon. As described by Graber and White (1983) in a study of black bear food habits in Yosemite, “The sight or sound of a 100 to 200 kg beast poking around one’s camp in the gloom of night has provided a thrill tinged with varying degrees of terror to generations of tourists.” Black bear viewing has been associated with terms such as ecotourism or sustainable tourism, which is often considered an important way to increase tourism through encouraging the public to visit local environments and natural surroundings with a focus on environmental education and ecological conservation (Stronza et al. 2019, Streimikiene et al. 2021). Most black bear viewing in California likely occurs in largely undeveloped National Parks, but some semi-urban areas such as the Lake Tahoe Basin and Mammoth Lakes, are popular destinations for black bear viewing as well (Klip 2012). Wildlife (including black bear) viewing can provide substantial economic benefits to National Parks and other areas with charismatic species and accessible terrain (Gunther et al. 2018). In addition to providing economic benefits, black bear viewing has also been positively associated with educational and psychological benefits (Curtin 2013, Siemer et al. 2023).

In contrast to hunting, black bear viewing is considered a non-consumptive activity. However, as with hunting, black bear viewing can still have negative consequences for both black bears and people if not managed appropriately. Black bears inhabiting areas popular for black bear viewing have frequent benign encounters with people, which can cause them to become habituated to human presence and show no overt reaction to people (Penteriani et al. 2017). Habituated black bears are often a significant management concern because they are at an increased risk of becoming foodconditioned, either through being directly fed by people or by finding human food themselves (Hopkins et al. 2010). While food-conditioning is common both inside and outside of protected areas, habituation is probably more common in parks and other areas where hunting (i.e., a potential form of negative conditioning) is restricted (McCullough 1982).

3.8 BLACK BEAR INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER WILDLIFE
Black bears are important predators of neonate ungulates and can have significant impacts on ungulate population dynamics (Linnell et al. 1995, Bowyer et al. 1998, Zager and Beecham 2006; Popp et al. 2018). Within California, Monteith et al. (2014) found neonate mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) born west of the Sierra Crest, where black bear densities are higher than east of the Sierra Crest, were >6 times more likely to die of black bear predation than any other cause. High rates of black bear predation were thought to limit deer abundance in this area by causing a reduction in the proportion of deer that migrate to summer range, as deer trade off obtaining superior nutritional benefits to avoid predation (Monteith et al. 2014). Black bear predation is also a common cause of mortality for black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) fawns in the Mendocino National Forest (Forrester and Wittmer, 2019, Wittmer et al. 2014). The conservation, restoration, maintenance, and utilization of California’s wild deer populations is a policy of the State Legislature (FGC § 450).

Within the Mendocino National Forest, black bears frequently displaced mountain lions from their kills, a behavior called kleptoparasitism. Elbroch et al. (2015) found black bears at 77% of 912
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 31 mountain lion kills, and black bears displaced mountain lions from them 72% of the time. Black bear kleptoparasitism caused mountain lions to increase their kill rates substantially to recoup energetic losses to black bears (Elbroch et al. 2015, Allen et al. 2021) and mountain lion ungulate kill rates in this system were the highest reported for the species across their range (Allen et al. 2021, Cristescu et al. 2022). Collectively, high rates of predation on fawns and kleptoparasitism of mountain lion kills by black bears have likely contributed to declining deer population size in this area (Wittmer et al. 2014, Marescot et al. 2015). Coyotes have also been suggested to be significant predators of fawns across different parts of North America (Murphy et al. 2023, Whittaker and Lindzey, 1999) and in California (Furnas et al. 2020).

Black bear interactions with gray wolves (Canis lupus) can be lethal or kleptoparasitic. Packs of gray wolves are known to displace black bears from carcasses or predate on black bears themselves (Ballard et al. 2003). In areas without gray wolves, black bears may exhibit a release of predation and/ or competition (Frey et al. 2022), In California, these interactions are not yet well understood and impacts on survival and prey selection are yet to be quantified. With gray wolves re-establishing themselves in California, CDFW aims to assess black bear-gray wolf interactions to better understand their dynamics ranging from interspecific predation to kleptoparasitism and scavenging.

In addition, black bears are also potential predators of desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) (Lovich et al. 2014), which are listed as threatened under CESA. While even a single black bear could have negative effects on small populations, such interactions are likely extremely rare because black bears and desert tortoises have very different habitat preferences.

More indirectly, black bears interact with other wildlife by dispersing seeds that they consume. Black bears often swallow fruits whole, and the seeds remain intact once excreted. Given their large home ranges, black bears can be even more effective than birds in seed dispersal (Harrer and Levi 2018), and the movement of seeds contributes to the maintenance of food and cover for many wildlife species. Some plant species even germinate better after being digested and deposited in black bear scats than if seeds do not go through this process (Rogers and Applegate 1983, Auger et al. 2002). Secondary seed dispersers, such as small mammals, can become involved in multiple ways.

Small mammals can experience nutritional benefits by obtaining concentrated food sources from deposited scats. Black bear scats can contain thousands of seeds containing enough energy to meet the daily calorie requirements of >90 mice (Shakeri et al. 2018). Additionally, while long-distance seed dispersal by black bears is important for plant propagation, some species may not germinate well within scats because of high predation rates, competition, or an inadequate temperature and moisture environment. Small mammals can disperse seeds a second time from black bear scats and then bury them in safer locations, making the combined effect of black bears and small mammals for seed dispersal greater than each species would have alone (Enders and Vander Wall 2011). 913
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 32

3.9 HUMAN-BLACK BEAR CONFLICT
With a population of almost 40 million people, conflicts between people and black bears are common and management of these conflicts is a high priority for CDFW. HBC appears to have been increasing for decades due to increasing spatial overlap between people and black bears (i.e., increased human development and recreation in black bear habitat and expansion of black bear distribution). The vast majority of HBC involves the intersection of black bears and attractants, such as food, garbage, and livestock.

Records of HBC are managed by CDFW staff. More standardized statewide recordkeeping began in 2017, when the existing Wildlife Incident Reporting (WIR) system was expanded so that both CDFW staff and the public can submit reports to it (Fig. 4). CDFW staff respond to the reports.

From 2017-2023, excluding reports of black bear sightings in which no conflict occurred, there were 7,219 HBC reports submitted through the WIR. In descending order of frequency, reports were of depredation and property damage (59%), nuisance behavior (28%), and potential human conflicts (12%). Reports of HBC averaged 1,031/year from 2017-2023. Hotspots of HBC reports included the Lake Tahoe Basin, Pine Mountain Club, and the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains.

Figure 4. Plot showing the number of human-black bear conflict reports submitted to CDFW’s Wildlife Incident Reporting system each year from 2017-2023. Reports are classified by type (Depredation, Nuisance, and Potential Human Conflict). Reports can be submitted by CDFW staff and the general public, and CDFW staff respond to the reports.
914
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 33 While documenting the frequency, location, and severity of HBC is commonly used by management agencies to track trends through time and evaluate the effectiveness of management strategies, caution is warranted in interpreting the data. Trends in reports may not accurately reflect actual trends in HBC. For example, we observed a substantial increase in HBC reports during 2021 and 2022, but the degree to which these increases reflect an actual increase in HBC or an increase in reporting is unclear, but it is likely that an increase in reporting was an important factor during 2022 at least.

In February of that year, CDFW began implementing its Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a), which increased staff awareness of the WIR system by requiring its use for all incidents requiring a response by CDFW. The expansion of CDFW’s Human-Wildlife Conflicts Program including the onboarding of dedicated limited term staff across the state to respond to conflict situations may have also played a role in the observed increase of HBC reports.

Additionally, public reporting behavior can be biased in different ways. Howe et al. (2010) thought that increases in HBC reports in Ontario, Canada were more likely the result of public dissatisfaction with a controversial decision to end the spring black bear hunt, rather than actual increases in HBC.

Similarly, Wilbur et al. (2018) found that in Colorado, the people most displeased with black bear management had the highest HBC reporting rates. Other factors that were predictive of a resident’s decision to report HBC included their prior experience with black bears and attitudes related to tolerance of black bears. Recognizing these potential biases is important because public attitudes are often geographically clustered, meaning that spatial patterns of HBC reports may not reflect actual HBC (Wilbur et al. 2018).

In addition, environmental variables may influence HBC trends. For example, drought and climate change can amplify human-wildlife conflict (Calhoun et al. in review). CDFW aims to continue to monitor HBC trends in relation to conflict mitigation efforts, public behavior, environmental variables, and other factors.

California is currently a member of BearWise, a program developed and managed by biologists from multiple jurisdictional natural resource agencies (member agencies of the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies) to provide consistent information and messaging about coexisting with black bears. It promotes education and preventative action as the most effective tools for reducing HBC.

Informational resources on black bear biology, behavior, and conflict prevention can be found on the BearWise website.

CDFW staff provide assistance to landowners experiencing HBC in the form of education and advice on corrective actions to prevent re-occurrence (e.g., hazing; eliminating unnatural food or attractants by removing trash and bear-proofing food storage areas; enclosing animal pens; installing fencing or electric fencing, motion lights and sprinklers, noise machines, guard animals; or securing and blocking access to crawl spaces or other potential denning sites). Depredation permits may also be issued (Fig. 5), typically after other non-lethal management options have been exhausted in accordance with the Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a).
915
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 34 Figure 5. Number of CDFW-issued black bear depredation permits issued and numbers of black bears killed each year from 2017-2023. CDFW’s Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a) was implemented in February 2022 and prioritizes non-lethal conflict mitigation before issuing permits for lethal take.

During 2017-2023, there was a declining trend in both the number of black bear depredation permits issued total (lethal and non-lethal permits combined) and the numbers of black bears killed under the permits (Fig. 5). The number of black bears killed under depredation permits has decreased annually from 100 in 2017 to 16 in 2023. Moreover, there has also been an annual increase in the percentage of permits issued that do not result in black bears being killed, from 69.7% in 2017 to

87.3% in 2023. Though these trends may partly reflect changes in human attitudes toward black bears, there was also a significant policy shift in 2022 that is likely influencing recent patterns in depredation permit issuance and outcomes. CDFW’s Black bear Policy (CDFW 2024a) prioritizes nonlethal conflict mitigation measures before issuing permits for lethal take when possible. Permits for hazing black bears have been issued, although these are still classified as depredation permits.

Key predictors of HBC include the availability of both natural foods and anthropogenic foods, proximity of black bear habitat to humans, and black bear abundance and density (Garshelis et al. 2020a). CDFW does not support diversionary feeding practices, and modifying the availability of natural foods is generally infeasible because periods of scarcity are driven by uncontrollable weather events such as drought, wildfires, late spring frosts, etc. However, maintaining a diversity of habitat types through prescribed fire and other sylvicultural practices may be beneficial (Weaver 2000). 916
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 35 Hunting black bears at a rate high enough to reduce their growth rates and abundance across a large spatial scale can be effective for reducing HBC (Garshelis et al. 2020a). Spring hunting seasons in particular have been highlighted as potentially providing mechanisms to reduce HBC (Hristienko and McDonald 2007) and may have relatively minor effects on population dynamics given that spring harvest is generally very male-biased (Hristienko et al. 2004). Whether hunting would be an effective mechanism to reduce HBC in California remains unclear, however, given that harvest rates over the past decade have been very low (e.g., less than 3% annually of the statewide population) despite an increase in tag sales (CDFW 2024b). There is also substantial public opposition to increasing black bear harvest to a rate that would be effective in controlling populations (CDFW 2022b). It should be noted, however, that the framing and positioning of questions related to hunting (i.e., whether the question specifies that hunting is regulated and used for meat) may strongly affect public acceptance (Duda and Nobile 2010). Regardless, encouraging the public to minimize black bear access to human foods has been the primary tool used to manage HBC recently, in conjunction with non-lethal methods designed to temporarily remove animals from conflict situations (e.g., hazing), and targeted lethal removal of individuals involved in conflicts by CDFW or through the issuance of depredation permits. CDFW’s Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a) governs CDFW’s response to HBC.

Reducing black bear access to human food can be effective for reducing HBC (Johnson et al. 2018), but black bear resistant containers and associated infrastructure are often cost-prohibitive for individuals and municipalities alike (McCarthy and Seavoy 1994). Even when present, black bear resistant containers are often not used correctly (Lewis et al. 2015). Therefore, planning and coordination at local and state levels will be critical for reducing HBC linked to anthropogenic food sources. Research from North America suggests that availability of anthropogenic food sources may increase bear reproductive and recruitment rates, thereby contributing to increased bear population density on the wider landscape (McLean and Pelton 1990, Gould et al. 2021). Alternatively, there is also evidence that low survival rates in urban environments due to HBC outweigh any increases in fecundity and lead to an “ecological trap” in which wildland bears disperse into urban environments and reduce overall bear density through source-sink dynamics (Beckmann and Lackey 2008, BaruchMordo et al. 2014). This information suggests that reducing access to anthropogenic food sources may reduce both HBC and local black bear densities by reducing either recruitment or immigration rates. Reducing black bear access to anthropogenic food also supports human safety (Herrero et al. 2011). Food-conditioned black bears can be potentially dangerous to humans and domestic animals. The first-ever reported human fatality caused by a black bear in California occurred in 2023 in Downieville, Sierra County.

Black bears can have large home ranges and often travel long distances to locate seasonal food sources. Consequently, they frequently cross roads where they are susceptible to vehicle collisions.

An average of 111 black bears were reported killed on California roads annually during 2016-2020 (University of California 2021). While reporting rates of black bear-vehicle collisions are probably higher than they are for species that are more commonly killed on roads, such as birds and small mammals (Paul et al. 2014) and black bear carcasses are more likely to be detected by highway workers, it is unknown how these incidental reports compare to the true number of black bears 917
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 36 killed, which is likely higher, as there is no formal reporting structure to document black bear-vehicle collisions. In addition, age and sex information are generally not collected from road-killed black bears, which further limits the ability of these data for informing the impacts of vehicle collisions on black bear populations. CDFW’s Black Bear Program is looking into ways to opportunistically collect and include these data in its population monitoring framework. At a population-level scale, vehicle collisions have not been reported to be influential in population dynamics, but at local scales vehicle collisions can have pronounced effects (Brandenburg 1995, Laufenberg et al. 2018).

While further study of the impacts that vehicle collisions have on black bear populations may be warranted, black bear-vehicle collisions are a management concern nonetheless for several reasons. First, they pose a substantial safety risk to people. Between 4-10% of vehicle collisions with large mammals result in human injury (US Department of Transportation 2008). Second, they are financially costly. The average cost of a collision with a deer, including vehicle repair, medical bills, towing and law enforcement, monetary value of the animal and carcass disposal is estimated at $6,700 (US Department of Transportation 2008). Finally, black bear-vehicle collisions generate concern about animal welfare (see Section 5.4), particularly when cubs become orphaned or when animals experience prolonged suffering prior to death or severe injury without death.

3.10 CLIMATE CHANGE, WILDFIRE, DROUGHT, AND LAND USE
The global climate is changing at a faster pace than previously anticipated (Smith et al. 2015, Xu et al. 2018) and scientists expect cumulatively deleterious impacts to wildlife (Pimm et al. 2014, Ceballos et al. 2017, Spooner et al. 2018). In California, climate change is expected to 1) alter vegetation composition of wildlife habitats forcing species to either shift their geographical ranges or otherwise adapt, 2) increase wildfire extent and severity, 3) increase variation in precipitation leading to both extended droughts and periods of severe flooding, 4) create phenological mismatches between wildlife species and their habitat and foraging resources, and 5) exacerbate land use impacts and other anthropogenic stressors on biodiversity (Parmesan 2007, Mann and Gleick 2015, Williams et al. 2019, Huang and Swain 2022).

Wildfires and droughts can impact black bear habitat by altering vegetation structure and/or composition, which black bears rely on for cover, denning, and food. In the short-term following wildfires, black bears may continue to use all areas of a burn, even those burned with high severity (Crabb et al. 2022). Conversely, black bears may avoid burned areas until vegetation recovery occurs (Bard and Cain 2020), and reduced food availability may result in low cub recruitment (Cunningham and Ballard 2004). Either way, wildfires with substantial areas of high burn severity have not been found to be catastrophic for black bears (Crabb et al. 2022, Koel et al. 2019). In the long term, low intensity wildfires generally have positive effects and mosaics of burn ages and intensities produce diverse habitat conditions that provide black bears with necessary cover and forage resources (Young and Beecham 1986, Stratman and Pelton 2007, Crabb et al. 2022).

In particular, low severity fire can diversify food resources for omnivorous mammals such as black bears and thereby possibly mitigate HBC (Weaver 2000, Crabb et al. 2022). These fires can also create 918
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 37 logs and other structural features for denning while maintaining forest cover. Overall, research from California shows that low severity burning at an average annual rate of 2% across forested landscapes benefits black bears and other species (Furnas et al. 2022). The current rate of low severity fire is much lower than this threshold, and it is also lower compared to the mixed severity fire regime that shaped the structure and heterogeneity of California forest over millennia prior to climate change, fire suppression, and other anthropogenic impacts (Taylor and Skinner 2003, Millar et al. 2007).

Nonetheless, even in an era of increasing megafires, there is still more low severity than high severity fire in California forests (Fig. 6). As demonstrated by California Native American Tribes and others, prescribed burning can be an effective management tool and surrogate for naturally occurring wildfire that benefits black bears and other wildlife (Connor et al. 2022, Furnas et al. 2022).

Figure 6. Low and high burn severity amounts in California through time based on analysis of the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity database (methods described in Eidenshink et al. 2007) from 1984-2019. Wildfire severity is displayed as both acres burned per year and the percent of California’s total land area burned.

Climate change in conjunction with the availability of human food sources is expected to reduce the average duration of bear hibernation thereby extending the active bear season and potentially exacerbating HBC in some places (Johnson et al. 2017). In systems with little human development, natural food shortages, often associated with droughts, may cause declines in reproduction (Rogers 1976, Elowe and Dodge 1989) but generally do not impact adult survival (Kasbohm et al. 1996, Clark et al. 2005). In these circumstances, food shortages have limited effects on black bear populations (Laufenberg et al. 2018). In developed areas however, natural food shortages may induce black bears to shift their foraging to human foods, increasing their exposure to human-caused mortality (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2014, Laufenberg et al. 2018). For one black bear population near Durango, Colorado, a natural food shortage was associated with the most severe black bear population 919
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 38 decline ever documented over a 1-year period, which was suspected to be the result of much higherthan-normal human-caused mortality rates, primarily vehicle collisions (Laufenberg et al. 2018).

Although black bear populations are likely to be resilient to climate change due to their remarkable adaptability to changing environmental conditions (Garshelis et al. 2020b), they may face declines due to interactions between climate change and forest management-induced food shortages and anthropogenic pressures (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2014, Laufenberg et al. 2018, Rettler et al. 2021).

3.11 TRIBAL AUTHORITY AND PERSPECTIVES
Since time immemorial California has been home to a great diversity of Native American Tribes.

Although these Tribes vary considerably in terms of language and culture, they share a strong ecological, cultural, and spiritual connection to the land (Rawls 1984). This includes a long history of using fire and other tools to manage habitats for the plant and wildlife resources which supported Tribal peoples in California (Anderson 2005).

European settlement of California severely impacted Tribal populations, their cultures and livelihoods, and their tenure over the land (Rawls 1984, Starr 2005). Yet, approximately 180 distinct Tribes remain active in the state today. Many are providing leadership in wildlife science, conservation, and management (Matthews et al. 2008, Ramos 2022, Connor et al. 2022). This includes a Tribal management plan for black bears (Higley et al. 2006). Black bears are an especially important animal to many California Tribes to which many people ascribe kinship. For example, an annual ceremonial “bear dance” honoring this bond is still practiced by some Tribes. Based on comments provided at the listening sessions described below, the names for black bear in various California Tribal languages include Virusur, Cher’ere, Wah’ima, and Sa:ts’ among many others.

In Executive Order B-10-11 and reaffirmed in Executive Order N-15-19, the State of California recognizes the sovereign authority of California Tribes over their ancestral territories and activities.

Additional actions by the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) to integrate the historical knowledge of Tribes support efforts to further incorporate tribal perspectives in scientific and policy discussions. Further, it is the policy of CDFW to notify, consult, and promote collaboration and comanagement with Tribes on proposed activities affecting black bears and other wildlife species (CDFW 2014). In June 2022, CDFW notified all California Tribes of our intention to revise this black bear conservation and management plan and requested their input via consultation. After further notification, two online listening sessions were held with Tribes in May 2023. In total, CDFW received and heard comments, interests, and views pertaining to black bears from nine Tribes, which are summarized below (Table 1). The nine Tribes were the Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians, the Hoopa Tribe, the Karuk Tribe, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Pit River Tribe, the Quartz Valley Indian Community, the Resighini Rancheria, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, and the Yurok Tribe.
920
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 39 Table 1. Summary of black bear comments, interests, and views expressed by California Native American Tribes.

Comments were received during the Tribal review process from January – March 2024 and during two listening sessions held in May 2023. While this table includes summaries of comments received from California Native American Tribes that provided comments on this Plan, we acknowledge that it may not represent the full breadth of perspectives on black bear conservation and management held by all California Native American Tribes.

SUMMARY OF BLACK BEAR COMMENTS, INTERESTS, AND VIEWS EXPRESSED

BY CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES

1. California Native American Tribes are diverse, representing a variety of perspectives with respect to black bear conservation and management, however, overall black bears and humans are viewed as intrinsically connected spiritually, culturally, and ecologically.

2. Tribes expressed concerns about the ecological health of habitats supporting black bears and other species and provided recommendations for using prescribed fire to restore those habitats.

3. Tribes expressed concerns about the need for improved human infrastructure to enable successful non-lethal responses to human-black bear conflict (HBC). This included discussion of the affordability and availability of secure garbage containers.

4. Tribes noted the need for clarifying the applicability of Tribal ordinances to non-Tribal persons who hunt on Tribal lands.

5. Tribes noted a desire to streamline a process facilitating Tribes to recover black bears that are killed in collisions with vehicles. This included discussion that black bears are important culturally and spiritually to many California Native American Tribes.

6. There is a diversity of views among Tribes pertaining to the ethics of black bear hunting, but sport and subsistence hunting of black bears is not common among California Native American Tribes.

There is greater (but not widespread) support for killing black bears, in some circumstances, as part of management to mitigate HBC.

7. One Tribe expressed concern about bear hunting in southern California mountain ranges that overlap their ancestral territories. They requested that CDFW prohibit hunting in any areas where population density is low.

8. There is interest in combining CDFW wildlife research activities with Tribal youth environmental education programs.

9. There is also interest in increased collaboration and co-management regarding conservation and management of black bears and other wildlife species. This included discussion about the value of supporting, sustaining, and expanding the capacity of Tribal wildlife research and management departments, and developing agreements for data sharing. It also included discussion of interest in developing approaches for increasing opportunities for Tribal hunting and subsistence use of game species, but this interest was focused on species other than black bears.

10. One Tribe expressed concern about CDFW’s Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a), the Wildlife Incident Reporting system, and the integrated population model. It also requested that CDFW focus on educating communities on how to avoid conflict with black bears and to encourage biologists to be responsive to rural Californians.
921
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 40

3.12 RULEMAKING PROCESS
The California State Legislature has delegated a variety of powers to the Commission. These powers are delegated within California Statutes that comprise FGC). The FGC establishes the basis of fish, wildlife, and native plant management and protection in California, and can only be established and modified by the State Legislature. The FGC more specifically establishes the Commission’s authority in fish and wildlife rules, regulations, and policy making, whereas CDFW is designated as the trustee for fish and wildlife resources. CDFW is charged with implementing and enforcing regulations set forth by the Commission, as well as providing biological data and expertise to inform the Commission’s decision-making process. Under administrative law, the CCR codifies general and permanent rules and regulations to be enacted by the agency responsible for implementation. The Commission and CDFW work within CCR Title 14 - Natural Resources. Regulations routinely addressed under CCR Title 14 include general harvest regulations including harvest quota, season dates, and hunt zone boundaries. Management features can be adopted, amended, or repealed via the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) rulemaking process. The APA is a requirement by law that allows the public to participate in the adoption of state regulations to ensure that the regulations proposed are clear, necessary, and legally valid.

CDFW provides recommendations for adopting, amending, or repealing regulations based on inventory and monitoring of resources, as well as both biological and social conditions. To change hunting regulations for any species, an additional parallel document is required through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires all public agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of projects, including regulation changes which may have potential to significantly affect the environment. CDFW has prepared Environmental Documents for each harvested species, including black bear, on behalf of the Commission. This document serves as a guide for periodic harvest adjustment recommendations within the APA process.

The APA process for enacting new CCR Title 14 regulations generally requires a 12–18-month timeline composed of several public meetings (Table 2). The process generally begins with 2 initial discussion meetings at public meetings of the Wildlife Resources Committee (WRC) which is chaired by one member of the Commission. An initial scoping meeting of the WRC is typically held in May to discuss general rulemaking needs and is followed by a recommendation meeting of the WRC in September to approve or reject moving the rulemaking under consideration forward to present to the Commission. If a rulemaking is approved to move forward by the WRC, the proposed regulation change is presented to the Commission at a public notice hearing in December. A public comment period follows this meeting. In February, a public discussion hearing is held, where the details of the proposed changes are discussed by the Commission and the general public and comments are responded to by CDFW staff. Adoption hearings would then be held in April, where final recommendations are presented by CDFW staff – formed in part by public comments and inquiry and discussion with the Commission. The regulatory framework is a public process that provides multiple opportunities for the public to engage with the Commission and CDFW to manage our shared resources effectively. The Commission has final approval authority to adopt, amend, repeal, 922
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025 41 or reject proposals set forth by CDFW or the general public. If a new regulation is approved, CDFW is responsible for implementation. Generally, this occurs in the fall when hunting seasons open.

Table 2. Administrative process and general timeline for adopting California Code of Regulations Title 14 regulations affecting black bear hunting, conservation, and management.

ACTION GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TIMEFRAME
Initial scoping Wildlife Resources Committee May, year 1 Recommendation to proceed Wildlife Resources Committee September, year 1 Notice hearing Fish and Game Commission December, year 1 Public discussion Fish and Game Commission February, year 2 Adoption vote Fish and Game Commission April, year 2
Implementation California Department of Fish and Wildlife June-November, year 2 923
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 42 CHAPTER 4

POPULATION

MONITORING
924
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 43 CHAPTER 4. POPULATION MONITORING

4.1 BEAR CONSERVATION REGIONS
Due to California’s geographical size and ecological diversity, black bear populations throughout the state differ in terms of abundance, density, genetic diversity, disease susceptibility, and interactions with humans. Therefore, CDFW intends to monitor black bear populations separately within nine BCRs representative of these potential differences.

Black bear hunting generally runs concurrent with the deer hunting seasons, and the area open to black bear hunting is largely delineated by deer hunt zones. For these reasons CDFW is adopting BCRs conforming to groups of deer zones (Fig. 7). These BCRs also generally conform to different ecological regions and CDFW administrative regions.

Figure 7. Bear Conservation Regions (BCRs). Boundaries are based on the existing black bear hunt zone map, which in turn is based on existing deer hunt zone boundaries. BCRs were delineated based on California’s diverse biogeography and ecoregions. Both hunt and no-hunt BCRs are displayed, as well as deer hunt zone boundaries within which population trends would be monitored and harvest limits set. Solid patterns represent BCRs where hunting currently occurs, and dashed patterns represent BCRs where there is currently no hunting. 925
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 44 The 56,931-km2 North Coast BCR lies mostly in CDFW Region 1, overlaps the Northern California Coastal Ranges and Klamath Mountains ecoregions, and includes deer zones B1— B6, and portions of the A North Unit.

The 29,640-km2 Cascade BCR lies mostly in CDFW Region 1, overlaps the Southern Cascades ecoregion, and includes deer zones C1—C4, X1, X4, and portions of X3a.

The 34,463-km2 Northern Sierra BCR lies mostly in CDFW Region 2, overlaps the Sierra Nevada ecoregion, and includes deer zones D3—D5, X7a, X7b, X8, and portions of X6a and X6b.

The 53,437-km2 Southern Sierra BCR lies mostly in CDFW Regions 4 and 6, overlaps the Sierra Nevada ecoregion, and includes deer zones D6—D9, X9a, X9b, X10, and X12.

The 32,046-km2 Transverse Ranges BCR lies mostly in CDFW Regions 5 and 6, overlaps the Transverse Ranges ecoregion, and includes deer zones D10, D11, D13, D14, and portions of D15, D17, and the A South Unit.

The 16,165-km2 Northeastern California BCR lies entirely in CDFW Region 1, overlaps the Modoc Plateau ecoregion, and includes deer zones X2, portions of X3a, X3b, portions of X4, X5a, X5b, and portions of X6a and X6b.

The 68,284-km2 Central Coast BCR lies mostly in CDFW Regions 3 and 4, overlaps the Central California Coast and Great Valley ecoregions, and includes portions of the A North Unit and A South Unit.

The 93,355-km2 Inland Deserts BCR lies mostly in CDFW Region 6, overlaps the Mojave Desert and Sonoran Desert ecoregions, and includes deer zones D12, D17, and X9c.

The 24,746-km2 South Coast BCR lies in CDFW Regions 5 and 6, overlaps the Southern California Coast and Southern California Mountains and Valleys ecoregions, and includes deer zones D16 and D19 and portions of D15.

Although CDFW intends to monitor black bear populations at the BCR scale, regulatory changes approved by the Commission would be required to modify the statewide annual harvest limit (e.g., currently 1,700 black bears) so that separate limits apply within each BCR. CDFW also plans to monitor black bear populations in unhunted areas to inform conservation and management in these areas and to understand any potential range expansion.
926
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 45

4.2 INTEGRATED POPULATION MODEL
Black bear age and sex structure (i.e., percent of black bears by each year of age for each sex, Fig. 8) is a key source of data that CDFW uses to monitor black bear populations in California. CDFW can use this information to evaluate the effects of hunting and other factors on the statewide black bear population. For over two decades, hunters have provided tooth samples from harvested black bears, a critical data source for CDFW’s Black Bear Program. CDFW sends these teeth to a laboratory that counts annual rings visible in each tooth to determine the age of each harvested bear. For many years, CDFW used these data in a mathematical model that estimated the total statewide black bear population size each year by comparing the age structures of males and females to the total number of harvested black bears (Fraser 1976). As males are more frequently harvested than females, there is a greater proportion of them in the younger age classes of harvested bears. This effect dissipates with older bears, so the sex ratio approaches 1:1 at a given age (Fig. 8). The age at which this occurs was then used as a parameter for estimating the total population size. However, a key accuracy assumption of the model was violated when hunter effort and success changed in 2013, when the use of dogs to hunt black bears was discontinued (Harris and Metzgar 1987, CDFW 2022b).

Figure 8. An example of age and sex structure data for black bears in California. Hunters provide a premolar tooth from each harvested bear (n~1,300 each year) from which the age can be estimated by a laboratory by counting cementum annuli. Males (boars) generally comprise the majority (~60%) of annual take.

Integrated population models (IPMs) are powerful tools to efficiently combine different types of available information (e.g., population surveys, age and sex structure, survival, and reproductive rates) to better monitor population sizes and trends and understand the drivers of trends (Arnold et al. 2018, Zipkin and Saunders 2018). Recent advances in computing speed and Bayesian algorithms to solve complex problems have led to the increased application of IPMs and other types of advanced hierarchical models in wildlife ecology (Schaub and Kery 2012, Kery and Royle 2021). In 927
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 46 particular, Bayesian models facilitate incorporating multiple sources of data including through the use of “informative priors”. Put in other words, final estimates combine inferences from the data being modeled and prior information from other studies. In 2022, CDFW began the process of adapting a black bear IPM originally developed in Wisconsin for use in California (Allen et al. 2018a). The new IPM for California black bears combines the age and sex structure information from tooth sampling with additional information on vital rates (e.g., reproduction and survival) and other factors (e.g., non-reporting rate for hunter harvest) (Connor et al. in review). For the time being, most of the information included in the IPM on vital rates comes from published studies throughout North America. It includes some California information on hunting season adult survival which is expected to be higher in California than in Wisconsin where the IPM was first applied. The California black bear IPM also includes local information on the harvest non-reporting rate based on available data for deer. CDFW does not currently have the non-reporting rate for black bears but will be prioritizing the collection of those data. In the meantime, CDFW is using the deer non-reporting rate due to the substantial overlap between California’s deer and black bear hunters.

CDFW also used information from local black bear density studies and species distribution modeling from camera traps to calculate informative priors on the initial value of black bear population size in each BCR (Fig. 9, Fig. 10). The IPM then applies an algorithm called Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to compute statistical probabilities which it uses to estimate the most likely final values (i.e., posterior distributions) of the population sizes and other model parameters, given the totality of information considered in the model. To get these priors, CDFW used a special type of occupancy model (Royle and Nichols 2003) to estimate how relative abundance varies spatially with covariates (e.g., elevation and forest cover) across the state at thousands of camera trap locations. CDFW then calibrated the camera modeling against black bear densities independently estimated from 11 local studies that used various methods ranging from counts of GPS collared bears to spatial capture-recapture modeling (Arias 2007, Matthews et al. 2008, Fusaro et al. 2017, Owen-Ramos et al. 2022, Peterson 2023, CDFW unpublished data).
928
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 47 Figure 9. A flowchart showing the components and framework of the integrated population model (IPM). Solid lines indicate direct inputs or outputs. Dashed lines indicate modifying or scaling effects. RN refers to the RoyleNichols occupancy models that are used to predict black bear abundance using camera trap data. IPM refers to the integrated population model which estimates black bear population size and structure. This flowchart depicts the current IPM structure and outputs, but these aspects will be iteratively refined and improved by CDFW’s Black Bear Program.

Using the IPM with currently available data, CDFW estimates a total statewide black bear population (5-year average, 2020–2024) of 59,851 (90% credible interval (CI): 49,412–70,611, Table 3). It is expected that the accuracy and precision of population estimates will improve further as CDFW begins to regularly collect local information on vital rates. In addition, CDFW will be able to better understand the drivers of population dynamics and interactions between black bears and ecological variables as additional data are collected. Nevertheless, CDFW considers the current estimate reliable because it is based on multiple sources of information and a modeling framework that has been shown to be robust to inaccuracies about vital rates (Allen et al. 2018a). 929
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 48 Table 3. Average estimated black bear population sizes in nine Bear Conservation Regions (BCRs) across California between 2020-2024. Hunter harvest numbers and estimated harvest rates are also presented for hunt BCRs. 90% CI refers to the 90% credible interval.

BEAR CONSERVATION REGION POPULATION ESTIMATE
(90% CI)

AVERAGE
ANNUAL

HARVEST

AVERAGE ANNUAL

HARVEST RATE
HUNT
North Coast
Cascade
Northern Sierra
Southern Sierra
Transverse Ranges
22,555 (16,845–28,196)
13,147 (9,735–16,524)
10,076 (7,592–12,657)
7,860 (6,032–9,649)
1,645 (1,142–2,143)
442
189
265
268
55 1.6%–2.6%

1.1%–1.9%

2.1%–3.5%

2.8%–4.4%

2.6%–4.8%
NO-HUNT*
Northeastern California
Central Coast
Inland Deserts
South Coast
2,225 (1,223–3,192)
1,631 (1,076–2,184)
230 (122–337)
481 (291–666)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Statewide 59,851 (49,412–70,611) 1,219 1.7%–2.5%
*Population estimates in no-hunt BCRs are currently based on spatial predictions from the camera trap-based Royle-Nichols occupancy model (Royle and Nichols 2003) scaled to results from an age-at-harvest-based integrated population model. Thus, estimates in no-hunt BCRs should be interpreted cautiously.

The IPM also provides strong preliminary evidence that black bear populations have been stable in California over the past decade (Fig. 10). One caveat is that the current modeling approach allows CDFW to extrapolate black bear population size in the no-hunt BCRs using occupancy modeling of camera trap surveys, but the lack of age distribution data outside of hunted regions currently precludes evaluation of population trend in the no-hunt BCRs. This issue could be rectified through the analysis of additional camera trap data and expansion of the age distribution and vital rates monitoring from areas where no hunting currently occurs. 930
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 49 Figure 10. Preliminary estimated population trends in all California Bear Conservation Regions where hunting occurs based on the integrated population model (IPM) each year from 2014-2024. Trends will become more accurate and precise as additional vital rates data are collected from the field and integrated into the IPM.

In addition, CDFW fit a second statewide IPM to age-at-harvest data dating back to 1990 to evaluate evidence of longer-term population trends. Because spatial information on harvest was not available before 2013, the data needed were grouped and the model was fit statewide. Additionally, because there were minimal supplementary data and studies to inform population size in 1990, a broad, uninformative prior between 0 and 100,000 was used for initial population size. There was large uncertainty and limited chain convergence in the population size estimates in the early years of the IPM, and no statistically significant evidence of any trend (negative or positive) in black bear population size over the study period. There was also no evidence of a detectable temporal trend in the percent females harvested and median age of harvested females, the raw harvest metrics previously used as management thresholds. That said, given the relatively low proportion of black bears harvested in California and limited amount of supplemental data and studies before 2013, this estimate of population trend since 1990 should be interpreted with caution.

Regarding the population estimate and associated 90% CI, it is important to note that the population estimate (a point estimate) is a single value that represents a single best estimate of the average 931
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 50 population size over the last five years based on the current data and model. However, because full censuses of wildlife populations are generally infeasible and statistical models that estimate their total size from samples always contain some level of uncertainty, the point estimate is accompanied by a 90% credible interval. This interval represents a range within which the true population size is likely to fall, given the current data and assumptions, with a 90% probability. Essentially, while the point estimate is our best single estimate, the credible interval reflects the relative uncertainty around that estimate and the range within which the actual population size is likely to fall. It is also important to understand that these estimates population size and the associated 90% credible interval are just that – estimates – and as new data, such as vital rates information, additional harvest data, and the effects of environmental variables, are incorporated into the IPM, both the point estimate and the credible interval are likely to shift. This is an expected outcome of CDFW’s iteratively improving understanding of black bear populations over time. Changes in estimates or trends should not be a cause for alarm but rather a reflection of the dynamic nature of black bears populations and the increasing precision of the science used to study them. CDFW’s focus is on continually refining these estimates to better inform and guide black bear conservation and management into the future.

Based on the age distributions and other sources of data included in the IPM, the model is estimating a hunting season survival rate that is higher and more precise than the prior information CDFW included in the modeling (Fig. 11). The updated posterior estimate makes sense considering that there is less hunting pressure in California than in other regions of North America. The current modeling approach, however, highlights the need for designated local study areas throughout California to monitor black bear vital rates and other information, to complement the age and sex structure data used in the IPM. The locations of these study areas should be chosen to represent the range of black bear habitats across California and within BCRs. Vital rates (metrics of population dynamics such as mortality and recruitment per unit time, Kohyama et al. 2018) within study areas could be monitored through a combination of GPS telemetry collars, den checks, camera grids, hair snares, fecal DNA, and other methods. Vital rates could also be estimated outside of these study areas using the thousands of camera traps surveyed in California each year, through analyzing how the number of cubs per adult female photographed changes each month. Additionally, CDFW intends to explore options for gathering information about pregnancy status inferred from the same tooth samples used to estimate ages of harvested bears. Thinner tooth cementum annuli rings are often a signal of pregnancy in female bears, but methodological uncertainties will need to be formally addressed if the data are included in the IPM (Allen et al. 2017). 932
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 51 Figure 11. Prior and posterior distributions of five black bear vital rate parameters from the integrated polulation model (IPM) across the five Bear Conservation Regions (BCRs) where hunting occurs. The survival rate values come from the second year of the model run (2014), while the fecundity parameters do not vary annually in the model.

Posteriors for the different BCRs are depicted in different colors with transparency for ease of visualizing overlapping distributions. As additional vital rates data are collected from the field and integrated into the IPM, the estimates will become both more accurate and precise.

Another source of potential bias in the IPM is that the age structure data are based on the ages of harvested black bears. While the age structure of harvested bears may not be fully representative of the age structure in the total population, the IPM can account for different harvest rates faced by different sex and age classes by estimating age, sex, and year-specific hunting season survival rates (Allen et al. 2018a). Following the recommendations of Allen et al. (2018b), CDFW made additional adjustments to priors included in the IPM to offset the effects of expected age distribution bias in the black bear harvest. Additionally, CDFW aims to develop independent methods to sample the ages of non-harvested black bears. CDFW intends to compare the age distributions of harvested and nonharvested black bears, and use this comparison to adjust the IPM, if necessary (e.g., double sampling, Cochran 1977). CDFW expects that this adjustment would require a substantially smaller sample of non-hunted black bears with respect to the large amount of age data provided by hunters. 933
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 4 52 Spatial capture-recapture (SCR) modeling using field collection of genetic samples is a powerful method for robustly estimating bear abundance (Royle et al. 2013). CDFW does not need to rely on this method for black bears as much as for other species such as deer (Furnas et al. 2018), because of the age distribution data available for both sexes used in the IPM. CDFW did use SCR from local genetic studies (e.g., Owen-Ramos et al. 2022) for providing prior information on bear densities used in the IPM. To improve precision and accuracy of the IPM, CDFW plans to periodically conduct additional genetic surveys among the designated local study areas for updating local densities used as priors in the IPM.

CDFW intends to develop a Black Bear Monitoring Plan for California following completion of this Plan. It will provide greater detail on the data inputs and structure of the IPM, and protocols, timelines, and logistics for collecting all the necessary data statewide and within local study areas.

This will be crucial to make sure appropriate data are being collected for use in the IPM.

4.3 OTHER POPULATION INDICATORS AND HARVEST METRICS
Monitoring how black bear population size varies by BCR and year (i.e., using the IPM) is the primary scientific information CDFW needs to conserve the species throughout the state and ensure regulated hunting is sustainable. Vital rates (e.g., recruitment and survival) are key inputs into the IPM which will also provide CDFW with the ability to better understand the potential causes of any population trend. Some of the methods to estimate vital rates will involve deploying GPS collars on adult black bears, using GPS data to locate and monitor dens, and using camera traps to estimate litter size and cub recruitment.

In combination with population and vital rates estimates, CDFW intends to use other metrics to inform its adaptive management of black bears as described in Chapter 6. These metrics include those CDFW previously used in the absence of robust population estimates: 1) the average (or median) age of female bears ascertained from the same age distribution data used in IPM, and 2) the percentage of harvested bears that are females ascertained from harvest success reporting required of hunters (CDFG 1998). When possible, CDFW staff will confirm reported bear sex when handling bears to extract teeth. This approach of using harvest-based metrics to guide sustainable levels of hunter harvest has been used by many other state wildlife agencies throughout North America (IDFG 1999, WGFD 2007, NYDEC 2014, Allen et al. 2018a, Allen et al. 2018b).

CDFW maintains a database of harvest statistics of annual black bear tags sold and the mandatory reporting information on harvest locations and dates. Besides using this information to inform population monitoring, the information is used to assess factors affecting hunter success at the BCR scale.
934
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 53 CHAPTER 5

OTHER DATA FOR

INFORMING CONSERVATION

AND MANAGEMENT
935
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 5 54 CHAPTER 5. OTHER DATA FOR INFORMING CONSERVATION

AND MANAGEMENT

5.1 GENETIC DIVERSITY
Brown et al. (2009) found that genetic diversity among California black bears is substantial and similar to that of other states (Brown et al. 2009, Clarke et al. 2001, Paetkau et al. 1998, Paetkau and Strobek 1994). However, given the age of this study, these estimates require an update. CDFW is currently collaborating with the University of California, Santa Cruz to conduct a statewide genomic study (the California Conservation Genomics Project) to assess genetic diversity, population structure, and adaptive differentiation of black bears. This study will serve as a baseline assessment that can be used to evaluate genetic diversity in subsequent years. Given the substantial genetic diversity, minimal population structure, and high connectivity among California black bears, there are currently few conservation concerns regarding genetics. Given the time lag between when a population may experience anthropogenically induced reductions in size and/or connectivity versus when the genetic effects of such events become detectable, statewide efforts to re-estimate genetic diversity should occur every 10-20 years. On that schedule, CDFW scientists should estimate standardized measures of genetic diversity (e.g., heterozygosity, allelic richness, etc.), as well as re-evaluate genetic population structure. Both can provide insights regarding whether anthropogenic activities have significantly fragmented available habitat or reduced population size. To facilitate these updates, CDFW will continue to build and maintain a DNA archive for black bears throughout the state.

5.2 MOVEMENT ECOLOGY AND CONNECTIVITY
California Assembly Bill 2344 (Safe Roads and Wildlife Protection Act) was enacted in 2022 and provides new authority and funding to support the evaluation of wildlife connectivity across roads, and other barriers, to benefit wildlife populations and reduce vehicle collisions. In part in response to these priorities, CDFW will develop a Black Bear Monitoring Plan for California to guide how to most efficiently deploy GPS collars on black bears to better understand their spatial ecology and vulnerability to vehicle collisions. For example, autocorrelated kernel density estimators can be used to estimate bear home range sizes and understand factors associated with differences in those ranges (Fleming et al. 2015), and GPS collar data will also allow for detailed analyses of black bear movement and habitat selection through methods such as Brownian bridge movement models and integrated step selection functions (Koehler and Pierce 2003, Thurfjell et al. 2014). Results from these analyses will allow for better predictions of where black bears cross roads and where vehicle strikes are most prevalent , which will help inform mitigation efforts like the installation of wildlife road crossings (Zeller et al. 2020).

A secondary purpose of the GPS collars will be to estimate survival rates, and how they change over space and time. As noted in Section 4.2, vital rates are a key source of information included in the IPM to monitor black bear populations.
936
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 5 55 Additionally, in 2022, CDFW initiated a project to document the space use of black bears involved in HBC and cubs released from rehabilitation facilities. Over the next 3-5 years, fine-scale habitat use data (i.e., 12-24 fixes per day) will be collected from up to 250 black bears fitted with GPS collars.

Collars fitted to adults will be scheduled for automatic drop-off for 2 years and collars fitted to yearlings or small juveniles will last for 9 months to accommodate increase in body size. This data can be used to inform habitat selection in relation to environmental factors (e.g., forest cover, riparian areas, fires, droughts, etc.), improve understanding of black bear road crossings, and evaluate the ability of non-lethal management tools for altering conflict behavior.

CDFW and other researchers are increasingly placing cameras at wildlife crossings below or above roads to document and evaluate the effectiveness of these structures for facilitating wildlife connectivity (Ng et al. 2004, Caldwell and Klip 2020). Cameras in these settings provide information on the species using connectors, the times of day they are more likely to use these structures, and interactions among species, for instance whether prey species such as deer are at greater risk of ambush by predators such as mountain lions. These data could help inform an expanded assessment of the importance of underpasses and overpasses to reduce vehicle collisions with black bears and the degree to which black bears alter the behavior of other species using these structures.

Roadkill data is also relevant to mitigating traffic collisions and other aspects of wildlife conservation and management (Schwartz et al. 2020). The California Department of Transportation maintains a wildlife roadkill database including species, date, road number, and mile marker location. Further, the UC Davis Road Ecology Center compiles some of these data and other sources of citizen science wildlife roadkill observations in another database (Shilling and Waetjen 2015).

5.3 DISEASE
Collecting biologic samples and associated metadata (age, sex, date, location, etc.), whether for archive or immediate analysis, is important to inform managers about the health, disease status, and HBC involvement of individual animals within the context of populations. If sample collections are from a large and diverse enough subset of one or more populations, results either from a point in time or, better yet, across time can collectively provide significant information on health and disease status of populations. Trends in results could indicate changes in population health. CDFW and its partners maintain multiple tissue sample archives including serum, whole blood, hair, formalinfixed paraffin embedded tissues, and various fresh tissues collected from black bear mortality investigations, management actions, and hunter harvests. CDFW will continue to collect and archive these samples so they will be available for future use. The value of maintaining this archive is that if a health or disease related issue does emerge, samples are available that could be used to assess over space and time, giving managers a better understanding of any potential impacts.

5.4 ANIMAL WELFARE
One of the primary animal welfare concerns of CDFW is the disposition of orphaned black bear cubs. Up to 30 cubs are assessed for care annually by CDFW veterinarians for placement in one of four permitted rehabilitation facilities in the state. Monitoring of these bears following release from 937
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 5 56 rehabilitation facilities with GPS collars began in 2022. Information on short-term (i.e., 9-month) survival, causes of mortality, and conflict behavior of the animals will be compared to that of wild bears to evaluate and/or improve practices for management of orphaned cubs.

5.5 HUMAN INTERACTIONS WITH BLACK BEARS
CDFW intends to continue to maintain and use its WIR database to monitor HBC trends. The public can submit reports online directly to the WIR, or a CDFW staff member can enter a report on the public’s behalf. The report consists of the date the incident occurred, the species of wildlife involved, the address of the property, the approximate GPS coordinates, and a brief description of the incident.

CDFW’s Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a) defines different types (categories) of bear incidents requiring a response:
1) Conflict bear: A catch-all term for any bear that requires response due to its behavior or situation, including animal welfare bears, habituated bears, and “no harm/no foul” bears which may require assistance returning to nearby habitat. 2) Depredation bear: A bear that is threatening to, damaging, or destroying property for which a revocable depredation permit has been requested and can be issued in accordance with FGC.
3) Public safety bear: A bear demonstrating aggressive action that has resulted in physical contact with a human; or a bear exhibiting an immediate threat to public health and safety.

Once a WIR report has been submitted, it is reviewed by a CDFW staff member. If the incident warrants further investigation or action, the staff member will follow up with the reporting party and often performs a site visit to inspect the situation firsthand. For black bears, this may involve providing information on conflict avoidance and mitigation techniques and coexistence. If the incident is a depredation concern, the depredation permit process may be initiated per the steps in the Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a).

Human dimensions studies on the quality of human interactions with wildlife including black bears focus on both the general public, particularly those living in black bear habitat, and California’s black bear hunters. Specifically, understanding the factors influencing effective implementation by the public of preventative measures to reduce HBC will be important for effective conservation (BaruchMordo et al. 2011). Further research on how the California public values black bears will be necessary to better estimate and manage social tolerance levels for the species in different settings and help set conservation goals accordingly (Vaske et al. 2022, Delie et al. 2023). Additionally, understanding the experiences of California’s black bear hunters will be useful for predicting hunter effort, interest in black bear hunting, and evaluating the role of hunter harvest in black bear conservation and management. Such work can help identify the behavior of hunters and the barriers and limitations that hunters face. Hunter satisfaction surveys are the easiest surveys for CDFW to perform because CDFW has the contact information of hunters purchasing a black bear tag or hunting license. For 938
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 5 57 most surveys of the general public, CDFW would need to purchase a survey panel or sample to have a scientifically robust sample. CDFW aims to continue to conduct such surveys of hunters as part of its outreach efforts.

There is a wealth of other social science studies on human and black bear interactions. These studies transcend disciplines and include, but are not limited to, research on the sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, communication, and political science aspects of human and bear interactions. A full review of this literature is beyond the scope of this Plan. Because this research encompasses so many disciplines and requires disparate expertise in so many fields, it is important for CDFW’s Black Bear Program to partner and collaborate with other research institutions. An example of this was a recent collaboration with data science interns at the University of San Francisco to extract and analyze social media posts about black bears from X (formerly known as Twitter) throughout California during 2010-2022. A preliminary analysis of emotional sentiment using data science methods suggests that the predominant sentiments towards black bears were ambivalence (38%), fear (24%), and joy (19%) and that there were seasonal shifts in the relative frequency of these sentiments (Fig. 12, Ai 2023). These projects can serve as templates for future collaborations between CDFW and other researchers to continue to study human and black bear interactions.

Figure 12. Analysis of emotional sentiments expressed within black bear social media posts from California from 2010-2022. Data science methods were applied to remove non-wildlife related tweets (e.g., Black Bear Diner) and to infer emotional content of phrases and sentences. Results suggest negative sentiments peaked during summer when human wildlife conflict incidents are more prevalent (Ai 2023). 939
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 58 CHAPTER 6

ADAPTIVE

MANAGEMENT
940
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 6 59 CHAPTER 6. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

6.1 CONSERVING AND MANAGING ECOLOGICALLY FUNCTIONAL BLACK BEAR POPULATIONS

AND THEIR HABITATS
An ability to estimate and monitor bear population abundances statewide and regionally constitutes the foundation of CDFW’s approach to meeting its conservation management goals for black bears.

CDFW intends to apply population information within an adaptive management framework for guiding, supporting, and communicating decisions affecting hunting, HBC, and other conservation and management actions for black bears (Walters 1986, Fig. 13). This adaptive approach will provide CDFW with the flexibility to adjust its approach to black bear conservation and management based on the most up-to-date data and evidence.

As detailed in Chapter 4, CDFW plans to monitor black bear population totals and their trends within each BCR. Consistent with the goal to maintain ecologically functional black bear populations, if there is a conservation or management concern about population performance, CDFW plans to use the IPM to follow up with an evaluation of vital rates, associations with specific stressors (e.g., harvest, habitat, climate, food availability, fire, etc.), and related conservation metrics (e.g., genetic diversity, disease). If concern remains, CDFW would attempt to apply the IPM to simulate expected future conditions and provide a population viability analysis to help quantify the conservation risk (Penman et al. 2022). Moreover, in addition to using data from GPS collared black bears to monitor vital rates, CDFW is also looking into ways to collect and interpret data from unmarked bears (e.g., mortalities caused by poaching, vehicle collisions, or poisoning) to augment its population monitoring approach. CDFW would rely on findings from these analyses and assessments to inform any recommendations to the Commission about regulatory changes including (but not limited to) hunting quotas, methods, and seasons. CDFW would also use its findings to inform other potential conservation and management responses, including initiating new research and collaborating with external partners (federal and state agencies, tribes, non-government organizations, private landowners) on developing conservation approaches which could include forest and fire management strategies for improving black bear habitat.

As discussed in Section 3.1, there is a goal to maintain ecologically functional black bear populations, which are often abundant and common. This may pose conservation and management challenges, however, because areas where black bears are abundant and common can experience high rates of HBC, adversely impacts to other wildlife species and high incidence of disease (see Chapter 3 and Appendix 1 for greater detail). If there is a concern about black bear overpopulation within a BCR and associated impacts on humans or other wildlife species, CDFW would use its population monitoring approach and adaptive management framework to assess how overabundance contributes to the given concern as it pertains to its conservation and management goals for black bears. CDFW would then evaluate and appropriately implement management actions for addressing the concern. These actions include the application of educational and public outreach approaches included in CDFW’s Black Bear Policy (CDFW 2024a) and working with local municipalities and other groups to provide expanded access to secure waste disposal and other infrastructure that reduces the availability of 941
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 6 60 anthropogenic food sources to black bears (Johnson et al. 2018). CDFW plans to use its IPM-based population monitoring approach to evaluate whether reduced levels of HBC lead to reductions in recruitment and population size. Specifically, CDFW aims to coordinate vital rates monitoring among groups of black bears representative of different levels of HBC and utilization of anthropogenic food and shelter resources. This will help CDFW assess whether reducing attractant-based HBC leads to either lower regional population size via reduced recruitment or lower local density via reduced immigration. CDFW will continue to evaluate the application of non-lethal strategies for managing the potential effects of black bear predation on ungulates and other species of management or conservation concern. For example, outside of California relocation of black bears off elk (Cervus elaphus) calving grounds has been used to improve calf recruitment (Yarkovich et al. 2011).

As black bears have recently expanded their range in some areas of California (Section 3.2), effecting a potential for increased hunting opportunity and increased HBC, CDFW is prioritizing analysis of occurrence (e.g., cameras) and movement (e.g., GPS collars) monitoring in these areas. If necessary, CDFW will adjust boundaries or create additional BCRs to reflect the changing distribution of black bear populations.

Figure 13. Adaptive management framework for using population data, and other information, to inform black bear conservation and management in California. The framework differentiates between information and action, the former of which provide essential information and data to execute the former using an evidence-based approach and the best available science.
942
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 6 61

6.2 CONSERVING AND MANAGING GENETICALLY DIVERSE BLACK BEAR POPULATIONS By monitoring and reassessing black bear genetic diversity every 10 to 20 years (Section 5.1), CDFW will be able to determine if anthropogenic activities have significantly fragmented habitat and limited gene flow. Should such situations occur, CDFW plans to use other existing and future data sources (e.g., from GPS collared individuals, road-kill surveys, etc.) to identify locations where mitigation projects to improve connectivity (e.g., highway crossing structures, habitat corridor protection and enhancement) could occur.

6.3 CONSERVING AND MANAGING DISEASE-RESILIENT BLACK BEAR POPULATIONS Black bear populations currently appear to be stable and disease-resilient in California. CDFW will continue to opportunistically surveil black bears for emerging health or disease concerns through mortality investigations and routine sample collections from management actions or conflict black bears. In particular, CDFW aims to research idiopathic encephalitis in black bears, which can substantially alter black bear behavior and has been suggested to exacerbate HBC (Sinnott et al. 2022).

6.4 PROVIDING BLACK BEAR HUNTING OPPORTUNITIES
FGC section 1801, CDFW aims to analyze and assess black bear population data, and other sources of information including data on hunter opportunity and success, to inform any recommendations to the Commission about changes to hunting regulations (e.g., tag limits, seasons, methods of take).

CDFW’s primary analytical tool for determining sustainable harvest levels would be the IPM combined with simulation of the future population trajectory under different harvest scenarios.

As CDFW will be monitoring black bear populations at the BCR scale, it makes sense to manage hunting levels, seasons, and methods of take at this scale. Regulatory changes (CCR Title 14) would be required for this to be possible. This is because current regulations set a 1,700 black bear annual harvest limit at the state level.

CDFW intends to continue to promote hunter ethics through hunter education activities.

6.5 MANAGING HUMAN-BLACK BEAR CONFLICT AND CONSIDERATION OF ANIMAL WELFARE Although concerns about HBC and conserving ecologically functional populations are linked (see Section 6.1), management of HBC is a broader issue that is largely addressed in a separate policy (CDFW 2024a).

This policy places a high priority on animal welfare. Specifically, the policy prioritizes use of nonlethal, corrective actions (e.g., eliminating attractants and adding bear-proofing structures) before authorizing depredation permits for killing conflict bears. The annual number of black bears taken under depredation permits has decreased since 2017 and averages around 60 bears per year.

These losses amount to less than 0.1% of the state population and are unlikely to have detectable population level impacts. Additionally, CDFW will continue to coordinate with rehabilitation 943
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 6 62 facilities around the state to ensure humane and effective veterinary care for black bears recovered during wildfires and other circumstances. Further, CDFW veterinarians will continue to lead review of capture plans required for research investigations that include the capture and temporary immobilization of black bears to place GPS collars or for other purposes. These capture plans safeguard animal welfare by specifying methods of capture, proper use of immobilization drugs, and monitoring of the physical and psychological health of captured animals.

CDFW intends to continue to consider animal welfare in its planning activities and regulatory change proposals affecting regulated hunting. Besides conserving ecologically functional, genetically diverse, and disease-resilient black bear populations, and consistent with efforts to promote hunter ethics (see section 6.4), CDFW will consider the effects of hunting seasons and methods of take on animal welfare.

6.6 COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH ABOUT BLACK BEARS
CDFW plans to produce an annual report on the status of California black bear populations at the BCR scale which it will post on its website by September 15th each year. The report will include estimates and trends for population sizes, vital rates, and harvest statistics. The report will discuss emerging conservation or management issues and identify areas requiring new, focused research to further investigate those issues.

Additionally, the CDFW Statewide Black Bear Coordinator regularly leads meetings of Black Bear Working Groups (i.e., CDFW regional biologists and subject area experts) to discuss black bear conservation and management issues and implementation of this Plan.

6.7 CO-MANAGEMENT OF BLACK BEARS WITH TRIBES AND OTHER PARTNERS Consistent with policy (CDFW 2014), CDFW intends to continue to notify and consult with Tribes regarding any regulatory change proposals involving black bears. CDFW also plans to prioritize comanagement opportunities with Tribes including actions that address comments summarized in Table 1. Other potential opportunities include potential funding to help support and sustain Tribal wildlife conservation and research programs and collaboration on population monitoring of black bears.

CDFW will actively seek opportunities to partner with Tribes, federal and state agencies, hunter and animal welfare interest groups, and others to collaborate on 1) research studies, 2) habitat improvement activities (e.g., prescribed fire, forest management, food availability, movement connectivity, climate adaptation), and 3) human infrastructure programs (e.g., increasing access to secure waste disposal, electric fencing, and educational outreach about their proper use) that are likely to benefit stable black bear populations and minimize HBC. 944
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 6 63

6.8 PERIODIC REVIEW AND UPDATING OF THE BLACK BEAR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR

CALIFORNIA
CDFW aims to review and update this Plan in its entirety every 10 years and update individual sections as necessary.
945
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 3 64 CHAPTER 7

RESEARCH, RESOURCES,

AND ORGANIZATIONAL

SUPPORT REQUIRED FOR PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION
946
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 7 65 CHAPTER 7. RESEARCH, RESOURCES, AND ORGANIZATIONAL

SUPPORT REQUIRED FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

7.1 DATA COLLECTION
This Plan provides a general summary of the types of data that will need to be collected for use in population modeling and other sorts of analyses to inform effective conservation and management of black bears in California. CDFW will also need to develop a Black Bear Monitoring Plan for California that details the logistics for sustaining collection of these data over time. Such a plan could take multiple years to develop; it would need to include specifics on the locations of the local study areas where recruitment and survival data would be collected and where genetic spatial capturerecapture surveys would occur for validating population estimates from the IPM. The logistical considerations would include equipment, samples sizes, the scheduling of surveys, and CDFW staff in Regions and Headquarters required to administer this work. CDFW would also need to identify suitable and sufficient sources of funding to cover the anticipated actions.

In the first few years of implementing new and expanded black bear population monitoring efforts, CDFW will need to prioritize research of new survey and analytical methods, especially for vital rates and the most efficient design of genetic spatial capture-recapture studies. Currently, CDFW relies on the use of the teeth from harvested bears as the primary source of information on age distribution.

However, the estimation of DNA methylation levels is an emerging and potentially promising alternative method that CDFW plans to investigate. Higher DNA methylation levels, which can be estimated from blood, hair, and tissue samples, are associated with older age in mammals (Nakamura et al. 2023).

7.2 DATA MANAGEMENT
Historically, CDFW and other wildlife agencies have placed greater emphasis on gathering wildlife survey data than on planning for management and analysis of that data once collected (DeWan and Zipkin 2010, Scotson et al. 2017). CDFW has made additional investments in data management and stewardship to manage and quality check these data in a timely manner.

Data storage and workflow management pipelines are also important considerations for ensuring data integrity, security, and ease of use (Brousil et al. 2023). CDFW continues to develop its data science capabilities through contracts to help manage its camera trap data (e.g., Wildlife Insights) and sound recorder surveys for birds and bats (e.g., UC Berkeley). CDFW will also need to investigate similar approaches for telemetry and genetic spatial capture-recapture data. The effectiveness of data sharing practices will also need to be considered (Urbano and Cagnacci 2021), especially since numerous entities outside of CDFW use camera traps and other survey methods (e.g., roadkill counts) that generate data that would likely be instrumental to big game species conservation and management in California. Pooling large data sets for improving statistical modeling will require the development of collaborative relationships that are ultimately formalized through data sharing agreements and memorandums of understanding. For example, it is very likely that the designated 947
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: CHAPTER 7 66 black bear study areas under this Plan will require collaboration with Tribes, other state and federal agencies, private landowners, and non-government organizations.

7.3 DATA ANALYSIS
Modern computing allows for more robust modeling and stronger scientific inferences by combining data from multiple sources and adjusting for uncertainties and biases in the sampling methods (Kery and Royle 2016). One of the challenges is that these analyses are often highly complex, requiring advanced statistical expertise. CDFW continues to make investments and is preparing staff to take advantage of new data science tools and computational methods as they develop in order to guide and advise on population modeling of big game species. Additional modeling support may be required to expedite analytical work for black bears and other big game species in a timely manner in response to conservation and management decisions that arise during the adaptive management process (Fig. 13).

Computing speed is often a constraint on the efficiency and effectiveness of solving complex statistical models that include spatial data or multiple sources of data (de Valpine et al. 2017, Turek et al. 2021). It may be necessary to work with university researchers to customize software for improving the efficiency, performance, and scalability of the IPM and spatial capture recapture models (e.g., Nimble package for R software). CDFW also may need to invest in additional computing power for use by staff running complex models.

7.4 COLLABORATION AND CO-MANAGEMENT
The CDFW Statewide Black Bear Coordinator leads collaboration and co-management activities, but support from various other functions are critical to success of these efforts. Co-management of habitat conditions through forest and fire management that require outreach to Tribes, and other state (e.g., CAL FIRE, California State Parks) and federal agencies (e.g., USFS, NPS) are best achieved in consideration with the needs of multiple wildlife and plant species. This highlights the importance of a broader, co-management approach within CDFW that is coordinated across species, habitats, and programs.

Photo: CDFW Ecoregional Biodiversity Monitoring Project, Northern Region. 948
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 67 Literature Cited
Ai, X. 2023. Bears in bytes: Utilizing NLP and ML for insights into human-bear interactions in California. Medium. < https://medium.com/@xinnnnn.ai/bears-in-bytes-1a09cf1fe914 > Accessed March 15, 2024.

Akçakaya, H.R., A. S. Rodrigues, D. A. Keith, E. J. Milner-Gulland, E. W. Sanderson, S. Hedges, D. P.

Mallon, M. K. Grace, B. Long, E. Meijaard, and P. J. Stephenson. 2020. Assessing ecological function in the context of species recovery. Conservation Biology, 34:561-571.

Alex, C. E., E. Fahsbender, E. Altan, R. Bildfell, P. Wolff, L. Jin, W. Black, K. Jackson, L. Woods, B. Munk, T. Tse, E. Delwart, and P. A. Pesavento. 2020. Viruses in unexplained encephalitis cases in American black bears (Ursus americanus). PLos ONE 15: e0244056.

Allen, M. L., B. Kohn, N. Roberts, S. Crimmins, and T. R. Van Deelen. 2017. Benefits and drawbacks of determining reproductive histories for black bears (Ursus americanus) from cementum annuli techniques. Canadian Journal of Zoology 95:991–995.

Allen, M. L., A. S. Norton, G. Stauffer, N. M. Roberts, Y. Luo, Q. Li, D. MacFarland, and T. R. Van Deelen. 2018a. A Bayesian state-space model using age-at-harvest data for estimating the population of black bears (Ursus americanus) in Wisconsin. Scientific Reports 8:12440.

Allen, M. L., N. M. Roberts, and T. R. Van Deelen. 2018b. Age-at-harvest models as monitoring and harvest management tools for Wisconsin carnivores. Final Report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, WI W-160-R. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.06417.

Allen, M. L., L. M. Elbroch, and H. U. Wittmer. 2021. Can’t bear the competition: energetic losses from kleptoparasitism by a dominant scavenger may alter behaviors of an apex predator. Basic and Applied Ecology 51:1–10.

Anderson, M. K. 2005. Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and management of California’s natural resources. University of California Press.

Arias, C. N. 2007. Estimating black bear population size and identification of tree-damaging bears in redwood forests. Thesis, California State Polytechnic University, Arcata, USA.

Arnold, T. W., R. G. Clark, D. N. Koons, and M. Schaub. 2018. Integrated Population Models Facilitate Ecological Understanding and Improved Management Decisions. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:266-274.

Auger, J., S. E. Meyer, and H. L. Black. 2002. Are American black bears (Ursus americanus) legitimate seed dispersers of fleshy-fruited shrubs? American Midland Naturalist 147:352–367. 949
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 68 Ballard, W. B., L. N. Carbyn, and D. W. Smith. 2003. Wolf Interactions with Non-prey. Published in L.D.

Mech and L. Boitani, eds. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.

Bard, S. M., and J. W. Cain III. 2020. Investigation of bed and den site selection by American black bears (Ursus americanus) in a landscape impacted by forest restoration treatments and wildfires. Forest Ecology and Management 460:117904.

Baruch-Mordo, S., S. W. Breck, K. R. Wilson, and J. Broderick. 2011. The carrot or the stick? Evaluation of education and enforcement as management tools for human-wildlife conflicts. PLoS One, 6:e15681.

Baruch-Mordo, S., K. R. Wilson, D. L. Lewis, J. Broderick, J. S. Mao, and S. W. Breck. 2014. Stochasticity in natural forage production affects use of urban areas by black bears: implications to management of human-bear conflicts. Plos One 9:e85122.

Beckmann, J. P. and C. W. Lackey. 2008. Carnivores, urban landscapes, and longitudinal studies: a case history of black bears. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 2: 168-174.

Beckmann, J. P. and C. W. Lackey, 2018. Lessons learned from a 20-year collaborative study on American black bears. Human–Wildlife Interactions 12: 9.

Beecham, J. J., M. D. G. Hernando, A. A. Karamanlidis, R. A. Beausoleil, K. Burguess, D. Jeong, M. Binks, L. Bereczky, N. V. K. Ashraf, K. Skripova, L. Rhodin, J. Auger, and B. Lee. 2015. Management implications for releasing orphaned, captive-reared bears back to the wild. Journal of Wildlife Management 79:1327–1336.

Beecham, J. J., I. K. Loffler, and R. A. Beausoleil. 2016. Strategies for captive rearing and reintroduction of orphaned bears. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation 36:7–16.

Berg von Linde, M., L. Arevstrom, and O. Frobert. 2015. Insights from the den: how hibernating bears may help us understand and treat human disease. Clinical and Translational Science 8:601– 605.

Beringer, J., S.G. Seibert, S. Reagan, A.J. Brody, M.R. Pelton, and L.D. Vangilder. 1998. The influence of a small sanctuary on survival rates of black bears in North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:727–734.

Bowyer, R. T., J. G. Kie, and V. Van Ballenberghe. 1998. Habitat selection by neonatal black-tailed deer:
climate, forage, or risk of predation? Journal of Mammalogy 79:415–425.

Braden, G. T. 1991. Home ranges, habitat use, and den characteristics of black bears in the San Gabriel mountains of southern California. Thesis, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, USA. 950
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 69 Brandenburg, D. M. 1995. Effects of roads on behavior and survival of black bears in coastal North Carolina. Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA.

Brousil, M. R., A. Filazzola, M. F. Meyer, S. Sharma, and S. E. Hampton. 2023. Improving ecological data science with workflow management software. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 14:1381– 1388.

Brown, S. K., J. M. Hull, D. R. Updike, S. R. Fain, and H. B. Ernest. 2009. Black bear population genetics in California: signatures of population structure, competitive release, and historical translocation.

Journal of Mammalogy 90:1066–1074.

Caldwell, M. R., and J. M. K. Klip. 2020. Wildlife interactions within highway underpasses. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:227–236.

Calhoun, K. L., J. Smith, M. Tingley, A. Heeren, A. Van Scoyoc, M. Serota, J. Brashares, and B. J. Furnas.

Drought amplifies human-wildlife conflict. In review.

CDFG. 1993. Job Progress Report—Black Bear FY92-93.

Candler, E. M., W. J. Severud, D. E. Beyer, Jr., B. Frawley, and J. K. Bump. 2022. Untrapped potential: Do bear hunter cameras accurately index nontarget species? Conservation Science and Practice 4:e570.

CDFG. 1998. Black Bear Management Plan – July 1998.

CDFW. 2014. Tribal communication and consultation policy. Departmental Bulletin 2014-07.

CDFW. 2019. California Hunting and Fishing: Recruitment, Retention, and Reactivation Action Plan.

CDFW. 2021. Black Bear Take Report 2020.

CDFW. 2022b. Regulation Change Petition No. 2021-027: Request to amend black bear hunting.

CDFW. 2024a. Black Bear Policy in California: Public Safety, Depredation, Conflict, and Animal Welfare.

Departmental Bulletin 2022-01.

CDFW. 2024b. Interim Bear Take Report 2021-2023.

Ceballos, G., P. R. Ehrlich, and R. Dirzo. 2017. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:E6089–E6096.

Clark, J. D., F. T. van Manen, and M. R. Pelton. 2005. Bait stations, hard mast, and black bear population growth in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1633– 1640.
951
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 70 Clarke, C. M., D. Immell, and S. K. Wasser. 2001. Technical considerations for hair genotyping models in black bears. Western Workshop for Black Bear Research and Management 7:24–29.

Cleary, M., O. Joshi, and W. S. Fairbanks. 2021. Factors that determine human acceptance of black bears. Journal of Wildlife Management 85:582–592.

Clothier, K. A., K. D. Watson, A. Mete, F. Giannitti, M. Anderson, B. Munk, S. McMillin, D. L. Clifford, J.

Rudd, N. Shirkey, D. Famini, and L. Woods. 2022. Generalized dermatophytosis caused by Trichophyton equinum in 8 juvenile black bears in California. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 34:279–283.

Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling Techniques, third edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.

Conner, R. N. 1988. Wildlife populations: minimally viable or ecologically functional?. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 16:80-84.

Connor, T., E. Tripp, B. Tripp, B. J. Saxon, J. Camarena, A. Donahue, D. Sarna-Wojcicki, L.

Macaulay, T. Bean, A. Hanbury-Brown, and J. Brashares. 2022. Karuk ecological fire management practices promote elk habitat in northern California. Journal of Applied Ecology 59:1874–1883.

Connor, T., A. Dheer, J. Dorcy-Ponce, C. Steinbeiser, J. M. K. Klip, R. Landers, and B. J. Furnas. Estimating wildlife populations and their dynamics using multiple data sources and a hierarchical integrated population model: the case of California’s black bears. In review.

Costello, C. M., D. E. Jones, R. M. Inman, K. H. Inman, B. C. Thompson, and H. B. Quigley. 2003.

Relationship of variable mast production to American black bear reproductive parameters in New Mexico. Ursus 14:1–16.

Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert.1994. Closing the gaps in Florida’s wildlife habitat conservation system. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL 239.

Crabb, M. L., M. J. Clement, A. S. Jones, K. D. Bristow, and L. E. Harding 2022. Black bear spatial responses to the Wallow Wildfire in Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 86: e22182.

Cretois, B., J. D. Linnell, M. J. Grainger, E. B. Nilsen, and J. K. Rød. 2020. Hunters as citizen scientists:

Contributions to biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Global Ecology and Conservation 23:e01077.

Cristescu, B., L. M. Elbroch, J. A. Dellinger, W. Binder, C. C. Wilmers, and H. U. Wittmer. 2022. Kill rates and associated ecological factors for an apex predator. Mammalian Biology 102:291–305.

Cunningham, S. C. and W. B. Ballard. 2004. Effects of wildfire on black bear demographics in central Arizona. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:928–937.
952
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 71 Curtin, S. 2013. The intrinsic motivations and psychological benefits of eco and wildlife tourism experiences. In International handbook on ecotourism:203-216. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Czetwertynski, S. M., M. S. Boyce, and F. K. Schmiegelow. 2007. Effects of hunting on demographic parameters of American black bears. Ursus 18:1–18.

Decker, D. J., and K. G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:53–57.

Dixon, J. D., M. K. Oli, M. C. Wooten, T. H. Eason, J. W. McCown, and M. W. Cunningham. 2007. Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation and loss: the case of the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus). Conservation Genetics 8:455–464. de Valpine, P., D. Turek, C. J. Paciorek, C. Anderson-Bergman, D. T. Lang, and R. Bodik. 2017.

Programming with models: writing statistical algorithms for general model structures with NIMBLE. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 26:403–413.

Delie, J., M. D. Needham, and K. Biedenweg. 2023. Modeling cognitive antecedents of tolerance for black bears: The roles of direct experience, knowledge, and risk perceptions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 28:564-584.

DeWan, A. A., and E. F. Zipkin. 2010. An integrated sampling and analysis approach for improved biodiversity monitoring. Environmental Management 45:1223–1230.

Duda, M. D. and J. L. Nobile. 2010. The fallacy of online surveys: No data are better than bad data.

Human Dimensions of Wildlife 15: 55-64.

Dunk, T., 2002. Hunting and the politics of identity in Ontario. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 13: 36-66.

Ebenman, B., T. Säterberg, S. Sellman, J. C. Moore, K. S. McCann, P. C. de Ruiter, and V. Wolters, 2017.

Ecologically effective population sizes and functional extinction of species in ecosystems.

Adaptive Food Webs: Stability and Transitions of Real and Model Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 45-62.

Eichler, L. and D. Baumeister. 2018. Hunting for justice: an indigenous critique of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 9:75–90.

Eidenshink, J., B. Schwind, K. Brewer, Z. Zhu, B. Quayle, and S. Howard. 2007. A project for monitoring trends in burn severity. Fire Ecology 3:3–21.

El Bizri, H. R., J. E. Fa, L. P. Lemos, J. V. Campos-Silva, C. F. Vasconcelos Neto, J. Valsecchi, and P. Mayor. 2020. Involving local communities for effective citizen science: Determining game species’ reproductive status to assess hunting effects in tropical forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 58:224–235.
953
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 72 Elbroch, L. M., P. E. Lendrum, M. L. Allen, and H. U. Wittmer. 2015. Nowhere to hide: pumas, black bears, and competition refuges. Behavioral Ecology 26:247–254.

Elowe, K. D., and W. E. Dodge. 1989. Factors affecting black bear reproductive success and cub survival. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:962–968.

Enders, M. S. and S. B. Vander Wall. 2011. Black bears Ursus americanus are effective seed dispersers, with a little help from their friends. Oikos 121:589–596.

Fleming, C. H., W. F. Fagan, T. Mueller, K. A. Olson, P. Leimgruber, and J. M. Calabrese. 2015. Rigorous home range estimation with movement data: a new autocorrelated kernel density estimator.

Ecology 96:1182-1188.

Forrester, T. D. and H. U. Wittmer. 2019. Predator identity and forage availability affect predation risk of juvenile black-tailed deer. Wildlife Biology 2019:1-12.

Fraser, D. 1976. An estimate of hunting mortality based on the age and sex structure of the harvest.

Transactions of the North American Moose Conference Workshop 12:236–273.

Frey, S., D. Tejero, K. Baillie-David, A.C. Burton, and J. T. Fisher. 2022. Predator control alters wolf interactions with prey and competitor species over the diel cycle. Oikos 8:e08821.

Folk, G. E., Jr., A. Larson, and M. A. Folk. 1976. Physiology of hibernating bears. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 3:373–380.

Furnas, B. J., R. H. Landers, S. Hill, S. S. Itoga, and B. N. Sacks. 2018. Integrated Modeling to Estimate Population Size and Composition of Mule Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1429- 1441.

Furnas, B. J., R. H. Landers, R. G. Paiste, and B. N. Sacks. 2020. Overabundance of black-tailed deer in urbanized coastal California. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:979-988.

Furnas, B. J., B. R. Goldstein, and P. J. Figura. 2022. Intermediate fire severity diversity promotes richness of forest carnivores in California. Diversity and Distributions 28:493–505.

Fusaro, J. L., M. M. Conner, M. R. Conover, T. J. Taylor, M. W. Kenyon, Jr., J. R. Sherman, and H. B. Ernest. 2017. Comparing urban and wildlife bear densities with a DNA-based capture-mark-recapture approach. Human-Wildlife Interactions 11:50-63.

Gantchoff, M. G., J. E. Hill, K. F. Kellner, N. L. Fowler, T. R. Petroelje, L. Conlee, D. E. Beyer, Jr., and J. L.

Belant. 2020. Mortality of a large wide-ranging mammal largely caused by anthropogenic activities. Scientific Reports 10:8498.

Garshelis, D.L., K.V. Noyce, and V. St-Louis. 2020a. Population reduction by hunting helps control humanwildlife conflicts for a species that is a conservation success story. PLoS ONE 5:e0237274. 954
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 73 Garshelis, D. L., K. V. Noyce, M. A. Ditmer, P. L. Coy, A. N. Tri, T. G. Laske, and P. A. Iaizzo. 2020b.

Remarkable adaptations of the American Black Bear help explain why it is the most common bear: a long-term study from the center of its range. Bears of the world: ecology, conservation and management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 53–62.

Gaston, K. J. and R. A. Fuller. 2007. Biodiversity and extinction: losing the common and the widespread. Progress in Physical Geography 31:213-225.

Geist, V., S. P. Mahoney, and J. F. Organ. 2001. Why Hunting Has Defined the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 66:175-185.

Gould, N. P., R. Powell, C. Olfenbuttel, and C. S. DePerno. 2021. Growth and reproduction by young urban and rural black bears. Journal of Mammalogy 102(4):1165–1173.

Graber, D. M. 1982. Technical Report No.5: Ecology and Management of Black Blears in Yosemite National Park. Cooperative National Park Resources Unit, University of California, Davis Institute of Ecology.

Graber, D. M., and M. White. 1983. Black bear food habits in Yosemite National Park. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 5:1–10.

Graber, D. M. 1989. Winter Behavior of Black Bears in the Sierra Nevada, California. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:269–272.

Grace, M. K., E. L. Bennett, H. R. Akçakaya, C. Hilton-Taylor, M. Hoffmann, R. Jenkins, E. J. MilnerGulland, A. Nieto, R. P. Young, and B. Long, 2021. IUCN launches Green Status of Species: A new standard for species recovery. Oryx, 55:651-652.

Grenfell, W. E., and A. J. Brody. 1983. Black Bear Habitat Use in Tahoe National Forest, California.

International Conference on Bear Research and Management 6:65–72.

Grinnel, J., J. S. Dixon, and J. M. Linsdale. 1937. Furbearing mammals of California, Vol. 1. University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.

Gundrum, F.A., 2019. Battle Over Black Bears: Investigating Perceptions of the Black Bear Hunting Referendums in Maine. The University of Maine.

Gunther, K. A., K. R. Wilmot, S. L. Cain, T. C. Wyman, E. G. Reinertson, and A. M. Bramblett. 2018.

Managing human-habituated bears to enhance survival, habitat effectiveness, and public viewing. Human–Wildlife Interactions, 12(3), p.7.

Harrer, L. E. F., and T. Levi. 2018. The primacy of bears as seed dispersers in salmon-bearing ecosystems. Ecosphere 9:e02076.
955
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 74 Harris, R. B. and L. H. Metzgar. 1987. Estimating Harvest Rates of Bears from Sex Ratio Changes.

Journal of Wildlife Management 51:802-811.

Hellgren, E. 1998. Physiology of hibernation in bears. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 10:467–477.

Herrero, S., A. Higgins, J. E. Cardoza, L. I. Hajduk, and T. S. Smith. 2011. Fatal attacks by American black bear on people: 1900–2009. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 75: 596-603.

Hessami, M. A., E. Bowles, J. N. Popp, and A. T. Ford. 2021. Indigenizing the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. FACETS 6:1285-1306.

Higley, J. M., D. V, Masters, and J. L. Sajecki. 2006. Black bear management plan (draft). Hoopa Valley Tribe, California.

Hopkins, J. B. III, S. Herrero, R. T. Shideler, K. A. Gunther, C. C. Schwartz, and S. T. Kalinowski. 2010. A proposed lexicon of terms and concepts for human-bear management in North America.

Ursus 21:154–168.

Howe, E. J., M. E. Obbard, R. Black, and L. L. Wall. 2010. Do public complaints reflect trends in humanbear conflict? Ursus 2:131–142.

Hristienko, H., D. Pastuck, K. J. Rebizant, B. Knudsen, and M. L. Connor. 2004. Using reproductive data to model American black bear cub orphaning in Manitoba due to spring harvest of females.

Ursus 15: 23-34.

Hristienko, H., and J. E. McDonald, Jr. 2007. Going into the 21st century: a perspective on trends and controversies in the management of the American black bear. Ursus 18:72–88.

Huang, X. and D. T. Swain. 2022. Climate change is increasing the risk of a California megaflood.

Science Advances 8:eabq0995.
[IDFG] Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1999. Black Bear Management Plan 1999-2010. iNaturalist contributors, iNaturalist (2025). iNaturalist Research-grade Observations. iNaturalist.org.

Occurrence dataset https://doi.org/10.15468/ab3s5x accessed via GBIF.org on 2025-01-17.

Johnson, H. E., D. L. Lewis, T. L. Verzuh, C. F. Wallace, R. M. Much, L. K. Willmarth, and S. W. Breck. 2017.

Human development and climate affect hibernation in a large carnivore with implications for human-carnivore conflicts. Journal of Applied Ecology 55:663–672.

Johnson, H. E., D. L. Lewis, S. A. Lischka. and S. W. Breck. 2018. Assessing ecological and social outcomes of a bear-proofing experiment. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1102–1114.

Jonkel, C. J. and I. M. Cowan. 1971. The black bear in the spruce–fir forest. Wildlife Monographs 27. 956
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 75 Kasbohm, J. W., M. R. Vaughan, and J. G. Kraus. 1996. Effects of gypsy moth infestation on black bear reproduction and survival. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:408–416.

Keay, J. A. 1990. Black bear population dynamics in Yosemite National Park. National Park Service Technical Report Number 39. University of California, Davis, Davis, USA.

Kelleyhouse, D. G. 1977. Habitat utilization of black bears in northern California. Pages 26–31 in Bears—their biology and management. S. Herrero, ed. International Union for Conservation of Nature Publications New Series 23.

Kelleyhouse, D.G. 1980. Habitat utilization by black bears in northern California. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 4:221– 227.Kerr, J., and L. Packer. 1998. The impact of climate change on mammal diversity in Canada. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 49:263–270.

Kery, M. and J. A. Royle. 2016. Applied hierarchical modeling in ecology; analysis of distribution, abundance and species richness in R and BUGS, Volume 1: prelude and static models.

Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Kery, M. and J. A. Royle. 2021. Applied Hierarchical Modeling in Ecology: Analysis of Distribution, Abundance, and Species Richness in R and BUGS: Volume 2: Dynamic and Advanced Models.

Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Klip., J. M.K. 2012. Habitat use and human interaction in black bears (Ursus americanus) in California Lake Tahoe. Thesis, Sonoma State University, Petaluma, USA.

Koch, D. B. 1983. Population, home range and denning characteristics of black bears in Placer County, California. Thesis. California State University, Sacramento, USA.

Koehler G. M., and D. J. Pierce. 2003. Black bear home-range sizes in Washington: climatic, vegetative, and social influences. Journal of Mammalogy 84:81–91.

Koel, T. M., L. M. Tronstad, J. L. Arnold, K. A. Gunther, D. W. Smith, J. M. Syslo, and P. J. White. 2019.

Predatory fish invasion induces within and across ecosystem effects in Yellowstone National Park. Science Advances 5:eaav1139.

Kohyama, T. S., T. I. Kohyama, and D. Sheil. 2018. Definition and estimation of vital rates from repeated censuses: choices, comparisons and bias corrections focusing on trees. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9: 809-821.

Kolenosky, G. B. 1990. Reproductive biology of black bears in east central Ontario. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:385–392.
957
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 76 Kurth, K. A., K. C. Malpeli, J. D. Clark, H. E. Johnson, and F. T. van Manen. 2024. A systematic review of the effects of climate variability and change on black and brown bear ecology and interactions with humans. Biological Conservation 291: 110500.

Lackey, C. W., J. P. Beckmann, and J. Sedinger. 2013. Bear Historical Ranges Revisited: Documenting the Increase of a Once-Extirpated Population in Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 77:812-820.

Lariviere, S. 2001. Ursus americanus. Mammalian Species 647:1–11.

Laufenberg, J. S., H. E. Johnson, P. F. Doherty, Jr., and S. W. Breck. 2018. Compounding effects of human development and a natural food shortage on a black bear population along a human development-wildland interface. Biological Conservation 224:188–198.

Lawton, J. H. 1993. Range, population abundance and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:409–13.

LeCount, A. L. 1987. Causes of black bear cub mortality. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 7:75–82.

Lewis, D. L., S. Baruch-Mordo, K. R. Wilson, S. W. Breck, J. S. Mao, and J. Broderick. 2015. Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human-bear conflict mitigation.

Ecosphere 6(8):141.

Linnell, J. D. C., R. Aanes, and R. Andersen. 1995. Who killed Bambi? The role of predation in the neonatal mortality of temperate ungulates. Wildlife Biology 1:209–223.

Linnell, J. D., J. E. Swenson, R. Andersen, and B. Barnes. 2000. How vulnerable are denning bears to disturbance?. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 400-413.

Long, M. E., K. M. Stewart, K. T. Shoemaker, H. Reich, C. W. Lackey, and J. P. Beckmann. 2024. Selection of den sites and chronology of denning by black bears in the eastern Sierra Nevada and western Great Basin. Ecology and Evolution, 14: p.e11689.

Lovich, J. E., D. Delaney, J. Briggs, M. Agha, M. Austin, and J. Reese. 2014. Black bears (Ursus americanus) as a novel potential predator of Agassiz’s desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) at a California wind energy facility. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Science 113:34–41.

Malaney, J. L., C. W. Lackey, J. P. Beckmann, and M. D. Matocq. 2018. Natural rewilding of the Great Basin: Genetic consequences of recolonization by black bears (Ursus americanus). Diversity and Distributions 24:168-178.

Mann, M. E. and P. H. Gleick. 2015. Climate change and California drought in the 21st century. PNAS 112:3858-3859.
958
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 77 Marescot, L., T. D. Forrester, D. S. Casady, and H. U. Wittmer. 2015. Using multistate capture-mark recapture models to quantify effects of predation on age-specific survival and population growth in black-tailed deer. Population Ecology 57:185–197.

Matthews, S. M., R. T. Golightly, and J. M. Higley. 2008. Mark-resight density estimation for American black bears in Hoopa, California. Ursus 19:13–21.

Mazur, R., A. P. Klimley, and K. Folger. 2013. Implications of the variable availability of seasonal foods on the home ranges of black bears, Ursus americanus, in the Sierra Nevada of California.

Animal Biotelemetry 1:1–9.

Mazur, R. and V. Seher. 2008. Socially learned foraging behaviour in wild black bears, Ursus americanus. Animal Behaviour 75:1503-1508.

McCarthy, T. M. and R. T. Seavoy. 1994. Reducing Nonsport Losses Attributable to Food Conditioning:

Human and Bear Behavior Modification in an Urban Environment. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 9:75-84.

McClelland, C. J. R, C. K. Denny, T. A. Larsen, G. B. Stenhouse, and S. E. Nielsen. 2021. Landscape estimates of carrying capacity for grizzly bears using nutritional energy supply for management and conservation planning. Journal for Nature Conservation 62:126018.

McCullough, D. R. 1982. Behavior, bears, and humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:27-33.

McLaren, D., R. J. Wigen, Q. Mackie, and D. W. Fedje. 2005. Bear hunting at the Pleistocene/Holocene transition on the northern Northwest Coast of North America. Canadian Zooarchaeology/ Zooarchéologie canadienne 22:3-29.

McLean, P. K., and M. R. Pelton. 1990. Some demographic comparisons of wild and panhandler bears in the Smoky Mountains. Bears: Their Biology and Management, 105-112.

Millar, C. I., N. L. Stephenson, and S. L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future:

Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17:2145-2151.

Miller, S. D. 1990. Population management of bears in North America. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8:357–373.

Mitchell, M. S., and R. A. Powell. 2003. Response of Black Bears to Forest Management in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:692-705.

Monteith, K. L., V. C. Bleich, T. R. Stephenson, B. M. Pierce, M. M. Conner, J. G. Kie, and R. T. Bowyer. 2014. Life-history characteristics of mule deer: effects of nutrition in a variable environment.

Wildlife Monographs 186:1-62.
959
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 78 Mortenson, J. 1998. Serologic survey of infectious disease agents in black bears (Ursus americanus) of California, Oregon, and Washington. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA.

Moss, H. H. 1972. A study of black bears in the San Gabriel Mountains. Thesis, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, USA.

Murphy, K. J., D. R. Roberts, W. F. Jensen, S. E. Nielsen, S. K. Johnson, B. M. Hosek, B. Stillings, J. Kolar, M. S. Boyce, and S. Ciuti. 2023. Mule deer fawn recruitment dynamics in an energy disturbed landscape. Ecology and Evolution 13: e9976.

Nakamura, S., J. Yamazaki, N. Matsumoto, M. Inoue-Murayama, H. Qi, M. Yamanaka, M. Nakanishi, Y. Yanagawa, M. Sashika, T. Tsubota, and H. Ito, 2023. Age estimation based on blood DNA methylation levels in brown bears. Molecular Ecology Resources, 23:1211-1225.

Ng, S. J., J. W. Dole, R. M. Sauvajot, S. P. D. Riley, and T. J. Valone. 2004. Use of highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern California. Biological Conservation 115:499–507.

Niedringhaus, K. D., J. D. Brown, K. M. Sweeley, and M. J. Yabsley. 2019. A review of sarcoptic mange in North American wildlife. In International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife 9:285– 297. Australian Society for Parasitology.

Novick, H. J., J. M. Siperek, and G. R. Stewart. 1981. Denning characteristics of black bears, Ursus americanus, in the San Bernardino Mountains of Southern California. California Fish and Game. 67(1):52–61.

Noyce, K. V. and D. L. Garshelis. 1994. Body size and blood characteristics as indicators of condition and reproductive performance in black bears. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 9:481–496.
[NYDEC] New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2014. Black Bear Management Plan for New York State 2014-2024.

Obbard, M. E. and E. J. Howe. 2008. Demography of black bears in hunted and unhunted areas of the boreal forest of Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:869–880.

ODFW. 2022. 2022 Black Bear Harvest Summary.

Organ, J. F., R. M. Muth, J. E. Dizard, S. J. Williamson, and T. A. Decker. 1998. Fair chase and humane treatment: balancing the ethics of hunting and trapping. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 63:528-543.

Organ, J. F., V. Geist, S. P. Mahoney, S. Williams, P. R. Krausman, G. R. Batcheller, T. A. Decker, R.

Carmichael, P. Nanjappa, R. Regan, R. A. Medellin, R. Cantu, R. E. McCabe, S. Craven, G. M.

Vecellio, and D. J. Decker. 2012. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 12–04. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 960
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 79 Owen-Ramos, J. D., C. J. Sanchez, S. Blair, S. Holm, B. J. Furnas, and B. N. Sacks. 2022. Use of fecal DNA to estimate black bear density in an urban-wildland interface. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2022;e1347.

Paetkau, D. and C. Strobek. 1994. Microsatellite analysis of genetic variation in black bear populations.

Molecular Ecology 3:489–495.

Paetkau, D., G.F. Shields, and C. Strobeck. 1998. Gene flow between insular, coastal and interior populations of brown bears in Alaska. Molecular Ecology 7:1282–1292.

Parmesan, C. 2007. Influences of species, latitudes and methodologies on estimates of phenological response to global warming. Global Change Biology 13:1860–1872.

Paul, K., M. S. Quinn, M. P. Huijser, J. Graham, and L. Broberg. 2014. An evaluation of a citizen science data collection program for recording wildlife observations along a highway. Journal of Environmental Management 139:180–187.

Peacock, E., K. Titus, D. L. Garshelis, M. M. Peacock, and M. Kuc. 2011. Mark–recapture using tetracycline and genetics reveal record-high bear density. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 75:1513-1520.

Penman, T. D., S. C. McColl-Gausden, B. G. Marcot, and D. A. Ababei. 2022. Population viability analysis using Bayesian networks. Environmental Modelling & Software 147:105242.

Penteriani, V., J. V. Lopez-Bao, C. Bettega, F. Dalerum, M. del Mar Delgado, K. Jerina, I. Kojola, M.

Krofel, and A. Ordiz. 2017. Consequences of brown bear viewing tourism: a review. Biological Conservation 206:169–180.

Peterson, M. N. and M. P. Nelson. 2016. Why the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is Problematic for Modern wildlife Management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 22:43-54.

Peterson, S. D. 2023. Estimating black bear population parameters with spatial capture recapture in a high desert mountain ecosystem. Thesis, California State Polytechnic University, Arcata, USA.

Piekielek, W. and T. S. Burton. 1975. A black bear population study in Northern California.

California Fish and Game. 61:4–25.

Pimm, S.L., C. N. Jenkins, R. Abell, T. M. Brooks, J. L. Gittleman, L. N. Joppa, P. H. Raven, C. M. Roberts, and J. O. Sexton. 2014. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344:1246752.

Popp, J. N., J. Hamr, J. L. Larkin, and F. F. Mallory, 2018. Black bear (Ursus americanus) and wolf (Canis spp.) summer diet composition and ungulate prey selectivity in Ontario, Canada.

Mammal Research 63:433-441.
961
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 80 Powell, R. A., J. W. Zimmerman, and D. E. Seaman. 1997. Ecology and behaviour of North American black bears: home ranges, habitat, and social organization (Vol. 4).

Springer Science & Business Media.

Preston, F. W. 1948. The commonness and rareness of species. Ecology 29:254–283.

Raithel, J. D., M. J. Reynolds-Hogland, D. N. Koons, P. C. Carr, and L. M. Aubry. 2017. Recreational harvest and incident-response management reduce human–carnivore conflicts in an anthropogenic landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology 54:1552-1562.

Ramos, S. C. 2022. Understanding Yurok traditional ecological knowledge and wildlife management.

Journal of Wildlife Management. 86:e22140.

Ramsey, M. S. 2013. The Bear Clan: North American totemic mythology, belief, and legend.

In The Bear Book (pp. 51-64). Routledge.

Ransom, J. I., A. L. Lyons, K. C. Hegewisch, and M. Krosby. 2023. An integrated modeling approach for considering wildlife reintroduction in the face of climate uncertainty: a case for the North Cascades grizzly bear. Biological Conservation 279:109947.

Rapacciuolo, G., S. P. Maher, A. C. Schneider, T. T. Hammond, M. D. Jabis, R. E. Walsh, K. J. Iknayan, G. K.

Walden, M. F. Oldfather, D. D. Ackerly, and S. R. Beissinger. 2014. Beyond a warming fingerprint:
individualistic biogeographic responses to heterogeneous climate change in California.

Global. Change Biology. 20:2841–2855.

Rawls, J. J. 1984. Indians of California: the changing image. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.

Rayl, N. D., T. K. Fuller, J. F. Organ, J. E. McDonald Jr, R. D. Otto, and S. P. Mahoney. 2014. Den abandonment and transitional day bed use by black bears Ursus americanus in Newfoundland. Wildlife Biology, 20: 222-228.

Rettler, S. J., A. N. Tri, V. St-Louis, J. D. Forester, and D. L. Garshelis. 2021. Three decades of declining natural foods alters bottom-up pressures on American black bears. Forest Ecology and Management 493:119267.

Rogers, L. L. 1976. Effects of mast and berry crop failures on survival, growth, and reproductive success of black bears. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 41:431–438.

Rogers, L. L. 1983. Effects of food supply, predation, cannibalism, parasites, and other health problems on black bear populations. Pages 194–211 in F. L. Bunnell, D. S. Eastmann, and J. M.

Peek, eds. Symposium on National Regulation of Wildlife Populations. For. Wildlife and Range Experimental Station. Proceedings 14. University of Idaho, Moscow, USA. 962
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 81 Rogers, L. L., and R. D. Applegate. 1983. Dispersal of fruit seeds by black bears. Journal of Mammalogy 64:310–311.

Royle, J. A. and J. D. Nichols. 2003. Estimating abundance from repeated presence-absence data or point counts. Ecology 84:777-790.

Royle, J. A., R. C. Chandler, R. Sollmann, and B. Gardner. 2013. Spatial Capture-Recapture. Academic Press, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA.

Schafer, T. L. J., S. W. Brek, S. Baruch-Mordo, D. L. Lewis, K. R. Wilson, J. S. Mao, and T. L. Day. 2018.

American black bear den-site selection and characteristics in an urban environment. USDA National Wildlife Research Center – Staff Publications 2214.

Schaub, M. and M. Kery. 2012. Integrated Population Models: Theory and Ecological Applications with R and JAGS. Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusttes, USA.

Schellenberg, R. S., B. J. K. Tan, J. D. Irvine, D. R. Stockdale, A. A. Gajadhar, B. Serhir, J. Botha, C. A.

Armstrong, S. A. Woods, J. M. Blondeau, and T. L. Mcnab. 2003. An Outbreak of Trichinellosis Due to Consumption of Bear Meat Infected with Trichinella nativa in 2 Northern Saskatchewan Communities. Journal of Infectious Diseases 188:835–878.

Schwartz, C.C., M.A. Haroldson, and G.C. White. 2006. Survival of cub and yearling grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1983-2001.Wildlife Monographs 161:25.

Schwartz, A, L. W., F. M. Shilling, and S. E. Perkins. 2020. The value of monitoring wildlife roadkill.

European Journal of Wildlife Research 66:18.

Scotson, L., L. R. Johnston, F. Iannarilli, O. R. Wearn, J. Mohd-Azlan, W. M. Wong, T. N. E. Gray, Y. Dinata, A. Suzuki, C. E. Willard, J. Frechette, B. Loken, R. Steinmetz, A. M. Moßbrucker, G. R. Clements, and J. Fieberg. 2017. Best practices and software for the management and sharing of camera trap data for small and large scales studies. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 3:158–172.

Shakeri, Y. N., K. S. White, and T. Levi. 2018. Salmon-supported bears, seed dispersal, and extensive resource subsidies to granivores. Ecosphere 9:e02297.

Sherman, J., and H. Ernest. 2015. Population genetics study of California’s black bears. Final Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Shilling, F. M. and. D. P. Waetjen. 2015. Wildlife-vehicle collision observation collection and hotspot identification at large scales. Nature Conservation 11:41–60.

Siemer, W. F., T. B. Lauber, R. C. Stedman, J. E. Hurst, C. C. Sun, A. K. Fuller, N. A. Hollingshead, J. L.

Belant, and K. F. Kellner. 2023. Perception and trust influence acceptance for black bears more than bear density or conflicts. Frontiers in Conservation Science 4:1041393. 963
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 82 Simberloff, D. 1999. Biodiversity and bears: a conservation paradigm shift. Ursus, 21–27.

Sinnott, D., K. Shapiro, B. Munk, N. LaHue, A. Armien, L. Woods, K. Watson, and O. Gonzales-Viera, 2022. Investigating Protozoal Parasites as Causes of Neurologic Disease in American Black Bears (Ursus americanus) that Contribute to Human-Wildlife Conflict. In Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 30.

Sitton, L. 1982. The black bear in California. California Department of Fish and Game. Project W-51-R. 85.

Smith, S. J., J. Edmonds, C. A. Hartin, A. Mundra, and K. Calvin. 2015. Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change. Nature Climate Change 5:333–336.

Spooner, F. E. B., R. G. Pearson, and R. Freeman. 2018. Rapid warming is associated with population decline among terrestrial birds and mammals globally. Global Change Biology 24:4521–4531.

Stafford, R. 1995. Preliminary observations on den selection by females and subadult black bears in northwestern California. 1995 Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 31:63-67.

Starr, K. 2007. California: a history. Modern Library, Penguin Random House, New York City, New York, USA.

Steenweg, R., M. Hebblewhite, C. Burton, J. Whittington, N. Heim, J. T. Fisher, A. Ladle, W. Lowe, T.

Muhly, J. Paczkowski, and M. Musiani. 2023. Testing umbrella species and food-web properties of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Biological Conservation 278:109888.

Stenvinkel, P., A. H. Jani, and R. J. Johnson. 2013. Hibernating bears (Ursidae): metabolic magicians of definite interest for the nephrologist. Kidney International 83:207–212.

Stephenson, N., J. M. Higley, J. L. Sajecki, B. B. Chomel, R. N. Brown, and J. E. Foley. 2015. Demographic characteristics and infectious diseases of a population of American black bears in Humboldt County, California. Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 15116–123.

Stratman, M. R., and M. R. Pelton. 2007. Spatial response of American black bears to prescribed fire in northwest Florida. Ursus 18:62–71.

Streimikiene, D., B. Svagzdiene, E. Jasinskas, and A. Simanavicius. 2021. Sustainable tourism development and competitiveness: The systematic literature review. Sustainable Development 29: 259–271.

Stronza, A. L., C. A. Hunt, and L. A. Fitzgerald. 2019. Ecotourism for Conservation? Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44:229–53.

Stubblefield, C. H. 1992. Characteristics of black bear ecology in the San Gabriel Mountains of Southern California. Thesis. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, USA. 964
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 83 Sultaire, S. M., Y. Kawai-Harada, A. Kimmel, E. M. Greeson, P. J. Jackson, C. H. Contag, C. W. Lackey, J. P.

Beckmann, J. J. Millspaugh, and R. A. Montgomery. 2023. Black bear density and habitat use variation at the Sierra Nevada-Great Basin Desert transition. Journal of Wildlife Management 87:e22358.

Suraci, J. P., M. Clinchy, D. J. Roberts, and L. Y. Zanette. 2017. Eavesdropping in solitary large carnivores:

Black bears advance and vocalize toward cougar playbacks. Ethology, 123: 593-599.

Taylor, A. H., and C. N. Skinner. 2003. Spatial patterns and controls on historical fire regimes and forest structure in the Klamath Mountains. Ecological Applications 13:704–719.

Thurfjell, H., S. Ciuti, and M.S. Boyce. 2014. Applications of step-selection functions in ecology and conservation. Movement Ecology 2:1–12.

Tingley, M. W., M. S. Koo, C. Moritz, A. C. Rush, and S. R. Beissinger. 2012. The push and pull of climate change causes heterogeneous shifts in avian elevation ranges. Global Change Biology 18:3279–3290.

Turek, D., C. Milleret, T. Ergon, H. Broseth, P. Dupont, R. Bischof, and P. de Valpine. 2021. Efficient estimation of large-scale spatial capture-recapture models. Ecosphere 12:e03385.

Unger, D. E., J. J. Cox, H. B. Harris, J. L. Larkin, B. Augustine, S. Dobey, J. M. Guthrie, J. T. Hast, R. Jensen, S. Murphy, and J. Plaxico. 2013. History and current status of the black bear in Kentucky.

Northeastern Naturalist, 20: 289-308.

University of California. 2021. From wildlife-vehicle conflict to solutions for California wildlife & drivers. <https://roadecology.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk8611/files/files/CA_Roadkill_ Hotspots_2021_2.pdf> Accessed July 19, 2023.

Urbano, F. and F. Cagnacci. 2021. Data Management and Sharing for Collective Science: Lessons Learnt From the Euromammals Initiative. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9:727023.

US Department of Transportation. 2008. Wildlife vehicle collision study: report to Congress. <https:// wafwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2007-Report-to-Congress.pdf> Accessed July 19, 2023.

Vaske, J. J., C. A. Miller, B. D. Williams, S. G. Pallazza, and X. Zang. 2022. Demographics, attitudes, and emotions as predictors of support for bear management. Wildlife Research 50:120-128.

Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan Publishers Ltd, Stuttgart, Germany.

Waselkov, G. A., 2020. Ethnohistorical and ethnographic sources on bear-human relationships in Native Eastern North America. Bears: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Perspectives in Native Eastern North America. University Press of Florida, Gainesville: 16-47. 965
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: LITERATURE CITED 84 WDFW. 2022. 2022 Statewide Black Bear Harvest Statistics.

Weaver, K. M. 2000. Black bear ecology and the use of prescribed fire to enhance bear habitat. Pages 89–96 in D. A. Yaussy, compiler, Proceedings: Workshop on fire, people, and the central hardwoods landscape. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-274.
[WGFD] Wyoming Fish and Game Department. 2007. Wyoming Black Bear Management Plan.

Whittaker, D. G. and F. G. Lindzey. 1999. Effect of coyote predation on early fawn survival in sympatric deer species. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 256-262.

Wilbur, R. C., S. A. Lischka, J. R. Young, and H. E. Johnson. 2018. Experience, attitudes, and demographic factors influence the probability of reporting human-black bear interactions.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 42:22–31.

Williams, A. P., J. T. Abatzoglou, A. Gershunov, J. Guzman-Morales, D. A. Bishop, J. K. Balch, and D.

P. Lettenmaier. 2019. Observed impacts of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire in California. Earth’s Future, 7:892–910.

Wittmer, H.U., T. D. Forrester, M. L. Allen, L. Marescot, and D. S. Casady. 2014. Black-tailed deer population assessment in the Mendocino National Forest, California. Report to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Xu, Y., V. Ramanathan, and D. G. Victor 2018. Global warming will happen faster than we think. Nature 564:30–32.

Yarkovich, J., J. D. Clark, and J. L. Murrow. 2011. Effects of black bear relocation on elk calf recruitment at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 75:1145–1154.

Young, D. D. and J. J. Beecham. 1986. Black bear habitat use at Priest Lake, Idaho. International Conference of Bear Research and Management 6:73–80.

Zager, P., and J. Beecham. 2006. The role of American black bears and brown bears as predators on ungulates in North America. Ursus 17:95–108.

Zeller, K. A., D. W. Wattles, and S. Destefano. 2020. Evaluating methods for identifying large mammal road crossing locations: black bears as a case study. Landscape Ecology 35:1799-1808.

Zipkin, E. F. and S. P. Saunders. 2018. Synthesizing multiple data types for biological conservation using integrated population models. Biological Conservation 217:240-250. 966
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: APPENDIX 85 Appendix 1: Glossary

TERM DEFINITION AS USED IN PLAN SOURCE
Animal welfare The physical, psychological, social, and environmental well-being of an animal.

Black Bear Policy in
California: Public Safety,
Depredation, Conflict,
and Animal Welfare
(2024)
Black Bear Policy
The current version and any subsequent
versions of CDFW’s policy for addressing
human-black bear conflict.

Black Bear Policy in
California: Public Safety,
Depredation, Conflict,
and Animal Welfare
(2024)
California Native
American Tribe
Federally recognized tribes and non-federally
recognized tribes located in California that
are on the contact list maintained by the CA
Native American Heritage Commission for the
purposes of cultural resources assessment and
protection.

California Governor’s
Office of Tribal Affairs;
Tribal Affairs – California
Natural Resources Agency
Carrying capacity
The population size limit for a given species
in a given area, shaped by socio-ecological
processes and interdependent relationships
between finite resources and the consumption
of those resources.

Del Monte-Luna et al.,
2004
Conservation
Maintaining and restoring the viability of
ecological collectives that persist over time –
namely, species and native populations and
ecosystems. Conservation is a constituent
element of sustainability.

Vucetich et al., 2018
Ecologically
functional
A population which has the abundance or
density, and the appropriate population
structure, that allows its ecological interactions,
roles, and functions to take place.

IUCN Green Status of
Species
Harvest The legal and regulated killing of game species by licensed (i.e., authorized) hunters. Bowyer et al., 2020 967
Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan for California - April 2025: APPENDIX 86

TERM DEFINITION AS USED IN PLAN SOURCE
Human dimensions
The application of social science theory and
methods to help understand the cultural,
sociological, psychological, economic,
biological and physical aspects of natural
resource management and environmental
problem-solving.

Minnesota DNR
Human-black bear
conflict
Any situation where there is a real or perceived
threat to human life or property by black bears. Reich, 2024 Integrated
population model
The single, unified analysis of multiple
independent data sets to estimate population
dynamics, which increases statistical precision
and adequately accounts for all sources of
uncertainty.

Schaub & Abadi, 2009;
Lawson et al., 2022
Recreational
hunting
Non-commercial, regulated pursuit of game
animals. Sharp & Wollscheid, 2009
Spot-and-stalk
A hunting method whereby a hunter uses
optics, binoculars, and/or glassing on a ridge
to locate a black bear, and then approach it
to within shooting distance, without the use
of bait or dogs. The stalk generally entails a
strategic hike in silence.

Washington DFW
Sustainability
Meeting human interests in a socially-just
manner without depriving species, native
ecosystems or native populations of their
health.

Vucetich et al., 2018
Wildland
A nonurban, natural area that contains
uncultivated land, timber, range, watershed,
brush or grassland.

U.S. Forest Service
Wildland-urban
interface
The zone of transition between unoccupied
land and human development. The line, area
or zone where structures and other human
development meet or intermingle with
undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels.

U.S. Fire Administration
Wildlife
Management
The management of rare and common habitats
and animal populations for multiple uses at
multiple scales to achieve ecosystem integrity
and sustainable use of available resources.

Anderson et al., 2002
968
Black Bear Management

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
969
Recent History of Tahoe Basin Black Bear
Management
• Early 2000s lethal permits were being issued by
biologists or wardens.
• 2022 Black Bear Policy had significant changes
which includes regional manager approval for
permit approvals in the Tahoe Basin and may
require DNA match.
• Tahoe Basin Bear Biologist position created in
2023.
• The final Black Bear Conservation and
Management Plan for California(opens in new
tab) was released on April 14, 2025.
970
Non-Lethal Management Tools: Trap-Tag-Haze
971
Non-Lethal Management tools: TIBT
972
Non-lethal Management Tools: E-Mat Program
973
Non-Lethal Management
Tools: Bear Box Grant
• In 2023 granted $1.4 million to 2 counties
• Residential bear boxes and multi-family residential
dumpster
974
Future Goals:
• Non-Invasive population
study using Fecal DNA
• Social Tolerance Study
• Volunteer Program
• Expanding electrical
deterrent tools
• Continue and expand the
bear box grant program
975
Tahoe Basin Black Bear
and Human Density
§ A pilot study published in 2022 showed Tahoe Basin to have the 2nd highest density of bears in CA.
§ 2025 CDFW Black Bear Conservation plan estimates ~60,000 black bears in CA
§ ~15 million visitors per year
§ ~55,000 permanent residents
§ 2022 study using fecal DNA estimated approximately 0.84 bears per square kilometer – one of the highest densities reported for black bears
976
Conflict Activity in the Basin
HWC Code:

Public Safety
Perceived Public Safety
Property Damage
Animal Welfare
General Nuisance
Sighting
General Inquiry
Other
288
607
521
2022* 2023 2024
Total Property Damage Reports
2022 data only includes August – December*
977
Conflict Activity in the Basin Cont.
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Home Invasion Vehicle Invasion Other
Property Damage By Type
2022* 2023 2024
2022 data only includes August – December*
Type of Damage:

Home Invasion
Vehicle
Structure
Garden/Landscape
Commercial Crop
Livestock Injured
Livestock Killed
Domestic Pet Injured
Domestic Pet Killed
Other
978
How do we manage this?
979
It all started with Bear 289
Ø Summer of 2019, USFS reported an aggressive bear in its campgrounds
Ø CDFW Biologists decided to trap, tag, and relocate the animal Ø Bear 289 became the first ‘management’ bear
Ø Collected DNA, similar to type red LE process
Ø Bear 289 contributed to the policy change in 2022
980
Current Policy: DNA Required
981
DNA Data
2 5 6
107
287
164
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
DNA Collected Per Year for Property Damage
982
61%
39%
Percent Home-Invasions done by
individuals with more than 5
Incidents
Bears with 5 or more
Remaining
9%
91%
Percent Individuals with 5 or more
Incidents
Bears with 5 or more
Remaining
DNA Data
983
Case Study:

Tahoe Keys
• 27 home-invasions prior to 2024; 1
in 2020, 6 in 2022, and 21 in 2023.
984
Targeted Management: Pros and Cons
Pros:
• Non-Invasive data collection
• Improved knowledge of bear
activity and movement
• Guaranteed accuracy of
removing the conflict animal
• Opportunity to tag/collar more
animals
• Database for potential
population study
Cons:
• Requires access to a forensic lab
• Resource intensive: staff, time, and
funding
• Inefficiencies with multi-step process
985
Questions?
986
987
988
989
State Primary statewide wildlife agency Agency protocol / guidance URL (black bear conflict) Typical Endpoint ref: Relocation stance for habituated / foodconditioned black bear when relocation is biologically unlikely Operational triggers / notes (publicly described) Alabama Alabama Dept. of Conservation & Natural Resources (ADCNR) – Wildlife & Freshwater Fisheries
https://alabamawildlife.org/black-bear-behavior/ Removal from population for habituation problems If conflict behavior persists / severe habituation: agency guidance indicates relocation is discouraged; lethal
removal/euthanasia may occur when necessary for safety
(not always explicitly stated).

Use prevention/attractant control to avoid conditioning; escalation discussed in nuisance bear guidance.

Alaska Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/research/wildlife/speciesmanag ementreports/pdfs/black-bear-2018-2028-gmu-7-15.pdf
Public guidance emphasizes attractant control; “foodconditioned” management is through year round huntingNot explicitly stated in the cited public guidance; typical outcomes (by practice) may include euthanasia for public safety, but ADF&G-specific protocol not located in the
sources used here.

Self-defense kills must be salvaged and turned over to
ADF&G (per state parks guidance).

Arizona Arizona Game & Fish Department (AZGFD) https://azgfd-portal-wordpress-pantheon.s3.us-west2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/archive/Wildlife-managersface-tough-decisions-in-human-bear-conflicts_220803.pdfAZGFD will lethally remove a habituated conflict bear Not explicitly stated on the cited page; removal may occur if needed for safety; agency emphasizes prevention and
warns that removal/relocation doesn’t solve attractant
issues.

Public messaging: fed bears lose fear; removal/relocation without eliminating attractants may lead to new bears.

Arkansas Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AGFC) https://www.agfc.com/news/avoid-an-un-bear-able-situation/ AGFC indicates severe habituation to human food can lead to euthanasia; relocation is not presented as a reliable solution once severe habituation occurs.

Humane euthanasia in “severe cases” of habituated bears (danger to people).

Public guidance highlights nuisance calls rise seasonally; focus on removing attractants.

California California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=222291&inli ne=
CDFW policy frames relocation/placement as conditional and documentation-heavy; food-conditioned/human-habituated
bears may be poor relocation candidates depending on risk factors.

For a ‘public safety bear’: policy states it shall be humanely euthanized as quickly as possible; for unresolved conflict bear after review, euthanasia is a likely endpoint when relocation is not selected/appropriate.

Policy includes escalation, decision memos, and possible ICS for ongoing threat; peace officers may be involved
under CDFW public safety framework.

Colorado Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6170a529023f05320caaecf4 /t/69212bdb2970812e9d6801ff/1763781595790/CPW-HumanBear-Conflict-Report.pdf CPW relocation one time, then euthanasia may be used Humane euthanasia after repeated conflict and failed relocation/hazing.

Case example: relocated bear returned to trash and
became habituated; then euthanized.

Connecticut Connecticut Dept. of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP)
https://portal.ct.gov/deep/wildlife/bears/frequently-askedquestions-about-black-bears aggressive bears that are a public safety concern may be euthanized; conflict bears are not relocated or taken to zoos, they will be immobilized
Euthanasia for aggressive public-safety bears (as
necessary); otherwise nonlethal aversive conditioning
emphasized.

DEEP notes it does not take ‘unresolvable human safety
issues’ bears into captivity.

Delaware Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources & Environmental Control (DNREC) – Division of Fish & Wildlife
https://dnrec.delaware.gov/outdoor-delaware/how-delaware-ispreparing-for-the-return-of-black-bears/DNREC describes developing/coordination for a response plan as bears return; relocation/euthanasia thresholds are not specified in the cited planning-oriented page.

Not specified in cited public page (planning focus). Delaware has only occasional bear presence; response planning described.

Florida Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) https://myfwc.com/media/21923/2019-florida-black-bearmanagement-plan.pdfFWC provides for euthanasia in human bear conflict Lethal take authorized by permit under specified conditions; euthanasia/lethal removal when
capture/removal not feasible.

Permit framing implies escalation after nonlethal measures; supports removal when agency cannot capture/remove.

Georgia Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) – Wildlife Resources Division (WRD)
https://gadnrle.org/sites/default/files/wrd/pdf/SOP/WRD-B001.pdfWRD SOP allows relocation or euthanasia when habituation indicated; uses a “Two Strike” approach (recaptured/identified nuisance bear typically euthanized).

Euthanasia is an expected endpoint for habituated/foodconditioned bears under conditions described in SOP (including repeat nuisance).

SOP lays out nuisance bear criteria, documentation, and escalation; emphasizes attractant removal and public
education.

Hawaii Hawaii Dept. of Land & Natural Resources (DLNR) – Division of Forestry & Wildlife (DOFAW)
https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/dofaw/files/2013/09/HAR-123-GameMammals.pdfHawaii has no resident black bear population; DOFAW game mammal regulations do not establish a black bear management framework.

No black-bear conflict protocol (not applicable). N/A – no black bear management program in Hawaii.

Idaho Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game (IDFG) https://idfg.idaho.gov/article/fg-removes-food-conditioned-blackbears-teton-countyIDFG states relocating extremely habituated/food-conditioned bears is not an option; biologists and conservationists trap and kill
Euthanasia/removal for extremely habituated/foodconditioned bears (public safety).Example case: sow and cubs euthanized due to food conditioning/habituation; notes delayed reporting makes hazing/relocation impractical.

Illinois Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) https://www.illinois.gov/news/release.html?releaseid=12557 property owners may take a bear if imminent public safety threat, removal may be done with a permit for nuisance
Not specified in cited public guidance. Bear presence is occasional; IDNR indicates monitoring and public reporting.

Indiana Indiana Department of Natural Resources – Division of Fish & Wildlife
https://www.in.gov/dnr/fish-and-wildlife/wildlife-resources/livingwith-wildlife/nuisance-wildlife-control-operators/General nuisance wildlife guidance: captured wildlife must be released or euthanized within 24 hours (not bear-specific); black bear relocation to Michigan
Not specified for habituated bears on the cited page. Indiana’s general living-with-wildlife content is not a bear conflict protocol.

Iowa Iowa Department of Natural Resources (Iowa DNR) https://www.iowadnr.gov/news-release/2023-05-09/midwest-blackbear-population-may-start-calling-parts-iowa-home-down-roadIowa DNR lacks legal authority to manage black bear populations ; specific conflict response protocols are not described but relocation does not work
Not specified; management authority limitations described. Bear occurrences are rare/episodic; guidance emphasizes current lack of regulatory authority for population
management.

Kansas Kansas Dept. of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) https://ksoutdoors.gov/content/download/20276/136585/version/ 1/file/Carnivore%2BPlan.pdf
KDWP finds bears as a non-game animal. KS code allows
euthanization of nuisance bears
Euthanasia/lethal control may be authorized when wildlife create a public safety hazard or nuisance per
plan/regulatory framework referenced.

Kansas black bears are nongame mammals; control may
occur under regulation conditions (plan discusses).

Kentucky Kentucky Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) https://fw.ky.gov/Wildlife/pages/Black-Bears.aspx Cited public guidance focuses on ‘BearWise’ prevention and public safety; relocation/euthanasia protocol for habituated nonrelocatable bears Not specified in cited public guidance. Kentucky emphasizes public messaging and reporting; enforcement/biologists respond as needed.

Louisiana Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) https://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/assets/Resources/Publications/Black _Bear/Louisiana_Black_Bear_Management_Plan_January_2015.pdf LDWF management plan discusses aversive conditioning and notes relocation may not be warranted management may
include euthanasia.

If relocation is not warranted/appropriate and conflicts persist or safety is implicated, euthanasia/removal is a possible endpoint (plan context).

Plan includes conflict management tools; emphasizes
prevention and appropriate response based on bear
behavior and circumstances.

Maine Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) https://www.maine.gov/ifw/fish-wildlife/wildlife/living-withwildlife/avoid-resolve-conflict/bears.htmlMDIFW states wildlife offices respond to bear sightings only when there is a threat to public safety or property; typically no attempt will be made to remove/relocate, Resolution may be lethal removal
Typically: no removal; if threat/damage escalates, removal options exist under Maine law (damage-kill provisions).

Strong emphasis on prevention; relocation noted as often ineffective (bears can return).
990
Maryland Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) – Wildlife & Heritage Service
https://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/Documents/MD-2022-BearReport.pdfPublic guidance emphasizes attractant removal and contacting DNR for persistent problems; problem bears may be killed without permit
Not specified in cited public guidance; DNR references a ‘Black Bear Nuisance Response Plan’ (not published on
cited page).

BearWise prevention content and escalation guidance
(‘contact local office’) are provided.

Massachusetts Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife (MassWildlife)
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/frequently-asked-questionsabout-blackbears#:~:text=Bear%20range%20in%20Massachusetts%20is%20larg e%20and,long%20as%20the%20food%20source%20is%20available.

LART states it does not relocate wildlife causing property damage/nuisance unrelated to public safety; euthanasia
isinferred
Euthanasia only as last resort for public safety (per LART description).

Massachusetts law also prohibits capture/relocation of
wildlife off your property (general).

Michigan Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/- /media/Project/Websites/dnr/Documents/WLD/Archive/Miscinfo/White_Paper_Final_Oct_08.pdf?rev=63b2d22b17a54b989fe11 35cfad661dc&hash=85012AE77CE31A93966D45D63D88AE94
Michigan problem bear management guidance includes
categories and specifies immediate euthanasia for the highestrisk category; bears that cannot be released are euthanized.

Humane euthanasia for Category I (highest risk) and for bears that cannot be released.

Plan-like guidance provides decision categories and
response expectations; includes local LE notification.

Minnesota Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/livingwith_wildlife/bears/relocating.h tml
Minnesota DNR states it does not relocate problem bears; public safety bears are killed by DNR, many nuisance bears are killed by property owners under state law
Lethal take by property owners is common and lawful in
specified nuisance contexts; DNR does not relocate
problem bears.

State emphasizes prevention; reporting to conservation
officer for salvage and documentation.

Mississippi Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) https://www.mdwfp.com/wildlife-hunting/wildlife-speciesprogram/black-bear-programMDWFP publishes ‘Why Relocation Isn’t the Answer’ messaging within its Black Bear Program materials, emphasizing
prevention/education and risks to small populations.

Not framed as a routine removal/euthanasia endpoint in
the cited program page; focus is on preventing conflict and avoiding adult mortality impacts.

Mississippi emphasizes low reproductive rates and
conservation; prevention is central.

Missouri Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) https://mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 07/Bear%20Management%20Plan%202020-2030%20FINAL.pdf
MDC public guidance emphasizes prevention; external media reporting indicates bears conditioned to people/food may be euthanized because relocation won’t stop food-seeking
behavior.

Euthanasia is a documented outcome when bears are foodconditioned/habituated (example case).MDC advises contacting conservation agent for nuisance bear control.

Montana Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/conservation/wildl ife-reports/bears/bearrptfinalwithcovers_4_27_11_medlow1-1.pdf FWP authorizes euthanasia for repeated conflicts Euthanasia after repeated conflict behavior. Public communications emphasize securing attractants and early reporting to prevent escalation.

Nebraska Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) https://www.facebook.com/EielsonAirForceBase/posts/publicreleasewildlife-officials-have-euthanized-a-grizzly-bear-afterrepeated-i/1125235256307183/no published black bear habituation/relocation protocol identified in sources used here; however, govt source shows euthanasia for habituated conflict bear
Not specified in cited public guidance. Nebraska black bear occurrences are rare; protocols may be handled case-by-case.

Nevada Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) https://epubs.nsla.nv.gov/statepubs/epubs/664448.pdf NDOW bulletin states translocation is not reliable because bears often return; euthanasia is used when bears become so bold they enter homes or cause considerable damage attempting entry.

Euthanasia when bears enter homes or cause significant
break-in damage; translocation unreliable for habituated bears.

Bulletin emphasizes prevention of access to human foods; once habituated it is difficult to stop behavior.

New Hampshire New Hampshire Fish and Game Department https://www.wildlife.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt746/files/docume nts/big-game-management-plan.pdf
although management strategies mention best management
practices for mitigation a specific ‘habituated non-relocatable bear’ endpoint is not stated
Not explicitly stated in cited agency post; external reporting indicates euthanasia under conflict protocol in some cases.

NH emphasizes preventing attractants and discourages
unsecured poultry/birdfeeders; conflict reduction support.

New Jersey New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) – Division of Fish & Wildlife
https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/njfw/2022-cbbmp-forweb.pdfNJDEP document describes a black bear cat 1-3 includes euthanasia as an available management response, but a little as $1000 damage
Euthanasia is an identified management response in the
rating/response criteria framework.

Document implies escalating response tied to bear
behavior categories and nuisance/public safety concerns.

New Mexico New Mexico Department of Game & Fish (NMDGF) https://wildlife.dgf.nm.gov/download/2026-2027-new-mexicohunting-rules-andinfo/?wpdmdl=52826&refresh=63b2724c611c71672639052#page= 42 although references to euthanasia are found elsewhere, documents from NWDGF cannot be found to reference it
Euthanasia/removal described for bears that are ‘so
habituated’ (per agency publication).

Agency publication frames euthanasia as undesirable but sometimes necessary; relocation often unsuccessful.

New York New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/bearplan2014.pdf management plan addresses human-bear conflict resolution strategies that include lethal removal
Euthanasia may occur as a last resort when a bear is
determined to be a threat to public safety (plan context).

DEC also publishes general nuisance wildlife removal rules (public cannot relocate animals off property).

North Carolina North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) https://www.ncwildlife.gov/wildlife-habitat/species/black-bear/wrcwill-not-trap-or-relocate-bearsNCWRC states it will typically not trap or relocate nuisance bears; if behavior escalates to bold/threatening, staff will euthanize.

Euthanasia if escalating to bold/threatening behavior;
otherwise prevention/attractant removal prioritized.

Explicit statement on non-relocation stance and euthanasia threshold.

North Dakota North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGF) https://gf.nd.gov/gnf/conservation/docs/2025-swap/2025-ndswap.pdfalthough noted in bear wide website materials comments from wardens note few black bear encounters, conflict resolution not addressed
Not specified (rare/occasional presence). No known breeding population noted on NDGF fact sheet.

Ohio Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (ODNR) – Division of Wildlife
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-1501:31-15- 03 Ohio administrative code provides for nuisance black bears to be captured or killed under permits; relocation stance not specified in cited code
Capture or kill under permit; euthanasia/lethal take as authorized by ODNR permit terms.

Permitting structure indicates decision authority with
ODNR (chief/designee) and includes stipulations.

Oklahoma Oklahoma Dept. of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) https://www.wildlifedepartment.com/outdoor-news/wildlifedepartment-forced-euthanize-black-bear-norman-neighborhoodODWC has authority to euthanize public safety bear, conflict bear guidance not clear and a bear-specific
habituation/relocation protocol was not identified
Not specified in cited public guidance. agency likely handles bear conflicts directly; protocol not captured here.

Oregon Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/management_plans/docs/Blac k_Bear_Management_Plan_2012.pdf
ODFW authorizes euthanasia for public safety bears and
habituated bears
management outcome may include lethal removal where
warranted (ODFW communications).

Public messaging strongly emphasizes
prevention/attractant control; habituated bears viewed as human safety concern.

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) https://www.pgc.pa.gov/Wildlife/WildlifeSpecies/BlackBear/Docum ents/BEAR_PLAN_2024-2029_FINAL%20Updated.pdf
PGC plan authorizes euthanasia of orphaned cub among 4 other options, euthanasia of adults also authorized
euthanasia is authorized for human-habituated nuisance
bears when relocation is not feasible/appropriate.

Plan provides operational guidance and escalation
thresholds (e.g., threat to health/safety, habituation). 991
Rhode Island Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Management (RIDEM) – Division of Fish & Wildlife
https://dem.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur861/files/programs/bnatres/f ishwild/pdf/blackbear.pdf
Relocation/euthanasia thresholds depend on assessed risk and circumstances
Response guide supports escalation; euthanasia is generally reserved for public safety / high-risk situations
Guide format supports consistent interagency response;
details contained in PDF.

South Carolina South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) https://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/publications/pdf/blackbearmanag mentDRAFT.PDF
SCDNR relocated bear difficult, regulated hunting as a
management tool, depredation, euthanasia authority
Not explicitly stated on cited page; implication is that prevention/attractant control is primary and relocation is limited by lack of remote areas.

Public guidance frames relocation limitations due to
landscape development.

South Dakota South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) https://gfp.sd.gov/management-plans/ No bear conflict relocation/euthanasia protocol identified on SDGFP page
Not specified in cited public guidance. Bear occurrences may be handled case-by-case; public guidance not captured in SDGFP source
Tennessee Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) https://www.tn.gov/twra/twra-outdoorsblog/2019/10/15/coexisting-with-urban-wildlife.htmlTWRA notes relocation often does not work once humans have acclimated a bear to people/food sources. Euthanasia may be required
When bears are acclimated/food-conditioned and create
dangerous situations, euthanasia is an implied endpoint (TWRA messaging)
Blog post discusses general urban wildlife conflict
management and relocation limitations for conditioned
bears.

Texas Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_pl_w70 00_1046.pdf
TPWD relocation, hazing and removal are management options Not explicitly stated on the cited page; agency publications discuss habituation and conflict prevention; relocation may occur case-by-case.

Focus on preventing bears from learning to use human
foods; public education oriented.

Utah Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/bears/black_bear_plan_2023-35.pdf UDWR management plan recognizes need to reduce euthanization
Euthanasia as policy endpoint for captured problem
predators (as described in USDA APHIS EA citing UDWR
policy).

Operational decisions described in NEPA/EA context for
Wildlife Services support to UDWR/Utah.

Vermont Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department https://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/sites/fishandwildlife/files/docu ments/Learn%20More/Library/REPORTS%20AND%20DOCUMENTS/
HUNTING/BIG-GAME-MANAGEMENT-PLAN-2020/BGP-Chapter-3-
Black-Bear.pdf
Management objective to clarify when appropriate to euthanize for property damage and human safety
Not specified in cited public guidance. Prevention-first messaging; contact agency before taking control actions.

Virginia Virginia Dept. of Wildlife Resources (DWR) https://dwr.virginia.gov/wildlife/bear/bear-managementplan/#goal5bear-specific conflict to be managed lethally by hunting Euthanasia secondary to hunting as resolution for conflict bears
Document provides general wildlife conflict precautions and legal note about relocation.

Washington Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/living/dangerouswildlife/responseWDFW response protocol for urgent human safety concerns includes either euthanize or immobilize/mark/relocate offending animal one time only.

Euthanasia or one-time relocation depending on assessed urgency and circumstances.

Protocol includes defined ‘situations’ and response
expectations for attacks and urgent safety concerns.

West Virginia West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR) https://wvdnr.gov/plants-animals/nuisance-wildlife/ WV rules require nuisance wildlife captured alive be euthanized humanely or released at the site of capture (three strikes).

Euthanasia or release at capture site per nuisance wildlife disposition rule (general; not bear-specific).

Coordination with DNR and health officials if exposure
occurs; bear-specific habituation protocol not published in cited page.

Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) https://p.widencdn.net/wzas7l/bearplan in attack cases WDNR may trap and humanely euthanize the bear if captured.

Relocation is common for nuisance; euthanasia for bears involved in attacks or high-risk behaviors.

WDNR notes coordination with USDA Wildlife Services for nuisance bear complaints.

Wyoming Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) https://wgfd.wyo.gov/media/3695/download?inline WGFD themes, attractant reduction but, black-bear-specific euthanasia protocol identified
Not specified in the cited WGFD black bear regulations page (hunting-focused).

Wyoming handles bear conflicts through regional offices and wardens; details may be in internal SOPs or other
pages not captured here.
992
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: April 21, 2026
Agenda Item #:18
Agenda Item: Ordinance Amending Shared Mobility Device Regulations (First Reading) Executive Summary: On February 11, 2020, City Council adopted Ordinance 2020-1140 adding Chapter 4.185 to the South Lake Tahoe City Code (SLTCC). On March 26, 2024, City Council adopted Ordinance 2024-1184 amending SLTCC Chapter 4.185 to add a requirement that shared mobility devices be parked in corrals and adding additional requirements to implement the corrals. At the City Council meeting on March 11, 2025, City Council directed staff to bring an item back with a presentation of potential options for amending Chapter 4.185 to increase the Cityâ€™s liability protections from shared mobility device accidents, add safety measures for same, and update operator insurance requirements. Staff brought this item back at the City Council meeting on June 3, 2025 at which time Council directed staff to incorporate the proposals into an ordinance. Staff brought this item back for a first reading of a proposed ordinance on March 10, 2026. At that time, Council declined to adopt the ordinance and instead requested additional amendments related to parking, permissible bikeways, and photo enforcement. This item brings these amendments back as a first reading of an ordinance for Councilâ€™s consideration.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion to hold a first reading (by title only) of an Ordinance amending Chapter 4.185 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code (Shared Mobility Devices) to increase the City’s liability protections from shared mobility device accidents, add safety measures for shared mobility device operations, and revise operator insurance requirements, and refer second reading and adoption to May 5, 2026.

Responsible Staff Member: Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police; Dan Bardzell, Assistant City Attorney Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report
02-Ordinance SMD Amendments
03-Amended SMD Code Section (Redline)
993
Staff Report for City Council Meeting of April 21, 2026 1 of 6 City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: April 21, 2026
Title: Ordinance Amending Shared Mobility Device Regulations (First Reading) Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Members: Dan Bardzell, Assistant City Attorney; Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police
Background: On February 11, 2020, City Council adopted Ordinance 2020-1140 adding Chapter 4.185 to the South Lake Tahoe City Code (SLTCC). This ordinance regulates Shared Mobility Devices (SMDs). For purposes of this ordinance, a “shared mobility device” is defined, in pertinent part, as any wheeled transportation device, other than a bicycle, e-bicycle, automobile or motorcycle, by which a person can be propelled, moved or drawn; is accessed via an on-demand portal, whether a smartphone application, membership card, or similar method. On March 26, 2024, City Council adopted Ordinance 2024-1184 amending SLTCC Chapter 4.185 to add a requirement that SMDs be parked in corrals and adding additional requirements to implement the corrals.

At the City Council meeting on March 11, 2025, Council considered and declined to adopt an ordinance to further amend SLTCC Chapter 4.185 which would have caused a 50 percent reduction in SMDs permitted within the City. Instead, City Council directed staff to bring an item back with a presentation of potential options for increasing (1) the City’s liability protections from SMD accidents, (2) safety measures for SMD operations, and (3) updating shared mobility device operator insurance requirements. Staff brought this item back at the City Council meeting on June 3, 2025 at which time Council directed staff to incorporate the proposals into an ordinance and bring it back for Council’s consideration.

Staff brought this item back for a first reading of a proposed ordinance on March 10, 2026. At that time, Council declined to adopt the ordinance and instead requested additional amendments related to parking, permissible bikeways, and photo enforcement. This item incorporates these requests and brings all of the proposed amendments back as a first reading of an ordinance for Council’s consideration.

Issue and Discussion:

City Council’s requested amendments are included in the proposed Ordinance, as summarized below.

Liability Protections
994
Staff Report for City Council Meeting of April 21, 2026 2 of 6 End User Agreement Liability Waivers
Both operators already utilize municipal waivers in their end user agreements including generic language in which riders waive liability against public entities for incidents which occur during a ride. Based on discussions with the operators, staff learned that some public entities require Bird and/or Lime to include waivers specific to the public entity. The proposed amendment would add permitting requirements in which operators must require riders to acknowledge waivers specifically waiving claims against the City.

Add a Permitting Requirement that Operators will Pay the City’s Attorney’s Fees SLTCC section 4.185.050(C)(2) requires the operator to agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City from liability for SMD accidents, including “any and all costs and expenses.” The proposed amendment would add language which requires the operator to expressly pay the City’s attorney’s fees for claims, lawsuits and similar matters. Although this section may already potentially cover attorney’s fees, adding clarifying language would provide additional protection.

Drivers License Re-Scanning
The proposed amendment would add permit requirements to require operators to make each rider re-scan their ID the first time they ride an SMD in the operator’s fleet within the City each calendar year.

Operator Insurance Updates
State law has been amended to revise the insurance requirements for SMD operators. To bring the City’s SMD framework into compliance with changes to state law, the proposed Ordinance revises City Code Chapter 4.185.050 as follows:
(1) increases the aggregate amount of liability insurance an operator must carry for all occurrences during the policy period from $4,000,000 to $5,000,000; (2) requires SMD operators procure insurance from an admitted insurer, or a nonadmitted insurer that is eligible to insure a home state insured; (3) requires operators to offer or make available, or confirm the rider maintains, insurance coverage for bodily injury or death suffered by a pedestrian when the injury or death involves the negligent conduct of the rider, of $10,000 for each occurrence, and for property damage to an assistive technology device, of $1,000 for each occurrence, and (4) make additional clarifying changes.
995
Staff Report for City Council Meeting of April 21, 2026 3 of 6 Engagement, Outreach, and Education
Modifications of SLTCC section 4.185.090 require operators to create a parking and safety education plan as part of their permit application. Operators should engage with riders to protect the safety of customers and all roadway users. Operators must educate riders about safety, and riding rules and etiquette at the time of sign-up. Operators must educate customers on how to appropriately park SMD devices. SMD apps must regularly inform and educate riders when they have ridden into prohibited riding areas such as Geofenced area, public parking facilities, public parks, and about staying off of sidewalks. Operators must inform their riders about special events, operational changes or scheduled and publicly-announced SLTPD enforcement actions through the mobile app. Operators must inform their riders that operating SMDs under the influence of drugs or alcohol is against the law. Operators must regularly deploy ambassadors and/or street teams to inform riders on safety and appropriate device use (including parking). Operators must conduct at minimum six community events or safety workshops per year, half of which must be targeted to less-served community members in multiple languages. Operators must host at minimum two learn to ride education opportunities per year. Engagements shall include a mix of virtual (digital media and in-app communications), physical, and in-person methods. This engagement should consider the needs and concerns of riders as well as non-riders. Operators shall plan for community outreach and engagement that shall include engagement activities and schedules, along with planned presentation, activities, and events with community-based organizations (CBO), business improvement districts (BIDS), and other key stakeholders. Operators must - on a monthly basis - report information from this outreach.

Safety Measures
Vehicle Code Enforcement
To address safety concerns centered on SMDs, staff has modified the following sections of the SLTCC.

4.185.020 (Definitions). Adds the definition of a Class III and Class IV bikeway. Although, CSLT has no Class IV bikeway, it is added to the definitions in the event that this class is subsequently built in the City.

SLTCC section 4.185.060 has been modified to add only Class IV bikeways. This section identifies a permit requirement to prohibit parking an SMD on such bikeways.

SLTCC section 4.185.060 (Issuance of Permits), has been modified from “City Manager” to “Chief of Police” wherein the authority sits for determining ride area prohibition (geofences).

An additional modification to 4.185.060 includes the addition of larger contrasting serial numbers on the SMDs for the purpose of unit identification in enforcement.

A modification of section 4.185.080 includes a consultation with the Director of Public Works to establish areas for ride and/or parking restrictions as well as parking corrals. 996
Staff Report for City Council Meeting of April 21, 2026 4 of 6 In conversations with the operators, they have agreed to facilitate holding riders accountable for ride violations, including vehicle code violations. Section 4.185.090 has been modified to reflect this agreement, in that the operators will provide rider information to assist with issuing administrative citations to riders.

SLTCC section 4.185.120 (Enforcement) has been modified to reinforce the use of photographic evidence from which to hold the operator and the rider accountable for violations of California Vehicle Code (“CVC”) sections 21228(b) (left turn must dismount), and 21235(e) (no passenger allowed). Additional potential CVC sections which were proposed to be added for photo enforcement in the previous version of the proposed ordinance have been removed from the version brought forward hereto. The photographic evidence would allow the operator sufficient information with which to provide rider information for the purpose of issuing a notice of such violations. The above SMD-specific sections of the California Vehicle Code have been added to clarify administrative citation through the use of photo enforcement.

The following additional issues were raised at the Council meeting on March 10, 2026:

1. Review and analyze possible updates to painting and signage on bikeways to ensure safety.

There was not sufficient time to conduct a comprehensive cost analysis before the present meeting but staff will work with Public Works to modify signage and paint to be consistent with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and aligned with existing signage on the Class I Shared Use path.

2. Enhancement of the corrals, including corral signage.

In line with guidance from City Council and collaboration with the operators, additional locations for corrals have been identified. The operators have agreed to “help” with the corral signage and location designation. However, while the undertone of help was to cover costs, that estimation or limit has yet to be defined. It might be more expedient for Public Works to physically mark the current corrals that are already defined and mark the additional corrals when those locations come online within the respective operator web applications. Finally, SLTPD and Public Works will collaborate on the corral signage language with the operators and identify the means of cost sharing.

3. Consider methods to further enforce the prohibition on riders under the age of 18.

The proposed amendment would add permit requirements to require operators to make each rider re-scan their ID the first time they ride an SMD in the operator’s fleet within the City each calendar year. This is intended to support the prohibition on underage riders.

While helpful to this goal, this mechanism will not achieve 100% compliance. Staff is not aware of any additional mechanism that will achieve that level of compliance. While the addition of a bicycle patrol officer may assist in reducing underage ridership, that result remains to be seen. Notably, SMDs are deployed from May 1 through October 31; a 997
Staff Report for City Council Meeting of April 21, 2026 5 of 6 season to which the temporary seasonal bicycle patrol officer may be limited to 1000 work hours.

Environmental Considerations: This Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Financial Implications:

The recommended amendments to increase liability and safety measures would minimize the City’s potential financial exposure for Shared Mobility Device accidents. It is not possible to forecast specific savings to the City associated with such measures.

While the amendments would not directly change the cost of permit fees and administrative citations issued under SLTCC Chapter 4.185, the amendments allow City Council the discretion to change such costs in the future by resolution thus making program cost recovery more flexible.

Policy Implications:

The proposed amended Ordinance would support Strategic Priority Three: Enhance Public Safety.

The following is provided for future policy guidance.
2025 Year End Summary:

Bird summarized the 2025 season as follows:

Rides in South Lake Tahoe: 52.221
Avg SMD rides per month 8703
Unique Users: 22,872
Avg ride distance: 1.45 miles (annual report)
Use by locals: 28%*
Peak use month: 17,192 in July (33% of all rides)
Lowest use month: 3,245 in October (6% of all rides)
 Using Bird data to extrapolate the number of riders, as they suggest 28% are local riders finds that 14,621 rides of the total were locals. Additionally, Bird explains that

55.9% of those local riders are from Reno zip codes. Removing these 8173 Reno riders from the local total leaves 6448 rides from zip codes around the basin, including Truckee and North Lake Tahoe. Total rides on Bird from users with zip codes in the Basin, 12%. This is the direct comparison of local ridership percentage with Lime, below.
998
Staff Report for City Council Meeting of April 21, 2026 6 of 6 Lime summarized the 2025 season as follows:

Rides in South Lake Tahoe: 124.212
Avg SMD rides per month: 20702
Unique Users: 37,842
Avg ride distance: 1.14 miles (lifetime impact)
Use by locals: 1.3%
Peak use month: 33,853 in July (27% of all rides)
Lowest use month: 8441 in October (6.8% of all rides)
999
Ordinance 2026-XXX April 21, 2026 Page 1 of 11
Ordinance 2026-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
May 5, 2026
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.185 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code (Shared Mobility Devices) to Increase the City’s Liability Protections and Safety Measures, and Revise Operator Insurance Requirements

FINDINGS
A. On February 11, 2020, City Council adopted Ordinance 2020-1140 (Shared Mobility Devices) adding Chapter 4.185 to the South Lake Tahoe City Code (SLTCC), which established a process for permitting and regulating operators and riders of shared mobility devices to achieve the City’s goals of encouraging alternative modes of transportation while protecting public health and safety.

B. On March 26, 2024, City Council adopted Ordinance 2024-1184 amending SLTCC Chapter

4.185 to add a requirement that shared mobility devices be parked in corrals and adding additional requirements to implement the corrals. These requirements were added to address public safety concerns due to improper parking of shared mobility devices.

C. At the City Council meeting on November 19, 2024, Mayor Pro Tem Wallace requested, and Councilmember Creegan seconded, that an item be brought back to City Council to adopt an ordinance to amend SLTCC Chapter 4.185 to reduce the maximum number of shared mobility devices an operator may deploy in the City.

D. At the City Council meeting on March 11, 2025, City Council considered and declined to adopt an ordinance to further amend Chapter 4.185 which would have caused a 50 percent reduction in shared mobility devices permitted within the City. Instead, City Council directed staff to bring an item back with a presentation of potential options for increasing the City’s liability protections, adding additional safety measures for shared mobility device operations, as well as updating operator insurance requirements.

E. City staff brought the requested item back at the City Council meeting on June 3, 2025 at which time City Council directed staff to incorporate the proposals into an ordinance and bring it back for City Council’s consideration. City staff prepared the requested item and included City Council's direction on increasing the City’s liability protections, adding additional safety measures for shared mobility device operations, as well as updating operator insurance requirements.

F. Staff brought this item back for a first reading of a proposed ordinance on March 10, 2026. At that time, Council declined to adopt the ordinance and instead requested additional amendments related to parking, permissible bikeways, and photo enforcement. The present Ordinance incorporates these requests with the remaining previously proposed amendments. 1000
Ordinance 2026-XXX April 21, 2026 Page 2 of 11
G. California Vehicle Code section 21225 authorizes cities to regulate the parking and operation of these devices on pedestrian and bicycle facilities and city streets and highways, so long as such regulations are not in conflict with the California Vehicle Code.

Now, Therefore, the City Council of City of South Lake Tahoe does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 4.185 (Shared Mobility Devices) of the South Lake Tahoe City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

4.185.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process for permitting and regulating operators and riders of shared mobility devices to achieve the city’s goals of encouraging alternative modes of transportation while protecting public health and safety.

4.185.020 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms, phrases and words shall have the meanings hereinafter set forth:
“Assistive technology device” means any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of an individual with a disability. “Bikeway” means a facility that is provided primarily for bicycle travel as defined by California Streets and Highways Code section 890.4.
“Class I bikeway” means a bike path or shared use path which provides a completely separated rightof-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized.
“Class II bikeway” means a bike lane which provides a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. “Class III bikeway” means a bike route established along a route not served by other classes of bikeways or to connect discontinuous segments of bikeways. Class III bikeways are to be shared with motor vehicles and pedestrians, and shall be designated by signs or permanent markings. “Class IV bikeway” means a bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible posts, inflexible barriers, or onstreet parking. “Corral” means an area designated by the chief of police for staging or parking shared mobility devices that is created either by geofencing, or by physical striping, marking or signage. “Fleet” means all shared mobility devices in the city owned by a specific operator. “Geofencing” means the creation of a virtual geographic boundary, defined by Global Positioning System (GPS), radio-frequency identification (RFID), or other technology, that enables an operator to 1001
Ordinance 2026-XXX April 21, 2026 Page 3 of 11
regulate speed, issue notifications, and take other actions, when a shared mobility device within its fleet enters or leaves an area.
“Operator” means any individual, firm, association, partnership, or corporation arranging to provide shared mobility devices within the city.
“Permit” means a permit issued to an operator under this chapter. “Rider” means any person who is riding or is in actual physical control of a shared mobility device. “Shared mobility device” means any wheeled transportation device, other than a bicycle, e-bicycle, automobile or motorcycle, by which a person can be propelled, moved or drawn; is accessed via an on-demand portal, whether a smartphone application, membership card, or similar method; is displayed, placed or offered for rent in any public area or public right-of-way by an operator for shared use by members of the public; and is available to members of the public in unstaffed, self-service locations.

4.185.030 Shared bicycles prohibited.

Shared bicycles and shared e-bicycles are prohibited.

4.185.040 Permit required.

It is unlawful for any operator to conduct a shared mobility device business without a permit.

4.185.050 Application for permit.

A. An operator shall submit a permit application to the chief of police containing, at a minimum, the following:

1. The operator’s name and business address, and the name and natural person or persons who will serve as a local point of contact for the operator;

2. Proof of a valid city business and professions certificate;

3. The type and number of shared mobility devices the operator intends to deploy with a list of identifying serial numbers designated for each device, and a schedule for phased deployment of the fleet, if applicable;

4. The location of any building or property proposed to be used by the operator for its shared mobility device business operations within the city; and

5. A nonrefundable fee for each shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet for use within the city. If phased deployment of the fleet is proposed, payment for the first phase of deployment is due with the application and payment for any subsequent phases of deployment is due prior to each deployment. The city council may set the fee per resolution.

B. At the time of application, the operator must provide proof of commercial general liability insurance with an admitted insurer, or a nonadmitted insurer that is eligible to insure a home state insured under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1760) of Part 2 of Division 1 of the Insurance Code, naming the city of South Lake Tahoe as an additional insured for an amount no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, and with an aggregate amount of 1002
Ordinance 2026-XXX April 21, 2026 Page 4 of 11
no less than $5,000,000 for all occurrences during the policy period, and which meets the following requirements:

1. If the operator maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums required for all policies, the city requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the operator. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the city.

2. The operator’s insurance coverage shall be the primary insurance coverage with respect to the city, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the city, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the operator’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3. The operator agrees to waive rights of subrogation which any insurer of operator may acquire from operator by virtue of the payment of any loss. The operator agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the city has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

4. The operator shall provide immediate written notice to the city if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required polices are reduced; or (3) the deductible or self-insured retention is increased. In the event of any cancellation or reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance, the operator shall obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance.

C. The operator must also offer or make available, or confirm the rider maintains, insurance coverage for bodily injury or death suffered by a pedestrian when the injury or death involves, in whole or in part, the negligent conduct of the rider, of $10,000 for each occurrence of bodily injury to, or death of, one pedestrian in any one accident, and for property damage to an assistive technology device, or $1,000 for each occurrence. This paragraph shall not be interpreted to limit or supersede the other insurance requirements set forth pursuant this Section.

D. Each application must bear the operator’s signature agreeing to:

1. Provide the city with anonymized data on its fleet trip activity within the city, including the Zip Code of each rider; and

2. Indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the city, its elected and appointed boards, officers, employees, agents, volunteers, contractors, and invitees from any and all liability, for any and all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, and injuries direct or indirect, including any and all attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, in connection therewith, arising from operator’s activities, from and against each and every claim and demand of whatsoever nature made on behalf of or by any person, persons, firm, partnership, corporation or otherwise, including operator’s employees, except for claims arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the city.

3. Require all riders who operate a shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet within the City to acknowledge a waiver prior to the rider’s initial ride within the City to waive all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, and injuries direct or indirect, including any and all attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses in connection therewith, against the City arising from the rider’s operation of 1003
Ordinance 2026-XXX April 21, 2026 Page 5 of 11
a shared mobility device within the City, except for claims arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

4. Submit to photo enforcement violations of this chapter, including the requirement to effectively prohibit riders under 18 years of age.

4.185.060 Issuance of permits.

A. Each permit shall contain the following:

1. The number and each type of shared mobility devices the operator is authorized to deploy, up to no more than 500 shared mobility devices per operator;

2. A requirement to effectively prohibit shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from entering or operating on the public walkways and public rights-of-way within the Heavenly Village area, to an extent to be determined by the chief of police, through geofencing or similar technology;

3. A requirement to effectively prohibit, using geofencing or similar technology, any shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from being locked, parked, or ending a ride within any Class I, Class II, or Class IV bikeway or trail in the city;

4. A requirement to effectively prohibit, using geofencing or similar technology, any shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from being locked, parked, or ending a ride except within a corral if the shared mobility device is within 1,000 feet from a corral; and

5. A requirement that each shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet have affixed to it a designated serial number in Arial Bold, font size 130. This serial number will be of contrasting color to the device and placed on both the left and right side of the SMD upright.

6. A requirement to effectively prohibit riders under 18 years of age. The operator shall annually require each rider to re-scan the rider’s proof of identification card prior to the first instance the rider operates a shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet within the City each calendar year.

B. No permit will be issued prior to the operator obtaining any discretionary and building permits required to occupy any building or property within the city proposed to be used for operations, such as warehouse or office space.

C. Any operator in compliance with this chapter may apply for a permit annually.

4.185.070 Fleet limits.

A. No more than 1,000 shared mobility devices shall be permitted within the city at a time. Once that limit is reached, no more permits will be issued to operators.

B. It is unlawful for an operator to deploy more shared mobility devices than allowed by that operator’s permit.

4.185.080 Geofencing and City-designated riding and parking zones.

A. The chief of police, in consultation with the director of public works, may establish special parking, no-ride zones, speed zones, or other areas where riding and/or parking restrictions may apply. These locations may either be permanent or temporary.
1004
Ordinance 2026-XXX April 21, 2026 Page 6 of 11
B. The chief of police, in consultation with the director of public works, may establish locations of corrals. All corral locations will be published on the city’s website.

C. The chief of police may require that an operator mark or geofence these areas and make that information available through the operator’s smartphone app.

D. The chief of police may require that operators direct riders to specified designated parking areas (city designated parking zones, or special areas for events). Geofencing must be integrated into the operator’s app within one week of notice from the chief of police.

E. The chief of police may adopt additional rules to implement the provisions of this chapter, including geographic restrictions for shared mobility devices.

4.185.090 Operating regulations.

A. Operators shall comply with the following:

1. Each operator is subject to all applicable laws, rules and regulations including those in this code and the California Vehicle Code pertaining to the operation and safety standards of the shared mobility devices in its fleet.

2. Each operator shall limit the motorized-assisted speed of each shared mobility device to no more than 15 miles per hour.

3. Through geofencing or similar technology, each operator shall effectively prohibit riders from entering or operating shared mobility devices on public walkways and public rights-of-way within the Heavenly Village area, as designated in the operator’s permit.

4. Through geofencing or similar technology, each operator shall effectively prohibit, using geofencing or similar technology, any shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from being locked, parked, or ending a ride within any Class I, Class II, or Class IV bikeway or trail in the city.

5. Through geofencing or similar technology, each operator shall effectively prohibit, using geofencing or similar technology, any shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from being locked, parked, or ending a ride except within a corral if the shared mobility device is within 1,000 feet from a corral.

6. The chief of police may require operators, through geofencing or similar technology, to temporarily prevent the operation of shared mobility devices in a specific area during an emergency situation or within the perimeter of a permitted special event, when necessary to maintain public health and safety.

7. When a rider operates a shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet within an area subject to geofencing, the operator shall notify the rider of the restricted area.

8. Each operator must effectively prohibit a person and account holder from renting more than one shared mobility device at a time.

9. Each operator must effectively prohibit riders under 18 years of age. Operators shall annually require each rider within the city limits to re-scan the rider’s proof of identification card prior to 1005
Ordinance 2026-XXX April 21, 2026 Page 7 of 11
the first instance the rider operates a shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet within the city each calendar year.

10. Operators shall ban the accounts of riders with two or more citations under this chapter.

11. Operators shall remove all shared mobility devices from operation within the city during the period of November 1 through April 30 each year.

12. Operators shall agree to provide rider information from the identified date, time, and serial number that would allow identification of any rider allegedly in violation of specified California Vehicle Codes shown in photographic evidence. This information shall only be used to assist the city in issuing administrative invoice(s) to the rider for violation(s) of South Lake Tahoe City Code.

13. Operators shall inform their riders about special events, operational changes, or scheduled and publicly announced South Lake Tahoe Police Department enforcement actions through the mobile app.

14. Operators shall inform their riders that operating shared mobility devices under the influence of drugs or alcohol is against the law.

15. Engagement, Outreach, and Education.
a. Operators shall provide a parking and safety education plan as part of their permit application. Operators shall engage with riders to protect the safety of customers and all roadway users. Engagements shall include a mix of virtual (digital media and in-app communications), physical, and in-person methods. This engagement should consider the needs and concerns of riders as well as non-riders. b. Operators shall educate riders about safety, riding rules, and etiquette at the time of signup. Messages must include, but are not limited to:
i. Advise to wear helmets when legally required;
ii. Sidewalk riding is prohibited;
iii. Park in appropriate locations including designated corrals; iv. Riding age restrictions;
v. Ride one person per device;
vi. Obey the rules of the road, and potential penalties; vii. Yielding to pedestrians;
viii. How to report an issue;
ix. Prohibition on riding under the influence.
c. Operators shall educate riders about safety, riding rules and etiquette at the time a rider commences a SMD rental.

16. Digital Outreach and Education.
a. Each rental messaging must be engaging, easy to understand, and require interactive acknowledgement or confirmation by the rider, such as a “rules quiz” or yes or no questions.
1006
Ordinance 2026-XXX April 21, 2026 Page 8 of 11
b. Operators shall educate customers on how to appropriately park devices at the time of each rental through in-app or audio messaging. Messages should inform riders that improper parking puts others at risk.
c. Operators shall develop systems to review and link riders to violations. d. Operator’s software and mobile apps shall regularly inform and educate riders when they have ridden into prohibited riding areas such as geofenced areas, public parking facilities, public parks, and sidewalks.
e. Operators shall inform their riders about special events, operational changes, or scheduled and publicly-announced South Lake Tahoe Police Department enforcement actions through the mobile app.
f. Operators shall inform their riders that operating shared mobility devices under the influence of drugs or alcohol is against the law.

Operators shall conduct outreach in multiple languages. d. Operators must host at least two learn-to-ride education opportunities per year. e. Operators shall provide, to the city at fleet deployment, a plan for community outreach and engagement that shall include ambassador/street teams’ engagement activities and schedules, along with planned presentation, activities, and events with communitybased organizations, business improvement districts, and other key stakeholders. f. Operators shall - on a monthly basis - report information from this outreach to the chief of police to inform problem solving efforts, including, but not limited to, the number of people, time, length, location, and general comments from community members regarding engagement.

B. Riders shall comply with the following:

1. All riders are subject to all applicable laws, rules and regulations including, but not limited to, those in this code and the California Vehicle Code.

2. All riders must be 18 years of age or older with a valid driver’s license. All riders shall re-scan their proof of identification card prior to the first instance the rider operates a shared mobility device in an operator’s fleet within the city each calendar year. 1007
Ordinance 2026-XXX April 21, 2026 Page 9 of 11

3. No rider shall operate a shared mobility device with more than one rider per device at a time.

4. Riders must park shared mobility devices on a sidewalk or other hard surface, in a manner that does not impede pedestrian access and provides a minimum of three feet for a pedestrian walkway; does not impede or obstruct access to ADA parking zones, street furniture, curb ramps, entry ways, driveways, sidewalk cafes, bus stops, loading zones, or landscaping; and does not impede or obstruct vehicular traffic on a street or alley.

5. No rider shall lock, park, or end a ride within any Class I, Class II, or Class IV bikeway or trail in the city.

6. If a rider is within 1,000 feet from a corral, the rider shall only lock, park, or end a ride within a corral.

4.185.100 Impoundment and retrieval of shared mobility devices.

A. Within three hours of notice from the city, an operator shall retrieve a shared mobility device that is in any of the following conditions:

1. Inoperable or not safe to operate and parked on a city street, sidewalk or other city property; or

2. Parked, displayed, offered or made available for rent in violation of this chapter or the California Vehicle Code.

B. The city may impound a shared mobility device that is:

1. Not retrieved within three hours of notice to the operator; or

2. In a condition or parked in a manner that poses an imminent life safety hazard. No notice is required prior to impounding a shared mobility device posing an imminent life safety hazard.

4.185.110 Revocation of permit.

A. The city manager may revoke a permit on any of the following grounds, and shall provide written notice of the reason for the revocation to the operator:

1. The violation by operator of any of the terms, conditions or requirements of the permit or of this chapter.

2. Failure to effectively prohibit riders under the age of 18 from accessing shared mobility devices, which may be established either by multiple administrative citations issued to the operator based on photographic evidence of underage riders, by a city-conducted survey identifying a pattern of underage riders using the operator’s shared mobility devices, or any combination thereof.

B. An operator may appeal the city manager’s decision to revoke or not renew a permit to the city council under the administrative appeal procedures in Chapter 2.35 SLTCC.

C. Within 10 business days of the revocation of an operator’s permit, the operator shall remove its fleet from the city and shall retrieve any shared mobility devices impounded by the city. If the operator 1008
Ordinance 2026-XXX April 21, 2026 Page 10 of 11
fails to remove or retrieve any of its shared mobility devices, the city may remove and dispose of the shared mobility device at the operator’s cost.

4.185.120 Enforcement.

A. Any operator or rider violating any provision of this chapter is subject to administrative citations under Chapter 2.30 SLTCC.

B(1) The city may issue an administrative citation with a fine to an operator based on photographic, or other, evidence that includes the serial number of an operator’s shared mobility device and demonstrates that a rider is using that shared mobility device in violation of this chapter. City Council may set the amount of the fine per resolution.

B(2) The city may issue an administrative citation with a fine to rider based on photographic, or other, evidence that includes the serial number of an operator’s shared mobility device, a date and time stamp or other evidence of a date and time, and demonstrates the rider is using that shared mobility device in violation of this chapter. City Council may set the amount of the fine per resolution.

B(3) By incorporation, photo enforcement for rider violations includes only specific California Vehicle Code (CVC) violations on a shared mobility device as enumerated below:
a. CVC 21228(b) (when preparing for a left turn, the rider must dismount); b. CVC 21235(e) (no passenger allowed).

The above listed violations, when cited, will reference this chapter, section, and subsections of SLTCC, as applicable.

C. Any operator violating, permitting, or assisting the violation of any provisions of this chapter shall be subject to any and all civil remedies, including, without limitation, permit revocation. All remedies provided herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. Any violation of these provisions shall constitute a separate violation for each and every day during which such violation is committed or continued.

SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 3. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk is directed to certify this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law.
1009
Ordinance 2026-XXX April 21, 2026 Page 11 of 11
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days following its adoption.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on May 5, 2026 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Abstain:

Absent:
________________________ Date:_________
Cody Bass, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
First Reading:

Published:

Second Reading:

Effective:

The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
1010
Chapter 4.185

SHARED MOBILITY DEVICES
Sections:

4.185.010 Purpose.

4.185.020 Definitions.

4.185.030 Shared bicycles prohibited.

4.185.040 Permit required.

4.185.050 Application for permit.

4.185.060 Issuance of permits.

4.185.070 Fleet limits.

4.185.080 Geofencing and City-designated riding and parking zones.

4.185.090 Operating regulations.

4.185.100 Impoundment and retrieval of shared mobility devices.

4.185.110 Revocation of permit.

4.185.120 Enforcement.

4.185.010 Purpose.

4.185.020 Definitions.

1011
“Class II bikeway” means a bike lane which provides a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.
“Class III bikeway” means a bike route established along a route not served by other classes of bikeways or to connect discontinuous segments of bikeways. Class III bikeways are to be shared with motor vehicles and pedestrians, and shall be designated by signs or permanent markings. “Class IV bikeway” means a bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible posts, inflexible barriers, or onstreet parking. “Corral” means an area designated by the chief of police for staging or parking shared mobility devices that is created either by geofencing, or by physical striping, marking or signage.
“Fleet” means all shared mobility devices in the city owned by a specific operator.
“Geofencing” means the creation of a virtual geographic boundary, defined by Global Positioning System (GPS), radio-frequency identification (RFID), or other technology, that enables an operator to regulate speed, issue notifications, and take other actions, when a shared mobility device within its fleet enters or leaves an area.
“Operator” means any individual, firm, association, partnership, or corporation arranging to provide shared mobility devices within the city. “Permit” means a permit issued to an operator under this chapter. “Rider” means any person who is riding or is in actual physical control of a shared mobility device.
“Shared mobility device” means any wheeled transportation device, other than a bicycle, e-bicycle, automobile or motorcycle, by which a person can be propelled, moved or drawn; is accessed via an on-demand portal, whether a smartphone application, membership card, or similar method; is displayed, 1012
placed or offered for rent in any public area or public right-of-way by an operator for shared use by members of the public; and is available to members of the public in unstaffed, self-service locations.

4.185.030 Shared bicycles prohibited.

Shared bicycles and shared e-bicycles are prohibited.

4.185.040 Permit required.

It is unlawful for any operator to conduct a shared mobility device business without a permit.

4.185.050 Application for permit.

A. An operator shall submit a permit application to the chief of police containing, at a minimum, the following:

1. The operator’s name and business address, and the name and natural person or persons who will serve as a local point of contact for the operator;

2. Proof of a valid city business and professions certificate;

4. The location of any building or property proposed to be used by the operator for its shared mobility device business operations within the city; and

5. A $75.00 nonrefundable fee for each shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet for use within the city. If phased deployment of the fleet is proposed, payment for the first phase of deployment is due with the application and payment for any subsequent phases of deployment is due prior to each deployment. The city council may set the fee per resolution.

B. At the time of application, the operator must provide proof of commercial general liability insurance with an admitted insurer, or a nonadmitted insurer that is eligible to insure a home state insured under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1760) of Part 2 of Division 1 of the Insurance Code, naming the city of South Lake Tahoe as an additional insured for an amount no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property 1013
damage, and with an aggregate amount of no less than $54,000,000 for all occurrences during the policy period, and which meets the following requirements:

D. Each application must bear the operator’s signature agreeing to:
1014

1. Provide the city with anonymized data on its fleet trip activity within the city, including the Zip Code of each rider; and

3. Require all riders who operate a shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet within the City to acknowledge a waiver prior to the rider’s initial ride within the City to waive all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, and injuries direct or indirect, including any and all attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses in connection therewith, against the City arising from the rider’s operation of a shared mobility device within the City, except for claims arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

43. Submit to photo enforcement violations of this chapter, including the requirement to effectively prohibit riders under 18 years of age.

4.185.060 Issuance of permits.

A. Each permit shall contain the following:

1. The number and each type of shared mobility devices the operator is authorized to deploy, up to no more than 500 shared mobility devices per operator;

2. A requirement to effectively prohibit shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from entering or operating on the public walkways and public rights-of-way within the Heavenly Village area, withto an extent to be determined by the city managerchief of police, through geofencing or similar technology;

3. A requirement to effectively prohibit, using geofencing or similar technology, any shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from being 1015
locked, parked, or ending a ride within any Class I, or Class II, or Class IV bikeway or trail in the city;

5. A requirement that each shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet have affixed to it a designated serial number in Arial Bold, a font size 130and style that may be observed with the naked eye from 50 feet away. This serial number will be of contrasting color to the device and placed on both the left and right side of the SMD upright.

C. Any operator in compliance with this chapter may apply for a permit annually.

4.185.070 Fleet limits.

A. No more than 1,000 shared mobility devices shall be permitted within the city at a time. Once that limit is reached, no more permits will be issued to operators.

B. It is unlawful for an operator to deploy more shared mobility devices than allowed by that operator’s permit.

4.185.080 Geofencing and City-designated riding and parking zones.

A. The chief of police, in consultation with the director of public works, may establish special parking, no-ride zones, speed zones, or other areas where riding and/or parking restrictions may apply. These locations may either be permanent or temporary.
1016
B. The chief of police, in consultation with the director of public works, may establish locations of corrals. All corral locations will be published on the city’s website.

C. The chief of police may require that an operator mark or geofence these areas and make that information available through its the operator’s smartphone app.

E. The chief of policeThe city manager, or their designee, may adopt additional rules to implement the provisions of this chapter, including geographic restrictions for shared mobility devices.

4.185.090 Operating regulations.

A. Operators shall comply with the following:

2. Each operator shall limit the motorized-assisted speed of each shared mobility device to no more than 15 miles per hour.

4. Through geofencing or similar technology, each operator shall effectively prohibit, using geofencing or similar technology, any shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from being locked, parked, or ending a ride within any Class I, or Class II, or Class IV bikeway or trail in the city.

5. Through geofencing or similar technology, each operator shall effectively prohibit, using geofencing or similar technology, any shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from being locked, parked, or 1017
ending a ride except within a corral if the shared mobility device is within 1,000 feet from a corral.

7. When a rider operates a shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet within an area subject to geofencing, the operator shall notify the rider of the restricted area.

8. Each operator must effectively prohibit a person and account holder from renting more than one shared mobility device at a time.

9. Each operator must effectively prohibit riders under 18 years of age.

Operators shall annually require each rider within the city limits to re-scan the rider’s proof of identification card prior to the first instance the rider operates a shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet within the city each calendar year.

10. Operators shall ban the accounts of riders with two or more citations under this chapter.

11. Operators shall remove all shared mobility devices from operation within the city during the period of November 1 through April 30 each year.

13. Operators shall inform their riders about special events, operational changes, or scheduled and publicly announced South Lake Tahoe Police Department enforcement actions through the mobile app.
1018

14. Operators shall inform their riders that operating shared mobility devices under the influence of drugs or alcohol is against the law.

Engagements shall include a mix of virtual (digital media and inapp communications), physical, and in-person methods. This engagement should consider the needs and concerns of riders as well as non-riders.
b. Operators shall educate riders about safety, riding rules, and etiquette at the time of signup. Messages must include, but are not limited to:
i. Advise to wear helmets when legally required;
ii. Sidewalk riding is prohibited;
iii. Park in appropriate locations including designated corrals;
iv. Riding age restrictions;
v. Ride one person per device;
vi. Obey the rules of the road, and potential penalties; vii. Yielding to pedestrians;
viii. How to report an issue;
ix. Prohibition on riding under the influence.
c. Operators shall educate riders about safety, riding rules and etiquette at the time a rider commences a SMD rental.

16. Digital Outreach and Education.
a. Each rental messaging must be engaging, easy to understand, and require interactive acknowledgement or confirmation by the rider, such as a “rules quiz” or yes or no questions.
b. Operators shall educate customers on how to appropriately park devices at the time of each rental through in-app or audio 1019
messaging. Messages should inform riders that improper parking puts others at risk.
c. Operators shall develop systems to review and link riders to violations.
d. Operator’s software and mobile apps shall regularly inform and educate riders when they have ridden into prohibited riding areas such as geofenced areas, public parking facilities, public parks, and sidewalks.
e. Operators shall inform their riders about special events, operational changes, or scheduled and publicly-announced South Lake Tahoe Police Department enforcement actions through the mobile app.
f. Operators shall inform their riders that operating shared mobility devices under the influence of drugs or alcohol is against the law.

17. Physical Outreach and Education.
a. Operators shall regularly deploy ambassadors and/or street teams to inform riders on safety and appropriate device use (including parking). Ambassador teams should be clearly identifiable as operator staff.
b. Operators must conduct at minimum six community events or community/stakeholder safety workshops per year. Operators may host these safety workshops at community events, such as the Live at Lakeview summer concert series.
c. Half (per season) of the community events or
community/stakeholder meetings must be targeted toward
engaging low-income or other disadvantaged community
members. Operators shall conduct outreach in multiple
languages.
1020
d. Operators must host at least two learn-to-ride education opportunities per year.
e. Operators shall provide, to the city at fleet deployment, a plan for community outreach and engagement that shall include
ambassador/street teams’ engagement activities and schedules, along with planned presentation, activities, and events with community-based organizations, business improvement districts, and other key stakeholders.
f. Operators shall - on a monthly basis - report information from this outreach to the chief of police to inform problem solving efforts, including, but not limited to, the number of people, time, length, location, and general comments from community members
regarding engagement.

B. Riders shall comply with the following:

1. All riders are subject to all applicable laws, rules and regulations including, but not limited to, those in this code and the California Vehicle Code.

2. All riders must be 18 years of age or older with a valid driver’s license.

All riders shall re-scan their proof of identification card prior to the first instance the rider operates a shared mobility device in an operator’s fleet within the city each calendar year.

3. No rider shall operate a shared mobility device with more than one rider per device at a time.

5. No rider shall lock, park, or end a ride within any Class I or, Class II, or Class IV bikeway or trail in the city.

6. If a rider is within 1,000 feet from a corral, the rider shall only lock, park, or end a ride within a corral.

4.185.100 Impoundment and retrieval of shared mobility devices.

A. Within three hours of notice from the city, an operator shall retrieve a shared mobility device that is in any of the following conditions:

1. Inoperable or not safe to operate and parked on a city street, sidewalk or other city property; or

2. Parked, displayed, offered or made available for rent in violation of this chapter or the California Vehicle Code.

B. The city may impound a shared mobility device that is:

1. Not retrieved within three hours of notice to the operator; or

2. In a condition or parked in a manner that poses an imminent life safety hazard. No notice is required prior to impounding a shared mobility device posing an imminent life safety hazard.

4.185.110 Revocation of permit.

A. The city manager may revoke a permit on any of the following grounds, and shall provide written notice of the reason for the revocation to the operator:

1. The violation by operator of any of the terms, conditions or requirements of the permit or of this chapter.

B. An operator may appeal the city manager’s decision to revoke or not renew a permit to the city council under the administrative appeal procedures in Chapter 2.35 SLTCC.
1022
C. Within 10 business days of the revocation of an operator’s permit, the operator shall remove its fleet from the city and shall retrieve any shared mobility devices impounded by the city. If the operator fails to remove or retrieve any of its shared mobility devices, the city may remove and dispose of the shared mobility device at the operator’s cost.

4.185.120 Enforcement.

A. Any operator or rider violating any provision of this chapter is subject to administrative citations under Chapter 2.30 SLTCC.

B(1). The city may issue an administrative citation with a $100.00 fine to an operator based on photographic, or other, evidence that includes the serial number of an operator’s shared mobility device and demonstrates that a rider is using that shared mobility device in violation of this chapter, including a rider under the age of 18, riders operating a shared mobility device with more than one rider per device at one time, and operating or parking a shared mobility device within a restricted area subject to geofencing requirements.

City Council may set the amount of the fine per resolution.

B(2) The city may issue an administrative citation with a $100.00 fine to rider based on photographic, or other, evidence that includes the serial number of an operator’s shared mobility device, a date and time stamp or other evidence of a date and time, and demonstrates the rider is using that shared mobility device in violation of this chapter. City Council may set the amount of the fine per resolution.

The above listed violations, when cited, will reference this chapter, section, and subsections of SLTCC, as applicable.

C. Any operator violating, permitting, or assisting the violation of any provisions of this chapter shall be subject to any and all civil remedies, including, without limitation, permit revocation. All remedies provided herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. Any violation of these provisions shall 1023
constitute a separate violation for each and every day during which such violation is committed or continued.

D. In addition to the remedies set forth in this chapter, operating a shared mobility device business in violation of any provision of this chapter is hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance under Chapter 4.40 SLTCC and, as such, may be abated or enjoined from further operation in the city. 1024
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: April 21, 2026
Agenda Item #:19
Agenda Item: Agenda Planning Calendar
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Identify, with consent of at least two Council Members, any desired future agenda items, and/or modify the Agenda Planning Calendar as desired.

Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk, and Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager Attachments:

APC 04 16 2026.pdf
1025
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 04 16 2026)
Agenda Item Section
May 5, 9 a.m. City Attny Shared Mobility Device Ordinance (Second Reading) Consent City Clerk Proclamation-Mental Health Awareness Month Proclamation Proclamation-Public Works Week Proclamation
City Manager Economic Development Program Update/Commission Need UB Measure G Support Resolution NB
Discussion Immigration Legal Fee Reduction or Assistance Program NB Resolution Reaffirming the City's Commitment to Rights & Dignity UB Dev Services Quarterly Housing Report Consent
Annual Housing Element Report, Update, and Termonology NB Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Annual Report Consent
Finance Ski Run BID to Levy Assessment for Business License year 2026/20 PH Resolution Declaring Intent to Reimburse Fire Station 3 Expenditures Consent Fire LVFD MOU update for data sharing
Consent
Parks & Rec Journey of Hope Rec Center Showers Fee Sponsorship Consent Public Works Ski Run Blvd Electrification NB
1026
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 04 16 2026)
Authorization to surplus fleet vehicles and misc tools Consent Contract extension for CDM Smith on the Pioner Trail project Consent Needle Peak Localized Treatment Grant Agreement Consent Award 2026 Road Rehab Contract Consent
May 7, 8-5 p.m. Special Closed Session
May 19, 1-5 p.m. Special Closed Session
May 19, 5:30 p.m. Airport Airport Master Plan adoption NB Airport 5 year Master Agreement-environmental Consent
City Manager Media Production Contract Award Consent
Finance Quarterly Budget and Financial Status Report as of March 2026 Consent Investment Portfolio Report as of March 2026 Consent
HR Health Insurance Broker Contract Award Consent
Police/CM Ski Run/Heavenly Parking Report NB
Public Works Contract Extension SieraCon for Energy Savings Project Consent June 2, 9 a.m. City Attorney Ord-Non-Residential Structures Abandoned Construction (First ReadNB City Clerk Pride Resolution Update Consent
1027
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 04 16 2026)
City Manager Use of Cannabis Tax Revenue NB
CivicSpark Budget Request Consent
Liberty Customer Service Presentation
Dev Services AHSC Transit Agreement with Capitol Corridor JPA and El Dorado TransConsent Sign Ordinance Amendments (Sub Committee Recos) UB
CTC Land Exchange Consent
STR Delinquency Report PH
HR City Manager Contract Award NB
Police/CA Unpermitted VHR Report Consent
Public Works CSA 3 Assessment Confirmation PH
CIP Presentation NB
El Dorado Beach Update NB
June 16, 5:30 p.m.City Attorney Ord-Non-Residential Structures Abandoned Construction (Second R Consent

CC-STRSA
City Clerk Resolution Consolidating Election with EDC Consent City Manager Legislative Agenda UB
Finance Direct Charge of Mello-Roos Special Tax for CFD 1995-1 for FY 202 Consent 1028
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 04 16 2026)
Annual Special Tax for CFD 2001-1 Series 2015 Special Tax Refund Consent Disolution STJPPFA NB
Parks & Rec Ice Arena Concessionaire Agreement NB
Police SRO Agreement for 2026-2027 School Year Consent
Vista rise Operating Agreement & Grant report Consent
June 24, 2026, 5 p.m., LTCC, Special City Council Meeting-State of the City Address Aug 11, 9 a.m. Airport Award Runway 1836 Construction Contract Consent City Manager 2026 National Community Survey Report NB
Informational item - Check Cashing + Bill Pay Services Options NB Finance Financial Policies Update inc. Local, State & US Preference Consent Fire RFP Contract Award Cole Property project
Consent
Dev Services Evaluate Feasibility - Res. Area Plan/SB9 & Remove Tourist AccomoNB Tahoe Living Housing and Mobility Fees UB
Aug 25, 9 a.m. Budget Workshop
Sept 8, 9 a.m. Dev Services Mid Town Area Plan Adoption PH Finance Investment Policy Update Consent
1029
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 04 16 2026)
Sept 22, 5:30 p.m. Finance Quarterly Budget and Financial Status Report as of June 2026 Consent Oct 5, 5:30 p.m. City Clerk Ordinance Increasing City Council Compensation (First Reading) NB Finance GAAN Limit Consent
Nov 3, 9:30 a.m. City Clerk Ordinance Increasing City Council Compensation (Second Reading) Consent Finance Fiscal year 2025-2026 Budgeted Funds Re-appropriation Consent TID Annual Report NB
Investment Portfolio Report as of September 2026 Consent Nov 17, 5:30 p.m.

Dec 1, 9 a.m.

Dec 15, 5:30 p.m. City Clerk Certification of Election
Outgoing Councilmember Recognition
Oath of Office
City Council Re-Organization Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem
2027 City Council Meeting Schedule
Finance Annual ROPS Approval
Quarterly Budget and Financial Status Report as of September 2026 1030
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 04 16 2026)
Investment Portfolio Report as of September 2026
City Clerk
City Manager LTCC Fire Training Center Coverage Agreement Grants/Funding for Undergrounding Utilities
CM/CA Rec Center Re-Use Outreach
Dev Services Performance Bond as a Condition of Demolition Fire MOU Ratification of Auto Aid with TDFD
CTC Land Access Agreement for Airport project
Parks & Rec Events and Facitilies Naming Rights Discussion El Dorado Boat Ramp Dock Replacement Purchase
South Tahoe Parks Foundation Fundraiser Donation Agreement Update Purchase of Parks Equipment and Additional Funds Request Regan Beach Environmental & Design RFP
Regan Beach Statewide Park Program Grant Application
Future of Senior Center
Unscheduled/Pending
1031
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 04 16 2026)
Police Barton Community Health Needs and Harm Reduction Update SANE Presentation with Barton
AB109 MOU
Heavenly Village Employee Discount Parking Passes
Ratification of Application for CalOES DVRT
Massage Ordinance Update/Amendments
Employee Parking at Heavenly Village
Police/PW Bike Paths/Speed Bumps, Bike Parking, Vehicle Parking 2026 Update to Parking Fees in the Bellamy Parking Garage Public Works Geothermal Use Discussion Item
Paving Policy Prioritization of Total Users
Award of PD Roof Replacement
Eloise Bike Path Enhancements
Adjustment to 2026 Paving Program
TTD US 50 Plans Presentation
1032
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 04 16 2026)
Award Lakeview and Ski Run Electrical Upgrades
Facilities Condition Assessment
Award PS&E for Sugar Pine Bike Path Project
1033

South Lake Tahoe City CouncilApril 21, 2026

South Lake Tahoe City Council
April 21, 2026