[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29394-29429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11748]



[[Page 29393]]

Vol. 80

Thursday,

No. 98

May 21, 2015

Part II





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Louisiana 
Black Bear From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
and Removal of Similarity-of-Appearance Protections for the American 
Black Bear; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 29394]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014; FXES11130900000C2-156-FF09E32000]
RIN 1018-BA44


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the 
Louisiana Black Bear From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Removal of Similarity-of-Appearance Protections for the 
American Black Bear

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft post-delisting monitoring 
plan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
remove the Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) due to 
recovery. This proposed action is based on a thorough review of the 
best available scientific and commercial data, which indicate that this 
subspecies has recovered and no longer meets the definition of a 
threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act). Our review of the status of this subspecies 
shows that the threats to the subspecies have been eliminated or 
reduced, and adequate regulatory mechanisms exist. The subspecies is 
now viable over the next 100 years with sufficient protected habitat to 
support breeding and movement of individuals between subpopulations so 
that the subspecies is not currently, and is not likely to again 
become, a threatened species within the foreseeable future in all or a 
significant portion of its range. We also propose to remove from the 
List the American black bear, which is listed within the historic range 
of the Louisiana black bear due to similarity of appearance. Finally, 
we announce the availability of a draft post-delisting monitoring (PDM) 
plan for the Louisiana black bear. We seek information, data, and 
comments from the public regarding this proposal to delist this 
subspecies and on the draft PDM plan.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to consider your comments on this 
proposed rule, we must receive your comments on or before July 20, 
2015. We will hold two public hearings on this proposed rule. The first 
hearing will be in Tallulah, LA on June 23, 2015, from 7:00 to 9:00 
p.m. (Central Time). The second hearing will be in Baton Rouge, LA on 
June 25, 2015, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. (Central Time) (see ADDRESSES).

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this proposed rule and draft PDM 
plan by one of the following methods:
     Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: 
http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the Docket Number 
for this proposed rule which is: FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014. You may submit a 
comment by clicking on ``Comment now!'' Please ensure that you have 
found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.
     By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: 
Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket Number, FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014; 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Headquarters, ABHC-PPM, 5275 Leesburg 
Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Information Requested section below for more information).
    Document availability: A copy of the draft PDM plan can be viewed 
at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014, or 
at the Louisiana Ecological Services Field Office's Web site at http://www.fws.gov/lafayette/. A companion guide that lists acronyms for this 
rule also can be found at these Web sites.
    Public hearing: We will hold public hearings on the proposed rule, 
at the following locations: Tallulah, LA on June 23, 2015, from 7:00 to 
9:00 p.m. (Central Time) at the Tallulah Community Center, 800 North 
Beech Street, Tallulah, LA 71282 and Baton Rouge, LA on June 25, 2015, 
from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. (Central Time) at the Louisiana Department of 
Wildlife and Fisheries Headquarters, 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 
70898. Comments will be accepted at the hearings orally or in writing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Weller, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Ecological Services Field Office, 
646 Cajundome Boulevard, Suite 400, Lafayette, Louisiana 70506; 
telephone (337) 291-3100. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or 
speech-impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 
877-8339 for TTY assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    We propose to remove the Louisiana black bear from the Federal List 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) due to recovery. 
This proposed action is based on a thorough review of the best 
available and commercial information. This document proposes to delist 
this threatened bear and announces the availability of a draft post 
delisting monitoring (PDM\1\) plan. We are also proposing to remove the 
similarity of appearance protections for the American black bear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See list of commonly used acronyms at www.regulations.gov 
(Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014) and www.fws.gov/lafayette.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basis for Action

    We may delist a species if the best scientific and commercial data 
indicate the species is neither a threatened species nor an endangered 
species for one or more of the following reasons:
    (1) The species is extinct;
    (2) the species has recovered and is no longer threatened or 
endangered; or
    (3) the original data used at the time the species was classified 
were in error. Here, we have determined that the species may be 
considered for delisting based on recovery:
     The Louisiana black bear was listed as a threatened 
species primarily because of the historical modification and reduction 
of habitat, the reduced quality of remaining habitat due to 
fragmentation, and the threat of future habitat conversion and human-
related mortality (57 FR 588, January 7, 1992). At that time, the 
Louisiana black bear population consisted of three breeding 
subpopulations, the Tensas River, Upper Atchafalaya River, and Lower 
Atchafalaya River Basins (TRB, UARB, and LARB, respectively). An 
indirect result of habitat fragmentation was isolation of the already 
small bear populations, subjecting them to threats from such factors as 
demographic stochasticity \2\ and inbreeding. However, key demographic 
attributes (e.g., survival, fecundity \3\, population growth rates, 
home ranges) for the Louisiana black bear were not known at the time of 
listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Demographic stochasticity'' is defined as the variability 
in population growth rates arising from random differences among 
individuals in survival and reproduction within a season.
    \3\ the reproductive rate of an organism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     In February 2014, we completed a 5-year status review. The 
review indicated that habitat restoration and protection, designed to 
facilitate population expansion, movement of bears between 
subpopulations, and

[[Page 29395]]

genetic exchange between subpopulations, had increased the amount of 
habitat protected and reduced habitat fragmentation; trends in habitat 
conversion and loss were reduced and in some instances appeared to have 
reversed. As identified in the 5-year review, the TRB, UARB, and LARB 
breeding subpopulations had increased in numbers and range and appeared 
to be stable or increasing. Additionally, one new breeding 
subpopulation, the Three Rivers Complex (TRC), had formed in Louisiana, 
and three more breeding subpopulations were forming on adjacent lands 
in Mississippi. The extent of movement of individuals between 
subpopulations and the limits to that interchange had not been 
documented at the time of the 5-year review. We described in the review 
that we anticipated making additional progress with partners and 
believed delisting could be considered for this subspecies in the near 
future. However, the review did not include a recommendation to 
reclassify or delist this subspecies.
     Since completion of the 5-year review, the Louisiana black 
bear population now consists of four main subpopulations in Louisiana 
and several additional satellite subpopulations in Louisiana and 
Mississippi. Research has documented that the four main Louisiana 
subpopulations (TRB, TRC, UARB, and LARB) are stable or increasing 
(Hooker 2010, O'Connell 2013, Troxler 2013, Laufenberg and Clark 2014, 
entire documents respectively). The Louisiana black bear recovery plan 
defines a minimum viable subpopulation as one that has a 95 percent or 
better chance of persistence over 100 years, despite the foreseeable 
effects of four stochastic factors: demography, environment, genetics, 
and natural catastrophe (Service 1995, p. 14). According to the most 
recent research and modeling efforts, the TRB subpopulation has a 96 to 
100 percent probability of persistence over 100 years; similarly, the 
UARB subpopulation has an 85 to 99 percent probability of persistence 
over the next 100 years (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, pp. 66-67) and the 
TRC subpopulation persistence probabilities were greater than or equal 
to 95 percent only for projections based on the most optimistic set of 
assumptions (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 67). Although the long-term 
viability of the LARB subpopulation is not known, it remains the second 
largest Louisiana black bear subpopulation and has approximately 
doubled in size in just the last 10 years, in spite of a relatively 
high rate of adult female mortality (due to anthropogenic and natural 
sources of mortality, existing dispersal barriers, and other threats to 
the LARB subpopulation). A metapopulation (a group of subpopulations 
that interact (i.e., movement of individuals)) now exists among the 
TRB, UARB, and the TRC subpopulation as a result of bear movements 
among them. Other interactions have been documented among these and 
newly forming subpopulations in Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as 
movement of individuals from subpopulations in Arkansas, has been 
documented. The current potential for movement of individuals between 
the LARB and other subpopulations is low (nonexistent for female 
bears), and immigration into this subpopulation has not been documented 
(Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 85). However, reports of bear live-
captures, known natal dens, and confirmed sightings indicate bears can 
and do move out (at least temporarily) of this subpopulation (Figure 1, 
Davidson et al. 2015, p. 24). Dispersal by male bears of more than 100 
miles is not unusual and combined with the documented occurrences of 
bears (likely males) on the higher portions (levees and ridges) of the 
Atchafalaya Basin spanning the area between the UARB and LARB 
subpopulations, the movement of individuals between the other 
subpopulations cannot be ruled out. Overall, the Louisiana black bear 
metapopulation (TRB, UARB, and TRC) has an estimated probability of 
long-term persistence (more than 100 years) of 0.996 under even the 
most conservative scenario (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 82). The 
current movement of individuals between the additional subpopulations 
elsewhere in Louisiana and Mississippi would only improve 
metapopulation's chance for persistence (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 
94). The opportunity for movement of individuals between the TRB-TRC-
UARB metapopulation and the LARB subpopulation is currently low; 
however, the presence of the relatively large LARB subpopulation and 
projections for improving habitat conditions (refer to Factor A and D 
discussions below) between it and the more northerly UARB subpopulation 
contributes to the persistence of the Louisiana black bear population 
as a whole. Furthermore, results of these studies indicate that 
sufficient restoration and protection of habitat supporting breeding 
subpopulations is in place and is expected to continue to expand in the 
future, and movement of individuals between those subpopulations has 
been achieved.
     A large proportion of habitat (an increase of over 430 
percent since the time of listing) supporting breeding subpopulations 
and interconnecting those subpopulations has been protected and 
restored through management on publicly owned lands, or through private 
landowner restoration efforts with permanent non-developmental 
easements. The threat of significant habitat loss and conversion that 
was present at listing has been significantly reduced and in many cases 
reversed. These habitat restoration and protection activities are 
expected to continue due to their value to many other species. Since 
the listing of the Louisiana black bear in 1992, voluntary landowner-
incentive based habitat restoration programs and environmental 
regulations have not only stopped the net loss of forested lands in the 
Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley (LMRAV), but have resulted in 
significant habitat gains within both the LMRAV and the Louisiana black 
bear habitat restoration planning area (HRPA). A substantial portion of 
those restored habitats are protected with perpetual non-development 
easements (through the NRCS's Wetland Reserve Program [WRP] or wetland 
mitigation banking programs) (see the Factor D evaluation below). 
Public management areas such as National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs), 
Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), and Corps of Engineers (Corps) lands 
supporting Louisiana black bear subpopulations are also protected and 
managed in a way that benefits the Louisiana black bear. Remnant and 
restored forested wetlands are provided protection through applicable 
conservation regulations (e.g., Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 
1972 [CWA]).
    Taking into consideration the current long-term viability of the 
Louisiana black bear metapopulation (TRB, TRC, and UARB), the 
protection of suitable habitat, and the lack of significant threats to 
the Louisiana black bear or its habitat, our conclusion is that this 
subspecies no longer meets the definition of a threatened species under 
the Act.

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
data, comments, and new information on this proposed rule from other 
governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or 
other interested parties. The comments that will be most useful and

[[Page 29396]]

likely to influence our decisions are those that are supported by data 
or peer-reviewed studies and those that include citations to, and 
analyses of, applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments 
as specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, 
please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to 
authenticate any scientific or commercial data you reference or 
provide. In particular, we seek comments concerning the following:
    (1) Biological data regarding the Louisiana black bear including 
locations of any additional breeding subpopulations.
    (2) Relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the 
Louisiana black bear, as well as the extent of Federal and State 
protection and management, if this rule is finalized, that would be 
provided to the Louisiana black bear as a delisted species.
    (3) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of 
the Louisiana black bear that may impact or benefit the species (e.g., 
restoration of prior-converted lands to natural habitat, conversion of 
habitat to non-habitat conditions through development or clearing, 
etc.).
    (4) The draft post-delisting monitoring plan and the methods and 
approaches detailed in it.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that a 
determination as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    In issuing a final determination on this proposed action, we will 
take into consideration all comments and any additional information we 
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from 
this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and 
addresses, will become part of the administrative record.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. Before including your 
address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying 
information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire 
comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made 
publicly available at any time.
    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire comment--including any personal identifying information--will be 
posted on the Web site. While you can ask us in your comment to 
withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we 
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Similarly, if you mail or hand-deliver a hardcopy comment that 
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top 
of your document that we withhold this information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure 
that the electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all 
comments we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy 
submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation used in preparing this proposed rule will be available 
for public inspection in two ways:
    (1) You can view them on http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search 
box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014, which is the docket number for this 
proposed rule. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the 
screen, select the type of documents you want to view under the 
Document Type heading.
    (2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to 
view the comments and materials in person at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Louisiana Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing

    We have scheduled formal public hearings to afford all interested 
parties with an opportunity to make formal oral comments on the 
proposed delisting of the Louisiana black bear. We will hold two public 
informational open houses from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., followed by 
public hearings from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., on the dates specified 
above in DATES, at the locations identified in ADDRESSES. A public 
information open house will take place prior to each public hearing to 
provide an additional opportunity for the public to gain information 
and ask questions about the proposed rule. This open house session 
should assist interested parties in preparing substantive comments on 
the proposed rule. Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order 
to attend and participate in the public hearings should contact the 
Louisiana Field Office at (337) 291-3100 or [email protected] as 
soon as possible. In order to allow sufficient time to process 
requests, please contact us for assistance no later than one week 
before the hearing.
    Written comments submitted during the comment period receive equal 
consideration with comments presented at a public hearing. All comments 
we receive at the public hearing, both oral and written, will be 
considered in making our final decision.

Previous Federal Actions

    On January 7, 1992, we published a final rule in the Federal 
Register (57 FR 588) listing the Louisiana black bear as threatened 
within its historic range (east Texas, Louisiana, and southwestern 
Mississippi). The final rule identified the following threats to the 
Louisiana black bear: The threat of habitat conversion to non-timber 
uses in addition to past losses (historical modification and reduced 
quality of habitat, primarily as a result of conversion to 
agriculture); the lack of protection of privately owned woodlands in 
the UARB and TRB areas; the potential effects of human-related 
mortality (illegal killing); and the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms to protect Louisiana black bear habitat. To address one of 
those threats (human-related mortality), in the 1992 final rule we also 
listed the American black bear in Sec.  17.11(h) due to similarity of 
appearance to the Louisiana black bear. The final listing rule included 
a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act allowing normal forest 
management practices in occupied bear habitat, with certain 
limitations. The List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is found in 
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in title 17 (50 CFR 17.11(h)), 
and the section 4(d) rule for the Louisiana black bear is found at 50 
CFR 17.40(i).
    On September 27, 1995, we published the Louisiana Black Bear 
Recovery Plan (Service 1995, 59 pp.). On August 2, 2007, we initiated a 
5-year status review of this species (72 FR 42425). On March 10, 2009, 
we published a final rule in the Federal Register (74 FR 10350) 
designating 1,195,821 acres (483,932 hectares) of critical habitat in 
Avoyelles, East Carroll, Catahoula, Concordia, Franklin, Iberia, 
Iberville, Madison, Pointe Coupee, Richland, St. Martin, St. Mary, 
Tensas, West Carroll, and West Feliciana Parishes, Louisiana. The 
critical habitat designation is at 50 CFR 17.95(a). We completed a 5-
year status review on February 18, 2014 (Service 2014, 74 pp). The 
review indicated the individual Louisiana black bear subpopulations 
(TRB \4\, TRC, UARB, and LARB) had exhibited substantial

[[Page 29397]]

improvement. For a summary of the findings of that 5-year status 
review, see the Executive Summary of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See list of commonly used acronyms at www.regulations.gov 
(Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014) and www.fws.gov/lafayette.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For additional details on previous Federal actions, see discussion 
under the Recovery section below. Also, see http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/us-species.html for this species' profile.

Species Information

Distribution and Taxonomy

    The Louisiana black bear is one of 16 subspecies of the American 
black bear (Ursus americanus). Historically black bears were widely 
distributed in the forested areas of North America, including Mexico 
(Pelton 2003, p. 547). Today, the status and density of bears varies 
throughout their range with some areas having large populations and 
others with smaller populations and restricted numbers (Pelton 2003, p. 
547). Hall (1981, pp. 948-951) recognized three black bear subspecies 
ocurring in the southeastern United States. These included:
    (1) The American black bear (U.a. americanus), historically 
occuring in the eastern United States and Canada west to the Rocky 
Mountains, south to central Texas, southern Arkansas, and northern 
Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia, but now in the Southeast primarily 
restricted to the Appalachian mountains and small populations in 
Arkansas and the Atlantic coast (Pelton 2003, p. 547);
    (2) the Florida black bear (U.a. floridanus) whose range is 
restricted to small populations in Florida and southern Alabama and 
Georgia (Pelton 2003, p. 547); and
    (3) the Louisiana black bear (U.a. luteolus) that historically 
occurred from eastern Texas, throughout Louisiana and southwest 
Mississippi (Hall 1981, pp. 950-951) (See Figure 1 for a map detailing 
the known locations of the Louisiana black bear).
    At the time of listing, known Louisiana black bear breeding 
subpopulations were restricted to the LMRAV in Louisiana (Service 1995, 
p. 2) with small numbers of bears reported in Mississippi. When we 
listed the Louisiana black bear, we primarily relied on Hall's (1981, 
pp. 950-951) depiction of the historical distribution; however, Hall 
(1981, pp. 950-951) included the southernmost counties of Arkansas as 
part of the historical range. While acknowledging that the Louisiana 
black bear was not a geographic isolate and that movement of 
individuals between American black bears in southern Arkansas and 
Louisiana bears existed, we did not include those counties as part of 
the historical range for the listed entity because there were no 
specimens to support doing so (57 FR 588).
    The validity of the Louisiana black bear as a subspecies has been 
debated during and since listing, primarily focusing on potential 
genetic effects to Louisiana black bear subpopulations from the 
translocation of bears from Minnesota during the 1960s and the 
subspecific status of southern Arkansas bears. Based on Pelton's (1989, 
pp. 13-15) blood protein, electrophoresis, mitochondrial DNA analysis 
and Kennedy's (1989, pp. 9-10) analysis of skull measurements, the 
Service concluded that the evidence, although not overwhelming, did 
support the validity of the subspecies (55 FR 25341, June 21, 1990) and 
subsequently listed the Louisiana black bear recognizing its subspecies 
status and distribution based on morphometric \5\ characters. Continued 
interest in the taxonomic status of this subspecies resulted in 
numerous additional studies (examining morphometric and genetic data) 
relevant to the Louisiana black bear. Those studies have produced 
differing interpretations of the effects of the (intentional) 
introductions of bears from Minnesota and the interchange with American 
black bears in southern Arkansas on the taxonomy and distribution of 
bears in Louisiana (Warrilow et al. 2001, Csiki et al. 2003, Kennedy 
2006, Van Den Bussche et al. 2009, entire documents respectively). Due 
to varying sample sizes, methodologies, and sample population 
distributions, no definitive determination or conclusion has been 
accepted (Service 2014, pp. 21-27). Most recently, Laufenberg and 
Clark's (2014, pp. 60, 84) unified analyses of genetic data from 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Minnesota indicate that the three 
subpopulations of Louisiana black bears in Louisiana are genetically 
distinct as a result of the following three factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Morphometric'' is defined as the use of measurements of 
the form of organisms in taxonomic analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) restricted gene flow between subpopulations due to habitat loss 
and fragmentation;
    (2) accelerated genetic drift related to past reductions in 
subpopulation abundances; and
    (3) differing levels of genetic introgression as a result of the 
Minnesota introductions.
    Louisiana black bear subpopulations show some affinities to the 
White River Basin (WRB) subpopulation and Minnesota bears. However, the 
level of genetic affinity or differentiation between the Louisiana 
black bear subpopulations and the WRB subpopulation and Minnesota bears 
is not sufficient evidence for determining taxonomic status (Laufenberg 
and Clark 2014, p. 85).

Species Description

    The Louisiana black bear is a large, bulky mammal with long, coarse 
black hair and a short, well-haired tail. The facial profile is blunt, 
the eyes small, and the nose pad broad with large nostrils. The muzzle 
is yellowish brown with a white patch sometimes present on the lower 
throat and chest. Black bear color varies between black, blonde, 
cinnamon, and brown; but in Louisiana, bears have only been documented 
as black (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 8). Louisiana black bears are not 
readily visually distinguishable from other black bear subspecies. 
Black bears have five toes with short, curved claws on the front and 
hind feet. The median estimated weight for male and female Louisiana 
black bears in north Louisiana is 292 lb (133 kg) and 147 lb (67 kg), 
respectively (Weaver 1999, p. 26). This is similar to that reported for 
black bears throughout their range by Pelton (2003, p. 547).

Reproduction

    Average age at first reproduction varies widely across black bear 
studies; however, most reports involve bears between 3 years and 5 
years of age (Weaver 1990a, p. 5). Weaver (1999, p. 28) reported that 
all adult females (greater than or equal to 4 years old) in the TRB 
subpopulation had evidence of previous lactation or were with cubs. 
Breeding occurs in summer and the gestation period for black bears is 7 
to 8 months. Delayed implantation occurs in the black bear (blastocysts 
float free in the uterus and do not implant until late November or 
early December) (Pelton 2003, p. 547). Observations of Louisiana black 
bears indicate that they enter dens primarily from late November to 
early December and emerge in March and April (Weaver 1999, p. 125, 
Table 4.4). Adult Louisiana black bears generally den longer than 
subadults, and females longer than males (Weaver 1999, p. 123). Cubs 
are born in winter dens at the end of January or the beginning of 
February (Pelton 2003, p. 548). The normal litter sizes range from one 
to four cubs (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 35), and occasionally 
litters of five have been documented (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 11). 
Cubs are altricial (helpless) at birth (Weaver 1990a, p. 5; Pelton 
2003,

[[Page 29398]]

p. 547) and generally exit the den site with the female in April or 
May. Young bears stay with the female through summer and fall, and den 
with her the next winter (Pelton 2003, p. 548). The young disperse in 
their second spring or summer, prior to the female's becoming 
physiologically capable of reproducing again (Pelton 2003, p. 548).
    Adult females normally breed every other year (Pelton 2003, p. 
548). Not all females produce cubs every other winter; reproduction is 
related to physiological condition (i.e., female bears that do not 
reach an optimal weight or fat level may not reproduce in a given year) 
(Rogers 1987, p. 51). If a female's litter is lost prior to late 
summer, she may breed again producing cubs in consecutive years (Young 
2006, p. 16). An important factor affecting black bear populations 
appears to be variation in food supply and its effect on physiological 
status and reproduction (Rogers 1987, pp. 436-437). Nutrition may have 
an impact on the age of reproductive maturity and subsequent female 
fecundity (Pelton 2003, p. 547). Black bear cub survival and 
development are closely associated with the physical condition of the 
mother (Rogers 1987, p. 434). Cub mortality rates and female 
infertility are typically greater in years of poor mast \6\ production 
or failure (Rogers 1987, p. 53; Eiler et al. 1989, p. 357; Elowe and 
Dodge 1989, p. 964). Litter size may be affected by food availability 
prior to denning (Rogers 1987, p. 53). Reproduction may occur as early 
as 2 years of age for black bears in high-quality habitat; in poor or 
marginal habitat, reproduction may not occur until 7 years of age 
(Rogers 1987, pp. 51-52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Hard mast refers to nuts (especially those of beech and 
oaks); soft mast refers to seeds and berries of shrubs and trees 
that are eaten by wildlife.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Habitats Used by the Louisiana Black Bear

    Like other black bears, the Louisiana black bear is a habitat 
generalist. Large tracts of bottomland hardwood (BLH) forest 
communities having high species and age class diversity can provide for 
the black bear's life requisites (e.g., escape cover, denning sites, 
and hard and soft mast supplies) without intensive management (Pelton 
2003, pp. 549-550). We use the term BLH forest community with no 
particular inference to hydrologic influence; we use this term to mean 
forests within southeastern United States floodplains, which can 
consist of a number of woody species occupying positions of dominance 
and co-dominance (Black Bear Conservation Coalition (BBCC) 1997, p. 
15). Other habitat types may be used by Louisiana black bears including 
marsh, upland forested areas, forested spoil areas along bayous, 
brackish and freshwater marsh, salt domes, and agricultural fields 
(Nyland 1995, p. 48; Weaver 1999, p. 157). Bears have the ability to 
climb and large-cavity trees (especially bald cypress (Taxodium 
distichum) or water tupelo gum (Nyssa aquatic) that are commonly found 
along water courses are important for denning; however, Louisiana black 
bears have been observed to use a variety of den types, including 
ground nests, cavities at the base and in the top of hollow trees, and 
brush piles (Crook and Chamberlain 2010, p. 1645).
    Den trees may be an important component for female reproductive 
success in areas subject to flooding (Hellgren and Vaughan 1989, p. 
352). Den trees located in cypress swamps would also appear to increase 
the security (e.g., decrease the susceptibility to disturbance) of 
bears utilizing these dens compared to ground dens; however, the 
availability of den trees does not appear to be a limiting factor in 
reproductive success as bears demonstrate flexibility in den use 
(Weaver and Pelton 1994, p. 431; Crook and Chamberlain 2010, p. 1644). 
For instance, bears typically excavate open ground/brushpile nests. 
Shallow depressions that are either bare or are lined with vegetation 
gathered in the vicinity of the nest (Weaver and Pelton 1994, p. 430). 
These nests are located in thick vegetation, usually in areas logged 
within the past 1 to 5 years (Crook and Chamberlain 2010, p. 1643) and 
are typically found within felled tops and other logging slash (Crook 
and Chamberlain 2010, p. 1646).

Diet

    Bear activity revolves primarily around the search for food, water, 
cover, and mates during the breeding season. Though classified as a 
carnivore by taxonomists, black bears are not active predators and only 
prey on vertebrates when the opportunity arises; most vertebrates are 
consumed as carrion (Pelton 2003, p. 551). Bears are best described as 
opportunistic feeders, as they eat almost anything that is available; 
thus, they are typically omnivorous. Their diet varies seasonally, and 
includes primarily succulent vegetation during spring, fruits and 
grains in summer, and hard mast (such as acorns and pecans) during 
fall. Bears utilize all levels of forest for feeding; they can gather 
foods from tree tops and vines, but also collect beetles and grubs in 
fallen logs and rotting wood.

Home Range and Dispersal

    The size of the area necessary to support black bears may differ 
depending on population density, habitat quality, conservation goals, 
and assumptions regarding minimum viable populations (Rudis and Tansey 
1995, p. 172, Pelton 2003, p. 549). Maintaining and enhancing key 
habitat patches within breeding habitat is a critical conservation 
strategy for black bears (Hellgren and Vaughan 1994, p. 276). Areas 
should be large enough to maintain female survival rates above the 
minimum rate necessary to sustain a population (Hellgren and Vaughan 
1994, p. 280). Weaver (1999, pp. 105-106) documented that bear home 
ranges and movements were centered in forested habitat and noted that 
actions to conserve, enhance, and restore that habitat would promote 
population recovery, although no recommendations on minimum 
requirements were provided. Hellgren and Vaughn (1994, p. 283) 
concluded that large, contiguous forests are a critical conservation 
need for black bears. The home ranges of Louisiana black bears appear 
to be closely linked to forest cover (Marchinton 1995, p. 48, Anderson 
1997, p. 35).
    Female range size may be partly determined by habitat quality 
(Amstrup and Beecham 1976, p. 345), while male home range size may be 
determined by the distribution of females (i.e., to allow for a male's 
efficient monitoring of a maximum number of females) (Rogers 1987, p. 
19). Male black bears commonly disperse, and adult male bears can be 
wide-ranging with home ranges generally three to eight times larger 
than those of adult females (Pelton 2003, p. 549) and that may 
encompass several female home ranges (Rogers 1987, p. 19). Dispersal by 
female black bears is uncommon and typically involves short distances 
(Rogers 1987, p. 43). In their studies of dispersal, Laufenberg and 
Clark (2014, p. 85) found no evidence of natural female dispersion in 
Louisiana black bears. Females without cubs generally had larger home 
ranges than females with newborn cubs (Benson 2005, p. 46), although 
this difference was observed to vary seasonally, with movements more 
restricted in the spring (Weaver 1999, p. 99). Following separation of 
the mother and yearling offspring, young female black bears commonly 
establish a home range partially within or adjacent to their mother's 
home range (Rogers 1987, p. 39). Young males, however, generally 
disperse from their maternal home

[[Page 29399]]

range. Limited information suggests that subadult males may disperse up 
to 136 miles (219 kilometers) (Rogers 1987, p. 44).
    Home range estimates, calculated as the minimum convex polygon 
(MCP), vary for the Louisiana black bear. The MCP is a way to represent 
animal movement data and is calculated as the smallest (convex) polygon 
that contains all the points a group of animals has visited. Mean MCP 
home range estimates for the Tensas River NWR subpopulation were 35,736 
ac (14,462 ha) and 5,550 ac (2,426 ha) for males and females, 
respectively (Weaver 1999, p. 70). Male home ranges (MCP) in the UARB 
population may be as high as 80,000 ac (32,375 ha), while female home 
ranges are approximately 8,000 ac (3,237 ha) (Wagner 1995, p. 12). LARB 
population home ranges (MCP) were estimated to be 10,477 ac (4,200 ha) 
for males, and 3,781 ac (1,530 ha) for females (Wagner 1995, p. 12).

Barriers to Movement

    Habitat fragmentation can create barriers to immigration and 
emigration that can affect population demographics and genetic 
integrity (Clark et al. 2006, p. 12). Fragmentation was identified as a 
threat to the Louisiana black bear at the time of its listing because 
it limits the potential for the existing Louisiana black bear 
subpopulations to expand their breeding range (Service 1995, p. 8). 
Habitat fragmentation can restrict bear movements both within and 
between populations (Marchinton 1995, p. 53: Beausoleil et al. 2005, p. 
403). Even though Louisiana black bears are capable of traveling long 
distances, including swimming across rivers, open areas, roads, large 
waterways, development, and large expanses of agricultural land may 
affect habitat contiguity, and such features tend to impede the 
movement of bears (Clark 1999, p. 107). Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 
84) detected evidence of possible gene flow restriction in the TRB 
associated with U.S. Interstate 20 (I-20). Such barriers can result in 
increased mortality as bears are forced to forage on less protected 
sites, travel farther to forage, or cross roads (Hellgren and Maehr 
1992, pp. 154-156, Pelton 2003, p. 549; Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 
84).
    Even bear populations in a relatively large habitat patch are not 
necessarily ensured of long-term survival without recolonization by 
bears from adjacent patches (Clark 1999, p. 111). Anderson (1997, p. 
73) observed that males may not be as affected by fragmentation as 
females. Louisiana black bears have been observed to occur in open 
areas such as fields (Anderson 1997, p. 45). Tracking the dispersal of 
translocated females demonstrated that bears can disperse through 
fragmented landscapes (Benson 2005, p. 98). The results of genetic 
analyses indicated differentiation between the three Louisiana 
subpopulations present at listing (TRB, UARB, and LARB) partially as 
the result of restricted gene flow (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 84). 
Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 24) analyzed connectivity between 
Louisiana black bear subpopulations using a combination of genetic 
markers (differentiating resident from immigrant bears and within-
population genetic structure) and actual bear movements as recorded by 
global positioning system (GPS) data and step-selection function (SSF) 
models. Tools like SSF models are relatively new powerful models used 
to quantify and to simulate the routes and rates of interchange 
selected by animals moving through the landscape. The SSF models can be 
used to identify landscape features that may facilitate or impede 
interchange or dispersal. The results of connectivity modeling 
indicated that in general, the bears selected a movement direction as 
distance to natural cover and agriculture decreased and distance to 
roads increased (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, pp. 70-71). Those models 
also predicted occasional crossing of habitat gaps (even large ones) by 
both males and females.
    When Laufenberg and Clark examined the potential effect of 
continuous corridors on bear dispersal, they concluded that while such 
corridors may be important, they were not more effective than the 
presence of a broken habitat matrix such as that currently surrounding 
Louisiana black bear subpopulations (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 85). 
The genetic and GPS data used in Laufenberg and Clark's study (2014, p. 
86) generally agreed with the connectivity model results, which 
indicated interchange was occurring between some Louisiana black bear 
subpopulations and unlikely to occur between others (see discussion 
below where emigration and immigration is discussed). Laufenberg and 
Clark concluded that a patchwork of natural land cover between 
Louisiana black bear breeding subpopulations may be sufficient for 
movement of individuals to occur between subpopulations (at least for 
males) (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 90).
    Historically, the Louisiana black bear was believed to be common or 
numerous in bottomland hardwood (BLH) forests such as the Big Thicket 
area of Texas, the TRB, ARB, and LMRAV in Louisiana, and the Yazoo 
River Basin in Mississippi (St. Amant 1959, p. 32; Nowak 1986, p. 4). 
Exploitation of Louisiana black bears due to hunting and large-scale 
destruction of forests from the 1700s to the early 1800s resulted in 
low numbers of bears that were confined to the BLH forests of Madison 
and Tensas Parishes and the LARB BLH forests in Louisiana (St. Amant 
1959, pp. 32, 44); black bears in Mississippi were similarly affected 
(Shropshire 1996, pp. 25-33). At the time of listing, additional 
extensive land clearing, mainly for agricultural purposes, had further 
reduced its habitat by more than 80 percent (Gosselink et al. 1990, p. 
592), and the remaining habitat quality had been degraded by 
fragmentation. That fragmentation caused isolation of the already small 
subpopulations, subjecting them to threats from such factors as 
demographic stochasticity and inbreeding. Known breeding subpopulations 
were known to occur in fragmented BLH forest communities of the TRB, 
LARB, and UARB of Louisiana (Weaver 1990a, p. 2; Service 1992, p. 2) 
(Figure 1), and were believed to be demographically isolated (BBCC 
1997, p. 10). No reliable estimates of population numbers were known at 
the time of listing, but only 80 to 120 Louisiana black bears were 
estimated to remain in Louisiana in the 1950s (Nowak 1986, p. 4). Bears 
had occasionally been reported in Louisiana outside of these areas, but 
it was unknown if those bears were reproducing females or only 
wandering subadult and adult males (Service 1992, p. 2).
    Black bears were also known to exist in Mississippi along the 
Mississippi River and smaller areas in the Lower East Pearl River and 
Lower Pascagoula River Basins of southern Mississippi (Weaver 1990a, p. 
2). Fewer than 25 bears were estimated to reside in Mississippi at the 
time of listing (Shropshire 1996, p. 35 citing Jones 1984). The last 
known Mississippi breeding subpopulation occurred in Issaquena County 
in 1976 (Shropshire 1996, p. 38 citing Jones 1984). Similarly, black 
bears were exterminated from southeastern Texas during the period from 
1900 to 1940 largely as a result of overhunting (Schmidley 1983, p. 1); 
and, except for wanderers, the resident bear populations had not been 
observed in eastern Texas for many years (Nowak 1986, p. 7). Key 
demographic attributes (e.g., survival, fecundity, population growth 
rates, home ranges) for the Louisiana black bear were not known at the 
time of listing.
    Currently, the Louisiana black bear remains in the BLH forests of 
the

[[Page 29400]]

LMRAV in Louisiana and western Mississippi; however, based on the 
number and distribution of confirmed Louisiana Department of Wildlife 
and Fisheries (LDWF) and Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, 
and Parks (MDWFP) sighting reports (Simek et al. 2012, p. 165; Davidson 
et al. 2015, p. 22), the geographic distribution of bears has expanded; 
the number and size of resident breeding subpopulations and the habitat 
they occupy have also increased (Table 1; Figure 1) resulting in a more 
scattered distribution of breeding females between the original TRB and 
UARB subpopulation areas. The TRC is a new breeding subpopulation 
(i.e., it was not present at the time of listing) located at the 
confluence of the Mississippi and Red Rivers in Louisiana (formed as a 
result of a multiyear reintroduction project (2001-2009) (Figure 1), 
and serves to facilitate movement of bears from the UARB to the TRB 
(Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 85). Several additional new breeding 
subpopulations, indirectly resulting from those translocations (i.e., 
female dispersal), are forming in Louisiana and three new breeding 
subpopulations are forming in Mississippi, partially as an indirect 
effect of the Louisiana translocation project and from the immigration 
of WRB bears (Figure 1). Demographic attributes including subpopulation 
abundance estimates, growth rates, and adult survival rates have been 
obtained for the three original Louisiana breeding subpopulations (TRB, 
UARB, LARB) (Hooker 2010, pp. 26-27; Lowe 2011, pp. 28-30; Troxler 
2013, pp. 30-37; Laufenberg and Clark 2014, pp. 76-82).
    Based on the best available data, all three original breeding 
subpopulations appear to be stable or increasing, and emigration and 
immigration (i.e., gene flow) has been documented among several of the 
Louisiana and Mississippi subpopulations (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, 
pp. 91-94). The areas supporting Louisiana black bear breeding 
subpopulations have increased over 430 percent from an estimated 
340,000 acres [ac] (138,000 hectares [ha]) in Louisiana in 1993, to the 
present estimated 1,424,000 ac (576,000 ha) and 382,703 ac (154,875 
ha), in Louisiana and Mississippi, respectively, for a total of 
1,806,556 ac (731,087 ha) (Table 1). In addition, approximately 148,400 
ac (60,055 ha) of private lands have been restored and permanently 
protected in the Louisiana black bear HRPA since it was listed (Table 
2, Figure 2; and see Factor A below). When combined with permanently 
protected habitat on public lands (Table 3), there are now 638,000 ac 
(258,200 ha) of permanently protected habitat within the HRPA versus 
the 227,200 ac (91,945 ha) estimated to exist in 1991 (Service 2014, p. 
74, Table 6), an estimated increase of more than 280 percent in 
protected habitat status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For all tables, habitat is listed in acres and hectares. In 
addition, numbers in each table may not total due to rounding.

          Table 1\7\--Estimated Area Supporting Louisiana Black Bear Breeding Subpopulations (Shown in Acres and [hectares]) in 1993 and 2014.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Upper            Lower
                 Breeding habitat                    Tensas  River     Atchafalaya      Atchafalaya       Louisiana       Mississippi         Total
                                                       Basin \1\     River Basin \2\  River Basin \3\       total          total \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993..............................................          84,402          111,275          144,803          340,480                0          340,480
                                                           [34,156]         [45,031]         [58,600]        [137,787]  ...............        [137,787]
2014..............................................       1,002,750          290,263          130,839        1,423,853          382,703        1,806,556
                                                          [405,798]        [117,465]         [52,949]        [576,213]        [154,875]        [731,087]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes the TRC subpopulation and the Louisiana black bear subpopulation in north-central Louisiana near the Arkansas State line.
\2\ Includes the Louisiana black bear subpopulation found in the Florida parishes of Louisiana (east of the Mississippi River).
\3\ Although the LARB subpopulation area appears to have decreased in acreage over time; the decrease is due to more detailed mapping in 2014 that
  excluded many non-habitat areas that were included in the more general 1993 boundary. In fact, spatially, the distribution appears to have increased
  over time. In 1993, we did not have the data to support including breeding bears on Avery Island (at the western end of this area) even though we knew
  bears occurred there. We now have that data to support and delineate breeding habitat on Avery Island and, therefore, have included that area in the
  2014 mapping updates. The actual area and spatial distribution of this breeding population has likely not changed over time.


[[Page 29401]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY15.001

Subpopulations

    Tensas River Basin Subpopulation: The TRB subpopulation is the 
largest Louisiana black bear breeding subpopulation and occurs in the 
TRB of Louisiana. It consists of groups of bears located on lands north 
(privately owned tracts formerly known as the Deltic subpopulation/
tracts) and south (Tensas River NWR, Big Lake WMA, Buckhorn WMA, and 
adjacent private lands) of I-20 and U.S. Highway 80 (Hwy 80). 
Population numbers have steadily increased since listing as described 
below. Nowak (1986, p. 7) speculated that the TRB subpopulation 
consisted of 40 to 50 bears at that time. Subsequent population studies 
by Beausoleil (1999, p. 51) and Boersen et al. (2003, p. 202) estimated 
119 bears in the Tensas River NWR, and 24 to 72 bears in the adjacent 
Deltic tracts, respectively.
    At the time of listing, there was no evidence that interchange was 
occuring between the two TRB subgroups. They were thought to be 
isolated and disjunct from each other (BBCC 1997, p. 99) until Anderson 
(1997, p. 82) reported one of the first instances of a bear moving 
between these two areas. Evidence of that historical separation in the 
recent genetic history of sampled bears was detected by Laufenburg and 
Clark (2014, p. 54). Though the two subgroups are separated by I-20 and 
Hwy 80, a significant amount of habitat between those subgroups has 
been restored primarily within the last 10 years. Increased sightings 
and vehicular mortality of bears in the vicinity of I-20 indicate that 
bears are attempting to disperse (Benson 2005, p. 97) and current 
radio-collar data and genetic evidence supports some successful 
interchange (Laufenberg 2015, personal communication). Furthermore, the 
current genetic structure of Louisiana black bear subpopulations groups 
bears in those two areas as one subpopulation (Laufenberg and Clark 
2014, p. 60). Hooker (2010, p. 26) estimated a population abundance 
(for both genders averaged across years) of 294 bears (standard error 
[SE] = 31) for the combined Tensas River NWR and nearby Deltic and 
State-owned tracts with an apparent annual survival rate of 0.91 (SE = 
0.08), which did not differ by gender. The pooled population annual 
growth rate for both genders was 1.04

[[Page 29402]]

(SE = 0.18), and the mean realized population growth estimate ranged 
from 0.99 to 1.06 (Hooker 2010, p. 26) indicating a stable to 
increasing population. Hooker (2010, p. 26) estimated density to be 
0.66 bears per square kilometer (km\2\) (SE = 0.07). Similar results 
were obtained by Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 45) with mean realized 
population growth estimates ranging from 0.97 to 1.02.
    According to the most recent study results (Laufenburg and Clark 
2014, p. 31), the estimated mean annual survival rate for radio-
collared adult female bears in the TRB subpopulation was 0.99 (95 
percent confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.00) when data for bears with 
unknown fates were censored (assumed alive) and was 0.97 (95 percent CI 
= 0.93-0.99) when unknown fates were treated as mortalities. Detection 
heterogeneity (differences in detectability among individuals from such 
things as size, behavior, etc.) is a well known issue in estimating 
black bear vital rates. Mathematical models can be used to account for 
those differences; however, it is impossible to identify the 
appropriate group of distributions (a distribution describes the 
numbers of times each possible outcome occurs in a sample) to use in a 
model because the same distribution could result from several different 
sets of circumstances (Laufenberg and Clark (2014, pp. 18). Therefore, 
Laufenberg and Clark (2014, pp. 18-19) used two models to estimate 
population numbers. Model 1 assumed detection heterogeneity followed a 
logistic-normal distribution, and Model 2 assumed a 2-point finite 
mixture distribution \8\. We will report results for both models. The 
current estimated number of females from those two models ranged from 
133 to 163 (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 39). Assuming a one to one 
ratio of males to females and using the most conservative figures, we 
estimate that the current total population size ranges from 266 to 321 
bears.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For a detailed description of how this modeling was done, 
see Laufenberg and Clark 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mean cub and yearling litter size for the TRB subpopulation were an 
estimated 1.85 and 1.40 respectively, and fecundity and yearling 
recruitment for the TRB were 0.47 and 0.15, respectively (Laufenberg 
and Clark 2014, p. 35). Annual per-capita recruitment estimates ranged 
from 0.00 to 0.22, and estimates of female apparent survival rates 
(these included emigration) ranged from 0.87 to 0.93 based on capture-
mark-recapture (CMR) data. The estimated mean of the population growth 
rate ranged from 0.97 (range = 0.88-1.06) to 1.02 (range = 0.98-1.09), 
depending on model assumptions (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 45), 
which indicates a stable to increasing population.
    Early studies suggested that the TRB subpopulation had low genetic 
diversity (Boersen et al. 2003, p. 204). The recent study by Laufenberg 
and Clark (2014, pp. 84-85) indicate that genetic exchange with other 
subpopulations has occurred at a level substantial enough to increase 
genetic diversity at TRB (Davidson et al. 2015, pp. 26), primarily as a 
result of bear emigration from the WRB subpopulation of Arkansas into 
the TRB subpopulation. The results of recent population structure 
analyses, however, show evidence of bear emigration from the WRB 
subpopulation of Arkansas into the TRB subpopulation (Laufenberg and 
Clark 2014, p. 85). Nearly 30 bears sampled in the TRB had a 
probability greater than or equal to 0.10 of originating from the WRB 
subpopulation in Arkansas (6 bears were identified as WRB migrants), 
and 1 had a 0.48 probability of coming from the UARB (Laufenberg and 
Clark 2014, p. 63). Additionally, ten bears sampled in northwestern 
Mississippi were determined to have a probability greater than or equal 
to 0.90 of originating from the TRB. The analysis of genetic data 
identified five bears in the TRB as migrants from the WRB subpopulation 
(Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 67). Three males captured in the TRB had 
CMR histories that indicated they had dispersed from the TRC 
subpopulation, and an additional male was identified as a second 
generation migrant from the UARB subpopulation (Laufenberg and Clark 
2014, p. 67). One male detected in the TRB subpopulation was 
subsequently live-captured in Mississippi (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, 
p. 67).
    Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 85) suggested genetic interchange by 
bears from outside the range of the Louisiana black bear (that is, 
Arkansas) probably should be considered as a positive genetic and 
demographic contribution to the Louisiana black bear. Connectivity 
modeling analyses by Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 90) indicated that, 
without the presence of the TRC subpopulation, there was low potential 
for dispersal of either sex between TRB and UARB. Recent LDWF capture 
records (USGS et al. 2014) have documented the presence of additional 
resident breeding females between the TRC and the TRB subpopulations, 
which may significantly increase the probabilities for interchange (M. 
Davidson and S. Murphy, LDWF, 2015, unpublished data).
    Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 90) suggested that the establishment 
of satellite populations of resident breeding bears between 
subpopulations may be a more effective measure to link populations than 
the establishment of continous habitat corridors. Laufenberg and Clark 
2014, pp. 22-24) developed a series of population persistence models to 
assess the long-term viability of Louisiana black bear subpopulations. 
Those models were developed using multiple methods to address the 
treatment of bears with unknown fates. Model 1 uses censored fates 
(assumed alive), and Model 2 assumes mortality. In addition, because 
there is uncertainty in various (i.e., variation) model parameters that 
may affect the outcome, three population projections were analyzed for 
Model 1 and Model 2 resulting in 6 separate population projections 
(Laufenberg and Clark 2014, pp. 22-23) developed as follows. The first 
projection accounted for environmental variation for survival and 
recruitment and also included density dependence (process-only model). 
Process-only models produced the least conservative (i.e., protective) 
estimates. The second and third projection models (all-uncertainty 
projections and the most conservative) included the same sources of 
variation as the process-only projection, but also included an 
estimation of uncertainty for survival and recruitment; they differ 
only in the conservativeness (i.e., worst-case scenario for maximum 
protection of bears, with the 50 percent confidence interval being less 
conservative than the 95 percent confidence interval projection). We 
will report the range of values obtained for all models in the 
following discussions. Based on CMR estimates from Model 1, the 
estimated probability of persistence over 100 years for the TRB 
subpopulation ranged from 1.00 and 0.96 for process-only and all-
uncertainty projections, respectively (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 
46, Table 4). Similarly, based on the more conservative projections, 
the probability of persistence was 1.00 and 0.96 based on Model 2 
estimates for process-only and all-uncertainty projections (Laufenberg 
and Clark 2014, p. 46, Table 4).
    We estimated there were approximately 400,000 to 500,000 ac 
(161,875 to 202,343 ha) of forested habitat in the TRB in the early 
1990s (Service 2014, p. 33). Comparing the small-scale National Land 
Cover Database (NLCD) estimates of habitat for 2001 and 2011, there has 
been an increase of 1,312 ac (531 ha) in the TRB HRPA (Table 8). 
Currently, based on

[[Page 29403]]

ownership boundaries, there are 255,899 ac (103,559 ha) of State and 
Federal management areas, and approximately 136,870 ac (55,389 ha) of 
private lands that have been restored and permanently protected, in the 
TRB HRPA (Tables 2, 5). We estimated that there were approximately 
85,000 ac (34,398 ha) in the TRB HRPA at the time of listing (Service 
2014, p. 74, Table 6). In 1993, we estimated that the breeding 
subpopulation occupied approximately 84,400 ac (34,156 ha). Today, an 
estimated 1,002,750 ac (405,798 ha) is occupied by the TRB breeding 
subpopulation (Table 1).
    Upper Atchafalaya River Basin Subpopulation: Nowak (1986, p. 6) 
suggested that UARB population numbers were extremely low or believed 
to be nonexistent before the introduction of Minnesota bears to 
Louisiana in the 1960s and speculated that the population consisted of 
30 to 40 individuals (based on a LDWF 1981 report). Pelton (1989, p. 9) 
speculated the UARB subpopulation size ranged from 30 to 50 bears. 
Triant et al. (2004, p. 653) estimated 41 bears in the UARB population 
at that time. Lowe (2011, p. 28) estimated a UARB population of 56 
bears with an annual survival rate of 0.91. More recently, O'Connell-
Goode et al. (2014, p. 7) estimated a mean population abundance of 63 
bears and mean average male and female survivorship to be 0.77 (SE = 
0.08) and 0.89 (SE = 0.04), respectively. The most recent research 
(Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 46) estimated female abundance ranging 
from 25 to 44 during the study period (50 to 88 total population of 
males and females, combined), regardless of treatment of capture 
heterogeneity (or capture differences among individuals). Their 
estimated annual per-capita recruitment was between 0.00 and 0.41, and 
apparent female survival was between 0.88 and 0.99 during that time 
period (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 46, Table 4). The estimated mean 
growth rate ranged from 1.08 (range = 0.93-1.29) to 1.09 (range = 0.90-
1.35) indicating a stable to increasing population (Laufenberg and 
Clark 2014, p. 46). The estimated probabilities of the UARB 
subpopulation persistence (i.e., viability) over 100 years were greater 
than 0.99 for all process-only projections, and greater than 0.96 for 
model 1 all-uncertainty projections. Persistence probabilities were 
lowest for the most conservative estimation methods (Model 2, all 
uncertainty projections) at 0.93 and 0.85, respectively (Laufenberg and 
Clark 2014, p. 46, Table 4).
    As discussed previously, Laufenberg and Clark's connectivity models 
(2014, p. 90) indicated there was no potential for dispersal of either 
sex between the TRB and UARB subpopulations without the current 
presence of the TRC subpopulation. The modeled potential for natural 
interchange between the UARB and TRC subpopulations is high based on 
the genetic and capture data (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 85), and 
genetics data show that gene flow has occurred. Twenty of the 35 TRC 
cubs showed evidence of having been sired by UARB males. A 2-year-old 
male tagged as a cub in the UARB was later captured at the TRC, and a 
second generation migrant from the UARB was later captured in the TRB 
subpopulation (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 67). The step-selection 
model (as discussed under Barriers to movement above) predicted that 
dispersals between the LARB and UARB subpopulations were infrequent but 
possible for males but nearly nonexistent for females (Laufenberg and 
Clark 2014, p. 85). Three cubs sampled in west central Mississippi, 
east of the TRC subpopulation, showed evidence of mixed ancestry 
between TRB and UARB (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 63). No migrants 
from the UARB into the WRB or LARB were detected by Laufenberg and 
Clark (2014, p. 85). Recent LDWF capture records, however, verify the 
presence of at least one WRB migrant in the TRC subpopulation (M. 
Davidson, LDWF, unpublished data). Finally, genetic diversity of the 
UARB subpopulation is the highest among the three original Louisiana 
black bear subpopulations, and second highest of all extant 
subpopulations. Results from Laufenberg and Clark (2014, pp. 53-54) 
indicated this increase may be the result of the persistence of genetic 
material from bears sourced from Minnesota during the 1960s.
    The Atchafalaya basin, located between the UARB and LARB, is 
currently believed to be too wet to support breeding females. 
Elevations within the Atchafalaya Basin are increasing due to 
sedimentation (Hupp et al. 2008, p. 139), and as a result, in the long 
term, habitat conditions between this subpopulation and the UARB 
subpopulation may improve over time (LeBlanc 1981, p. 65).
    Historical reports do not break the Atchafalaya River Basin into 
the two areas that we use in terms of bear recovery and habitat 
restoration planning (i.e., UARB and LARB) but make delineations based 
on the Corps' Atchafalaya Basin Floodway (Floodway) delineation. The 
Floodway is roughly equivalent to the UARB as we define it for bears. 
When the Louisiana black bear was listed, the estimated amount of 
forested habitat remaining north of U.S. 190 had been reduced 40 to 50 
percent (100,000 to 128,000 ac [40,469-51,800 ha] (57 FR 588)). Based 
on the analyses used for listing, we estimated there were approximately 
600,000 ac to 700,000 ac (242,812-283,280 ha) of forested habitat in 
the UARB area in the early 1990s (Service 2014, p. 33). Comparing 
small-scale NLCD estimates of habitat for 2001 and 2011, there has been 
an increase of 2,676 ac (1,083 ha) in the UARB HRPA (Table 8). 
Currently, based on ownership boundaries, there are 226,037 ac (91,476 
ha) of State and Federal management areas and approximately 11,530 ac 
(4,666 ha) of private lands that have been restored and permanently 
protected in the UARB HRPA (Tables 2, 5). We estimated that there were 
approximately 141,000 ac (57,060 ha) of protected lands in the UARB 
HRPA at the time of listing (Service 2014, p. 74, Table 6). Today, an 
estimated 130,839 ac (52,949 ha) is occupied by the UARB breeding 
subpopulation (Table 1), an increase over the 111,275 ac (45,031 ha) 
estimated around the time of listing.
    Lower Atchafalaya River Basin Subpopulation: Nowak (1986, p. 7) 
speculated that there were approximately 30 bears in the LARB 
subpopulation. Until recently, the only quantitative estimate for this 
subpopulation was Triant et al.'s (2004, p. 653) population estimate of 
77 bears (95 percent CI = 68-86). Similar to their UARB population 
estimate, the authors felt this may underestimate the actual population 
number (Triant et al. 2004, p. 655). Troxler (2013, p. 30) estimated a 
population of 138 bears (95 percent CI = 118.9-157.9) (which represents 
a substantial increase over Triant's estimate) and an estimated growth 
rate of 1.08 indicating that the subpopulation is growing. Laufenberg 
and Clark's (2014, p. 43) recent LARB population abundance estimate 
ranged between 78 (95 percent CI = 69-103) and 97 females (95 percent 
CI = 85-128) from 2010 to 2012 based on Model 1 and between 68 (95 
percent CI = 64-80) and 84 (95 percent CI = 79-104) based on Model 2 
(we estimate the total combined population of 156-194 or 136-168, 
respectively). Estimates of apparent female survival ranged from 0.81 
to 0.84 (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 43), which are the lowest of all 
the subpopulations. The reason for this is this area is experiencing a 
high degree of mortality associated with vehicular collision, and 
nuisance-related removals Troxler 2013, pp. 37-38); Davidson et

[[Page 29404]]

al. 2015, pp. 29-30). In spite of this relatively high rate of adult 
female mortality (which has persisted for decades), the LARB 
subpopulation remains the second largest Louisiana black bear 
subpopulation and has approximately doubled in size in just the last 10 
years. The overall size of that subpopulation, coupled with the current 
positive growth rate (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 46), strongly 
suggests that anthropogenic and natural sources of LARB mortality, 
existing dispersal barriers, and other threats to the LARB have not 
resulted in long-term negative effects to that subpopulation.
    Although the LARB subpopulation has occasionally been characterized 
as a genetically unique subpopulation, recent research (Csiki et al. 
2003; Troxler 2013; Laufenberg and Clark 2014) has identified a genetic 
bottleneck (i.e., isolation resulting in restricted gene flow and 
genetic drift) as a cause of that uniqueness rather than a true genetic 
difference. That genetic bottleneck likely resulted from low 
immigration potential that is restricted by the poor habitat quality 
found along the northern periphery of the LARB subpopulation. U.S. 
Highway 90 serves as an additional barrier to movement. The genetic 
structure analyses found evidence of historic genetic isolation 
associated with Highway 317 within this subpopulation (Troxler 2013, p. 
33; Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 54). However, recent data indicate 
that this has been alleviated and movement of individuals has been 
occurring within the LARB on both sides of Highway 317 (Troxler 2013, 
p. 39). As discussed previously, based on the step selection models, 
the current potential for interchange between this and other 
subpopulations is low (nonexistent for female bears), and immigration 
into this subpopulation has not been documented (Laufenberg and Clark 
2014, p. 85).
    Currently, bears have been observed on the higher portions (levees 
and ridges) of the Atchafalaya Basin (Figure 1, Davidson et al. 2015, 
p. 23), between the UARB and LARB subpopulations, but the Basin is 
believed to be too wet to support breeding females. However, LeBlanc et 
al. (1981, p. 65) projected that by 2030, over 35,000 ac (14,000 ha) of 
lakes and cypress-tupelo (Taxodium distichum--Nyssa aquatic) swamps 
would be converted to cypress swamp and early successional hardwood; 
habitat types more suitable for black bear use. Studies by Hupp et al. 
(2008, p. 139) confirm the continued sedimentation (filling in) of wet 
areas within the Atchafalaya Basin. Such changes could ultimately 
expand the acreage of suitable habitat for the LARB and UARB 
subpopulations, and improve habitat linkages and genetic exchange 
between those groups.
    We were not able to estimate the amount of forested Louisiana black 
bear habitat in the LARB around the time of listing based on internal 
maps and reports, nor were we able to tease it out from the above-
mentioned studies. Nyland (1995, p. 58), based on his trapping data, 
estimated that bears occupied approximately 140,000 ac (56,656 ha) in 
Iberia and St. Mary Parishes. This is probably a slight underestimate 
of forested and occupied habitat at that time since it was based 
primarily on trapping data and did not include Avery Island to the 
west, a forested salt dome \9\ known to be used by bears (Service 2014, 
p. 34). Comparing NLCD estimates of habitat for 2001 and 2011, there 
has been an increase of 3,685 ac (1,491 ha) in the LARB HRPA (Table 8). 
We estimated that there were approximately 9,921 ac (4015 ha) of 
conservation lands (permanently protected) in the LARB HRPA at the time 
of listing (Service 2014, p. 73, Table 4). Currently, based on 
ownership boundaries, there are an estimated 11,573 ac (ha) of 
conservation lands in the LARB HRPA (Table 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A forested salt dome is a dome that is formed beneath the 
surface when a mass of salt pushes up into the rock layers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1993, we estimated approximately 144,803 ac (58,600) supported 
the LARB breeding population (Table 1). Today, we estimate 130,839 ac 
(52,949 ha) are occupied by the LARB breeding subpopulation (Table 1). 
The LARB breeding area appears to have decreased in acreage over time; 
however, the decrease is due to a more detailed mapping in 2014 that 
excluded many non-habitat areas that were included in the more general 
1993 boundary. In fact, spatially, the distribution appears to have 
increased over time (Figure 1) because we did not have the data in 1993 
to support including breeding bears at the western edge on Avery 
Island, even though we knew bears were present. We now have the data 
and, therefore, included breeding bears in the 2014 mapping. Based on 
the inclusion of the Avery island area and exclusion of non-habitat, 
the actual area and spatial distribution of this breeding population 
has likely not changed significantly over time.
    Three Rivers Complex Subpopulation: A new breeding subpopulation, 
not present at listing, currently exists in Louisiana as a result of 
reintroduction efforts (Benson and Chamberlain 2007, pp. 2393-2403; 
Davidson et al. 2015, pp. 27-28). The subpopulation occurs in the TRC 
located primarily on the Richard K. Yancey WMA. The objective of the 
reintroduction, initiated in 2001, was to establish a new group of 
reproducing Louisiana black bears in east-central Louisiana (primarily 
in Avoyelles and Concordia Parishes) that would facilitate the 
interchange of individuals between the subpopulations currently 
existing within the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins, within the 
historic range of the Louisiana black bear, but the area in east-
central Louisiana was not known to be occupied by reproducing females 
when this effort began. Until 2001, recovery actions had focused on 
habitat restoration and protections; reduction of illegal poaching; 
conflict management; research on Louisiana black bear biology and 
habitat requirements; and educating the public. No actions, however, 
had been taken to expedite expansion into unoccupied habitats.
    Range expansion of breeding females is a slow process, even when 
bear habitat is in large contiguous blocks since females typically only 
disperse very short distances. When the recovery plan was written, 
translocations (i.e., capture and release) of adult bears, termed a 
``hard'' release, were not deemed to be effective, as evidenced with 
the wide dispersals of the Minnesota reintroductions (Taylor 1971, p. 
79). The method of winter translocations of adult females and their 
young (termed ``soft'' release), however, proved to be successful in 
Arkansas and was recommended as the preferred method for translocations 
(Eastridge 2000, p. 100). The site chosen for the releases was at the 
Richard K. Yancy WMA (formerly known as the Red River and Three Rivers 
WMAs), located about 80 miles south of the TRB and 30 to 40 miles north 
of the UARB. In addition to the geographic location, the amount of 
publicly owned land and potential habitat in that area (179,604 ac 
(72,714 ha)) encompassing several NWRs, WMAs, and more than 12,000 ac 
(4,858 ha) of privately owned land in WRP made it the logical site for 
establishment of an additional breeding subpopulation.
    The success of those translocations in the formation of the TRC 
breeding subpopulation represents a significant improvement in 
Louisiana black bear population demographic conditions since listing. 
Abundance estimates for the TRC subpopulation are currently unknown. 
The mean annual estimated female survival rate (2002-2012) for the TRC 
subpopulation ranged from 0.93 (95 percent CI = 0.85-0.97) to 0.97 (95 
percent CI = 0.91-0.99) (Laufenberg and

[[Page 29405]]

Clark 2014, p. 31). Mean cub and yearling litter size for the same time 
period were 2.15 and 1.84 in the TRC subpopulation, respectively 
(Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 35). Fecundity and yearling recruitment 
for the TRC subpopulation were 0.37 and 0.18 (Laufenberg and Clark 
2014, p. 31), low compared to the TRB subpopulation, but possibly an 
artifact of small sample size. The estimated asymptotic growth rates 
(growth rate estimates calculated from population matrix models) for 
the TRC ranged from 0.99 to 1.02, for Model 1 and Model 2 respectively 
(Laufenberg and Clark 204, p. 45). As male cubs born at TRC reach 
maturity and more males emigrate from the UARB, growth rates of this 
subpopulation may increase (Laufenberg ad Clark 2014, pp. 70-80). TRC 
persistence probabilities ranged from 0.295 to 0.999 depending on 
estimated carrying capacity, the strength of the density dependence, 
level of uncertainty, and the treatment of unresolved fates (i.e., 
deaths or lost collars) (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 47). Using the 
telemetry and reproductive data from the TRC, probabilities of 
persistence were greater than or equal to 0.95 only for projections 
based on the most optimistic set of assumptions (i.e., Models 1 and 2, 
process only) and under the most conservative model (i.e., unresolved 
fates were assumed dead and more uncertainty was included in model 
variable estimates), probabilities ranged from 0.34 to .90 (Laufenberg 
and Clark 2014, pp. 48-49, Tables 5 and 6).
    Based on step selection function modeling, the least potential for 
interchange was between the TRB and TRC subpopulations, and the 
greatest proportion of successful projections was between the UARB and 
the TRC (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 74). As discussed previously, 
the TRC has experienced and possibly facilitated gene flow with other 
subpopulations (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 84). Three males were 
captured in the TRB that had dispersed from the TRC, and 20 of 35 cubs 
sampled in the TRC showed evidence of having been sired by UARB males 
(Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 67). One TRC female dispersed to a 
location southwest of the TRB subpopulation and apparently bred with an 
Arkansas bear (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 63). Laufenberg and Clark 
(2014, p. 83) detected direct evidence of interchange by bears from the 
UARB to the TRB subpopulation via the TRC subpopulation; however, they 
did not have any direct evidence of reverse movements. A male bear with 
UARB ancestry (possibly a second generation migrant) was captured on 
the TRB, indicating gene flow likely facilitated by the presence of the 
TRC subpopulation (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 84). Recent LDWF 
capture records verify the presence of at least one WRB migrant in the 
TRC subpopulation (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 83).
    The TRC contains some of the largest contiguous blocks of publicly 
owned land in Louisiana. It encompasses approximately 179,600 ac 
(72,700 ha) of potential bear habitat and roughly 100,000 ac (40,500 
ha) of publicly owned, forested land (Richard K. Yancey, Grassy Lake, 
Pomme de Terre and Spring Bayou WMAs, and Lake Ophelia NWR). The 
location of this population and its surrounding patchwork of habitat 
are essential in maintaining connectivity and movement of individuals 
between the existing TRB and UARB populations.
    Mississippi Subpopulations: Black bear numbers are increasing in 
Mississippi (Simek et al. 2012, p. 165). Shropshire indicated that the 
most reliable bear sighting reports occurred in nine Mississippi 
counties (Bolivar, Coahoma, Issaquena, Warren, Adams, Wilkinson, 
Hancock, Stone, and Jackson (Shropshire 1996, page 55, Table 4.1), and 
bear sightings are concentrated in three physiographic regions of 
Mississippi: Southern Mississippi Valley Alluvium [Delta], the Lower 
Coastal Plain, and the Coastal Flatwoods (Shropshire 1996, p. 57, Table 
4.2). The Mississippi population is currently estimated to be about 120 
bears, with approximately 75 percent occurring within Louisiana black 
bear range (B. Young, Mississippi Wildlife Federation, personal 
communication, 2013). Most of the sightings occur along the Mississippi 
River and in the lower East Pearl River and lower Pascagoula River 
basins (Simek et al. 2012). Three new resident breeding populations 
have formed (first documented in 2005) in north west-central (Sharkey-
Issaquena Counties), west-central (Warren County) and south west-
central (Wilkinson County) Mississippi (Figure 1). Genetic studies and 
LDWF CMR studies have documented bear immigration from the WRB and TRB 
to the northern Mississippi breeding subpopulation and from TRC to the 
southern Mississippi breeding subpopulation (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, 
p. 67). Six bears from northwestern Mississippi (sampled east of the 
TRB and across the Mississippi River) had mixed ancestry between WRB 
and TRB (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 63). Genetic studies and LDWF 
CMR studies have documented bear emigration from the WRB and TRB to the 
Sharkey-Issaquena and Warren County, Mississippi, subpopulations and 
from TRC to the Wilkinson County, Mississippi, subpopulation 
(Laufenberg and Clark 2014, pp. 63-67).
    Shropshire (1996, p. 64) found that Adams County contained the most 
suitable habitat in Mississippi and that Delta National Forest was 
comparable in habitat quality to Tensas River NWR. Habitat suitability 
models based on landscape characteristics, human attitudes, and habitat 
quality found the highest habitat suitability was in southern 
Mississippi and the lowest was in the Delta region (Bowman 1999, p. 
180).
    Similar to the trend for the TRB area, in the Lower Mississippi 
River Valley of Mississippi the total forested area increased by 11 
percent between 1987 and 1994, and reforestation of former agricultural 
lands accounted for nearly 40 percent of that increase (King and 
Keeland 1999, p. 350). Approximately 110,000 ac (41,000 ha) of private 
land in Mississippi counties adjacent to the Mississippi River have 
been enrolled in WRP 99-year and permanent easements within the 
Mississippi Alluvial Valley Black Bear Priority Units (MAVU). When WRP 
permanent easement lands are added to the habitat protected on Federal 
and State NWRs or WMAs, other Federal- and State-protected lands, and 
privately owned protected lands, approximately 868,000 ac (440,000 ha) 
have been permanently protected and/or restored within the MAVU in 
Mississippi. Although not permanently protected, approximately 328,000 
ac (132,737 ha) were enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 
within the MAVU. Approximately 68 percent of breeding habitat in the 
MAVU is under permanent protection.
    East Texas: At the time of listing, populations of bears had not 
been reported in east Texas for many years, with the exception of the 
occasional wandering animal (Nowak 1986, p. 7). Keul (2007, p. 1) 
reviewed historical literature on the black bear in East Texas and 
concluded that while habitat loss did occur, the primary reason for 
loss of bears was due to aggressive and uncontrolled sport hunting. The 
last known areas supporting bears in east Texas was the Big Thicket 
area of Hardin County and forested areas in Matagorda County, which may 
have supported a few individuals up to the mid-1940s (Barker et al. 
2005, p. 6; Schmidley 1983. p. 1). There was an episode of black bear 
sightings in east Texas in the 1960s following the reintroduction of 
Minnesota bears into Louisiana, but by 1983 Schmidley (1983, p. 1) 
stated there were no resident bears remaining in east Texas.

[[Page 29406]]

    Sightings of bears in east Texas have gradually increased since 
1977, the time period when the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 
(TPWD) started collecting data (Chappell 2011, p. 11). Most of those 
sightings were believed to be juvenile or sub-adult males that had 
wandered into the northeastern part of the listed range from expanding 
populations in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana (Barker et al. 2005, 
p. 7). Observations in the 1990s indicate the return of a few black 
bears to the remote forests of east Texas, primarily transient, 
solitary males that are believed to be dispersing from Arkansas and 
Oklahoma (D. Holdermann, TPWD, personal communication, 2014). Kaminski 
(2011, entire document) conducted a region-wide hair snare survey in 
east and southeast Texas in areas assumed to have the highest 
likelihood of bear occurrence and where sightings had been reported. 
According to the genetic analysis and based on the estimated 
effectiveness of their sampling method, it was determined it was highly 
unlikely there were established black bear populations in the region 
(Kaminski 2011, p. 34). Since 1990, there have been 37 verified black 
bear sightings in 13 east Texas counties, and preliminary examination 
of these data suggest that some observations may represent duplicate 
sightings of individual bears (D. Holdermann, TPWD, personal 
communication, 2014).
    Kaminski (2011, p. 50) used Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI) for 
black bears in east and southeast Texas to identify 4 recovery units 
(ranging in size from 74,043 to 183,562 ac (31,583 to 74,285 ha) 
capable of sustaining viable back bear populations. Estimated HSI 
scores for each were comparable to other estimates for the occupied 
range of black bears in the southeast, and the estimated acreage of 
suitable habitat for all units exceeded those estimated to support 
existing Louisiana black bear populations (Kaminski 2011). 
Approximately 11.8 million ac (477,530 ha) of the Pineywoods area of 
east Texas is classified as forest, of which approximately 61 percent 
is non-industrial private timberland (Barker et al. 2005, pp. 25-26). 
Habitat fragmentation may become a concern in east Texas as timberland 
owners dissolve their holdings over much of southeast Texas lands 
(Barker et al. 2005, p. 26). Future water reservoir developments 
further threaten the highest quality habitat remaining in East Texas 
(Barker et al. 2005, p. 26).
    Although there is currently no evidence of a resident breeding 
population of black bears in east Texas, bear recovery and range 
expansion in bordering Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma may increase 
bear occurrence and activity in east Texas in future years. Habitat 
restoration activities continue in Texas.
    The TPWD field analyses of remaining potential black bear habitats 
within east Texas (using habitat suitability models) found that the 
Sulphur River Bottom, Middle and Lower Neches River Corridors, and Big 
Thicket National Preserve areas in east Texas were all suitable for 
black bears and that the Middle Neches River Corridor provided the most 
suitable location for any bear restoration or management efforts in 
east Texas (Garner and Willis 1998, p. 5). Between 2008 and 2011, more 
than 500 ac (200 ha) have been restored and 1,550 ac (630 ha) have been 
enhanced in east Texas via the Hardwood Habitat Cooperative program.
    Louisiana Black Bear Population: Since listing there have been many 
studies of the Louisiana black bear's biology, taxonomy, denning 
ecology, nuisance behavior, movements, habitat needs, reintroduction 
efforts, and public attitudes (primarily in Louisiana, but also 
Mississippi and Texas). See Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 5) for a 
list of that research, and, additionally, much of that work was 
summarized in the 5-year review for this species (Service 2014). More 
recent studies have focused on population vital statistics for 
individual subpopulations such as abundance (e.g., Hooker 2010; Lowe 
2011, O'Connell 2013, Troxler 2013). Laufenberg and Clark (2014, entire 
document) expanded the results of those studies and also conducted 
genetic structure connectivity studies to examine the viability and 
connectivity of the Louisiana black bear.
    In summary, considering Laufenberg and Clark's recent work (2014, 
entire document) and prior research, the following conditions exist for 
the Louisiana black bear population:
    (1) The population sizes of the TRB, UARB, and LARB subpopulations 
have increased since listing, their average population growth rates are 
stable to increasing, and the probability of long-term persistence for 
the TRB and UARB subpopulations (except for one UARB modeling scenario) 
was greater than 95 percent. The probability of long term persistence 
for the LARB is unknown.
    (2) The habitat occupied by the TRB, UARB, and LARB breeding 
subpopulations has increased; there is a more scattered distribution of 
breeding females between the original TRB and UARB subpopulation areas; 
and new satellite breeding populations are forming in Louisiana (Figure 
1).
    (3) A new breeding subpopulation, the TRC, that was not present at 
listing, now exists between the TRB and UARB subpopulations and 
facilitates interchange between those subpopulations.
    (4) There is evidence that TRB and UARB bears have emigrated to 
Mississippi and have contributed to the formation of three resident 
breeding subpopulations that were not present at listing.
    (5) There is evidence of interchange of bears between the TRB, 
UARB, TRC, WRB, and Mississippi subpopulations; however, the current 
potential for interchange between the LARB and other subpopulations is 
low.
    (6) The overall probability of persistence for the Louisiana black 
bear metapopulation comprised of the TRB, TRC, and UARB subpopulations 
is estimated to be 0.996, assuming dynamics of those subpopulations 
were independent and using the most conservative population-specific 
persistence probabilities (i.e., 0.958, 0.295, and 0.849, respectively) 
(Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 47). If subpopulations are not 
independent (some environmental processes would affect all populations 
similarly), the long-term viability of the metapopulation could be 
reduced. However, the high persistence probabilities for the TRB and 
UARB subpopulations would offset that reduction because the probability 
that at least one subpopulation would persist would be as great as that 
for the subpopulation with the greater probability of persistence 
(which was greater than 95 percent) (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 80).

Recovery

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of threatened and 
endangered species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Recovery plans are not 
regulatory documents and are instead intended to establish goals for 
long-term conservation of a listed species; define criteria that are 
designed to indicate when the threats facing a species have been 
removed or reduced to such an extent that the species may no longer 
need the protections of the Act; and provide guidance to our Federal, 
State, and other governmental and non-governmental partners on methods 
to minimize threats to listed species. There are many paths to 
accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved 
without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or more

[[Page 29407]]

criteria may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have been 
accomplished, yet the Service may judge that, overall, the threats have 
been minimized sufficiently, and the species is robust enough, to 
reclassify the species from endangered to threatened or perhaps delist 
the species. In other cases, recovery opportunities may have been 
recognized that were not known at the time the recovery plan was 
finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods 
identified in the recovery plan.
    Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not 
known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information 
may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing 
recovery of the species. Recovery of species is a dynamic process 
requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully follow the 
guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    The following discussion provides a brief review of recovery 
planning and implementation for the Louisiana black bear, as well as an 
analysis of the recovery criteria and goals as they relate to 
evaluating the status of the taxon.
    The Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan was approved by the Service 
on September 27, 1995 (Service 1995, 59 pp.). It was developed in 
coordination with the BBCC and its Black Bear Restoration Plan (BBCC 
1997, entire document). The objective of the recovery plan is to 
sufficiently alleviate the threats to the Louisiana black bear 
metapopulation, and the habitat that supports it, so that the 
protection afforded by the Endangered Species Act is no longer 
warranted.
    The four primary recovery actions outlined in the Louisiana black 
bear recovery plan are:
    (1) Restoring and protecting bear habitat;
    (2) developing and implementing information and education programs;
    (3) protecting and managing bear populations; and
    (4) conducting research on population viability, corridors, and 
bear biology. Significant accomplishments have been made on all of the 
primary actions for this subspecies (Service 2014, entire document). 
Below are examples:
    Habitat Restoration and Protection: Habitat Restoration Planning 
maps have been used to focus our conservation efforts resulting in 
approximately 148,400 ac (60,055 ha) of privately owned lands being 
restored and protected under the Service's Partners for Fish and 
Wildlife program and the WRP program. Approximately 480,836 ac (194,588 
ha) have been permanently protected, including 126,417 ac (51,159 ha) 
that have been purchased or put under non-development easements in the 
Atchafalaya Basin (see the Factor Analysis below for additional 
details).
    Information and Education Programs: The BBCC, which implemented the 
first public education efforts, developed a landowner habitat 
management guide and continues to present informational and educational 
materials about bears and how to live in areas where they occur. The 
Bear Education and Restoration (BEaR) group of Mississippi, and the 
East Texas Black Bear Task Force, are additional organizations that 
actively conduct public education activities through events such as 
workshops, public talks, and brochures. There are two annual black bear 
festivals, one each in Mississippi and Louisiana, to promote public 
education and awareness of bears. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas 
have all developed and are distributing public education and safety 
informational material. LDWF regularly sponsors hunter safety and 
teacher workshops.
    Protecting and Managing Bear Populations: The BBCC developed the 
black bear restoration plan in 1997. All three States (LA, MS, TX) now 
have black bear management plans in place that guide their restoration 
and management activities. LDWF and MDWFP have nuisance response 
protocols in place and actively manage human-bear conflicts in 
coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Wildlife 
Services program. The LDWF initiated a program with St. Mary Parish to 
reduce bear human conflict in the LARB by providing an employee 
dedicated to reduce bear access to anthropogenic food sources (e.g. 
garbage, pet foods) in conjunction with purchasing and deploying bear-
resistant waste cans (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 51). The LDWF continues 
providing financial support for the Parish to maintain this program and 
has worked with adjacent parishes to implement similar programs. The 
LDWF and Service have worked with the Louisiana Department of 
Transportation and Development to provide bear crossing signs on Hwy 90 
in the LARB subpopulation and to focus habitat restoration and 
protection efforts for future bear crossings (i.e., under passes). 
Similar efforts are underway to address the same concern along I-20 in 
the TRB subpopulation. The LDWF, in coordination with the Service and 
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), has developed a database that is used to 
track bear occurrences, captures, and mortalities to better manage 
subpopulations. A multi-partner effort to conduct a translocation 
program (based on new methodology of being able to use soft releases) 
from 2001 through 2009 resulted in the successful formation of the TRC 
breeding subpopulation.
    Conduct Research on Population Viability, Corridors, and Bear 
Biology: More than 25 research studies on Louisiana black bear biology 
and habitat requirements, subpopulation vital statistics, taxonomy and 
genetics, and public attitudes in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas 
have been conducted (see Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 5 for a partial 
listing). The LDWF will continue monitoring (using hair snare and mark 
recapture efforts) the TRB, UARB, TRC, and LARB subpopulations 
(Davidson et al, 2015, p. 33, Table 3.1). Data from these studies are 
being used to monitor and manage the bear population.
    Additionally, all four of these recovery actions have been 
identified for continued implementation in the LDWF Black Bear 
Management Plan (Davidson et al. 2015), the Mississippi Conservation 
and Management of Black Bears in Mississippi Plan (Young 2006, Appendix 
A), and the East Texas Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan 
(Barker et al. 2005, pp. 30-41).
    Substantial progress has been achieved in alleviating known threats 
to the Louisiana black bear through increased habitat protection and 
restoration, improved population demographics by reduction of habitat 
fragmentations, increased knowledge of key population attributes (e.g., 
survival, fecundity, population growth rates, home ranges) necessary to 
manage this species, responsive conflict management, and increased 
public education. Many public and private partners have contributed to 
the current improved status of the Louisiana black bear population by 
implementing these recovery actions.

Recovery Criteria

    The Recovery Plan includes the following criteria to consider the 
Louisiana black bear for delisting:
    (1) At least two viable subpopulations, one each in the Tensas and 
Atchafalaya River Basins;
    (2) immigration and emigration corridors between the two viable 
subpopulations; and
    (3) long-term protection of the habitat and interconnecting 
corridors that support each of the two viable subpopulations used as 
justification for delisting.
    The recovery plan defines a minimum viable subpopulation as one 
that has a 95 percent or better chance of

[[Page 29408]]

persistence over 100 years, despite the foreseeable effects of four 
factors: Demography, environment, genetics, and natural catastrophe 
(Schaffer 1981, p. 133). Long-term protection was defined in the 
recovery plan as having sufficient voluntary conservation agreements 
with private landowners and public land managers in the Tensas and 
Atchafalaya River Basins (in Louisiana) so that habitat degradation is 
unlikely to occur over 100 years. The recovery plan (Service 1995, p. 
14) also noted that the requirements for delisting were preliminary and 
could change as more information about the biology of the species was 
known. We continue to believe the recovery criteria outlined in the 
1995 Service recovery plan (Service 1995) are valid (see our published 
5-year review for the bear at http://www.fws.gov for more detail and 
our evaluation of the latest information as it relates to the 
criteria).
    All of these criteria have been met, as described below. 
Additionally, the level of protection currently afforded to the species 
and its habitat, as well as the current status of threats, are outlined 
below in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section. In 
addition, we are issuing a draft PDM plan at the same time as this 
proposed rule (see Post Delisting Monitoring section). A primary goal 
of post-delisting monitoring is to monitor the species to ensure the 
status does not deteriorate, and if a substantial decline in the 
species (numbers of individuals or populations) or an increase in 
threats is identified, to enact measures to halt the decline so that 
re-proposing the species as threatened or endangered is not needed. We 
may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best 
available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is 
neither endangered nor threatened for the following reasons: (1) The 
species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer 
endangered or threatened; and/or (3) the original scientific data used 
at the time the species was classified was in error.
    Criterion (1): At least two viable subpopulations, one each in the 
Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins. Historic habitat fragmentation, 
and the potential for continued loss and fragmentation, threatened the 
ability of the bear to survive as a population and also potentially 
affected the demographic integrity of the subsequently isolated 
subpopulations. Based on Shaffer's discussion (1981, p. 133), the 
requirement for two viable Louisiana black bear subpopulations (one 
each in the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins) with exchange of 
individuals (see Criterion 2) to form a metapopulation would increase 
the likelihood of two or more subpopulations persisting for 100 years 
(BBCC 1997, p. 54). In terms of achieving recovery criteria, the UARB 
subpopulation is located approximately 110 miles south of the TRB and, 
thus, the Louisiana black bear breeding subpopulation nearest the one 
in Tensas River Basin. The LARB subpopulation is located approximately 
70 miles south of the UARB (therefore, approximately 180 miles south of 
TRB). When these recovery criteria were developed, there were no 
successful methods for establishing new breeding subpopulations other 
than relying on habitat restoration and natural population expansion. 
Thus, habitat restoration was and still is focused on surrounding all 
breeding subpopulations. Currently, there is one new breeding 
subpopulation, the TRC (formed in Louisiana as a result of 
reintroductions), between the TRB and UARB. This location was chosen 
for reintroductions in order to facilitate movement of individuals 
between the UARB and TRB subpopulations. Recent documentation of bear 
movement between the TRC and UARB and between the UARB and TRB via the 
TRC subpopulation demonstrates the success of this effort. In addition, 
several smaller breeding areas indirectly resulting from those 
reintroductions are forming in Louisiana. Additionally, three naturally 
forming (and indirectly resulting from the Louisiana reintroductions) 
breeding populations are establishing themselves in Mississippi, all 
evidence of increased interchange of bears.
    The estimated probability of persistence over 100 years for the TRB 
subpopulation was 1.00 and 0.96 for process-only Model 1 estimates and 
was 1.00 and 0.96 for Model 2 estimates (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 
46). The probability of persistence of the UARB subpopulation met the 
95 percent probability of long-term persistence except under the two 
most conservative sets of assumptions (Model 2, all uncertainty) 
(Laufenberg and Clark 2014. p. 82). The estimated asymptotic growth 
rates for the TRC ranged from 0.99 to 1.02, for Model 1 and Model 2, 
respectively (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 45). TRC persistence 
probabilities ranged from 0.29 to 0.99 depending on carrying capacity, 
the strength of the density dependence, level of uncertainty, and the 
treatment of unresolved fates (i.e., deaths or lost collars) 
(Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 47). Using the telemetry and 
reproductive data from the TRC, probabilities of persistence were 
greater than or equal to 0.95 only for projections based on the most 
optimistic set of assumptions (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 47).
    Estimates of long-term viability of the TRB and the UARB 
subpopulations were greater than 95 percent except for the two most 
conservative models for the UARB (long-term viability estimates of 85 
percent and 92 percent). Taken together as a system, and assuming that 
those subpopulations were independent, the combined viability analysis 
of the TRB, UARB, and TRC (using the most conservative estimates 
obtained for all three subpopulations) indicated that the Louisiana 
black bear metapopulation (TRB, TRC, and UARB) has an overall long-term 
probability of persistence of approximately 100 percent (0.996) 
(Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 92). The current movement of individuals 
between the additional subpopulations elsewhere in Louisiana and 
Mississippi would only improve metapopulation's chance for persistence 
(Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 94). The opportunity for movement of 
individuals between the TRB-TRC-UARB metapopulation and the LARB 
subpopulation is currently low; however, the presence of the relatively 
large LARB subpopulation and projections for improving habitat 
conditions (refer to Factor A and D discussions below) between it and 
the more northerly UARB subpopulation contributes to the persistence of 
the Louisiana black bear population as a whole.
    This recovery criterion, as described in the recovery plan, calls 
for two viable subpopulations, one each in the Tensas and Atchafalaya 
River Basins. The overall goal of the recovery plan was to protect the 
Louisiana black bear metapopulation and the habitat that supports it so 
that the protection afforded by the Act is no longer warranted. Based 
on the above analysis, we believe the Tensas subpopulation is viable 
and we believe the UARB subpopulation is viable based on three model 
scenarios. We have high confidence in these three model scenarios. The 
long term persistence of the Louisiana black bear metapopulation (TRB, 
TRC, and UARB) is estimated to be at least 0.996 under the most 
conservative (i.e., using the lowest estimates of viability) model 
assumptions; therefore, we believe this criterion to be met. We believe 
that these conservative assumptions identified in these scenarios will 
likely be present post-delisting as the Louisiana black bear PDM plan 
is

[[Page 29409]]

implemented. Additionally, we will pay close attention to UARB and LARB 
subpopulation parameters as post-delisting monitoring progresses. The 
TRC subpopulation located between TRB and UARB provides a mechanism for 
exchange between the TRB and UARB subpopulations. In addition, this 
recovery plan criterion did not include the possibility of other 
populations forming on the landscape because female range expansion is 
very slow and there was no acceptable methodology at the time to 
expedite that expansion (e.g., soft release translocations). However, 
this assumption was proven wrong. In addition to the populations 
described above, we have documented new breeding populations 
established in Louisiana and Mississippi (Figure 1).
    Criterion (2): Establishment of immigration and emigration 
corridors between the two subpopulations. This criterion and Criterion 
3 (below) are addressed in the recovery plan Action 1: Restore and 
Protect Bear Habitat. To reach an accurate conclusion regarding the 
achievement of this criterion, it is essential to fully understand the 
term ``corridor'' in light of the advances in Louisiana black bear 
research methodology (and the knowledge gained regarding Louisiana 
black bear dispersal and interchange) that has occurred since the 
listing of the Louisiana black bear more than 20 years ago. Although 
the Louisiana black bear Recovery Plan does not specifically define the 
term ``corridor'', it does present the future objective of developing 
corridor requirements and guidelines from available research studies 
and incorporating pertinent findings and knowledge into practical 
management guidelines (Service 1995, p. 18).
    The Black Bear Restoration Plan states that little was known about 
Louisiana black bear corridor use and requirements at that time (BBCC 
1997, p. 58). Research studies conducted near the time of the Louisiana 
black bear listing were primarily inconclusive regarding the 
identification and function of corridors. Weaver et al. (1990b, p. 347) 
determined that the Louisiana black bear will use tree-lined drainages 
in agricultural areas to travel between larger forested tracts. They 
also stated, however, that ``research is needed to document the 
characteristics a corridor must possess to make it suitable for use by 
bears as a habitat link.'' Marchinton (1995, pp. 53, 64) speculated 
that male Louisiana black bear movements, though influenced by habitat 
fragmentation patterns, were not inhibited by the level of 
fragmentation within his study area (which was typical of the landscape 
throughout the range of the Louisiana black bear). He also discussed 
anecdotal evidence which suggested that ``adult male bears would cross 
open fields'' (Marchinton 1995, p. 59). We believe those early studies 
not only challenged the continuous-habitat-linkage perception of a 
corridor, but also described the need for additional research to 
clearly characterize the qualities and functions of such corridors.
    The Black Bear Restoration Plan states that ``the criteria for 
measuring corridor effectiveness should also consider corridor 
function'' and ``research is urgently needed to determine the corridor 
functions, their size and shape, and their actual effectiveness'' (BBCC 
1997, p. 58). To assess the function and role of corridors in Louisiana 
black bear dispersal and genetic exchange, Laufenberg and Clark (2014, 
pp. 24-31) conducted a movement, or step selection, study throughout a 
large portion of the range of the Louisiana black bear. In regard to 
facilitating Louisiana black bear movement between subpopulations, 
their findings indicated that, while contiguous forested habitat 
linkages can be beneficial to bears moving through a fragmented 
landscape, hypothetical forested corridors ``were not more effective 
than the broken habitat matrix that surrounded many of the 
subpopulations'' (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 85). Their study also 
documented interchange occurring ``from the UARB to the TRB by way of 
the TRC'' (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, pp. 2, 84). Such interchange 
supports the assertion by Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 90) that the 
presence of multiple satellite populations of breeding bears on the 
landscape may be more effective in establishing and/or maintaining 
connectivity between the larger subpopulations than the presence of 
contiguous forested linkages.
    Most such satellite populations exist today as a result of a multi-
agency project undertaken specifically to reduce demographic isolation 
of the existing TRB and UARB subpopulations. That translocation 
project, initiated in 2001, was based on the assumption that relocated 
females with cubs would remain at a new location (not currently 
supporting a Louisiana black bear subpopulation) and adult females 
would be discovered by males traveling through the area. From 2001 
through 2009, 48 females and 104 cubs were moved (primarily from the 
TRB) to a complex of public lands located between the TRB and the UARB 
subpopulations. Though most relocated females and their offspring 
remained within the vicinity of their release site (creating a new 
subpopulation that reduced the distance between existing 
subpopulations), a few dispersed to various habitat patches creating 
the satellite populations that now facilitate interchange between the 
larger subpopulations.
    As part of the recovery process, HRPA maps were developed by a 
collaborative multi-agency and organization group (Federal, State, 
local government partners, and nonprofit organizations including but 
not limited to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), LDWF, 
BBCC, Louisiana State University, the Louisiana Nature Conservancy, and 
the Service) to design and create landscape features to support the 
habitat-block/satellite-population corridor concept that facilitates 
such interchange. The Louisiana black bear HRPA maps are regularly 
updated; the most recent update was in the spring of 2011. Those maps 
are designed for use with conservation programs administered by NRCS) 
(e.g., WRP) and the Service (e.g., Partners for Fish and Wildlife 
(PFW)), which primarily encourage reforestation of marginal and 
nonproductive cropland in Louisiana. The maps, using a 3-tiered point 
system, establish higher point zones (indicating higher importance for 
bear recovery and thus providing landowners competing for this 
conservation funding with a higher ranking) around breeding bear 
habitat, large forested areas, and various habitat patches that may 
facilitate interchange between Louisiana black bear subpopulations. 
Areas that would benefit breeding subpopulations and corridors thus 
receive the highest priority and landowners competing for WRP 
enrollment would receive higher rankings in those areas. Most WRP 
tracts are encumbered by permanent easements that protect the land from 
future conversion or development (refer to discussion in Factor D).
    Similar conservation priority maps have been developed and are 
currently in use in Mississippi (Ginger et al. 2007). The TPWD and its 
partners have developed Land Conservation Priority Maps for East Texas 
and a Hardwood Habitat Cooperative that offers a cost-share program to 
landowners seeking to restore or enhance hardwood habitat on their 
lands. In East Texas, more than 500 ac (200 ha) have been restored and 
1,550 ac (630 ha) were enhanced via the Hardwood Habitat Cooperative 
program between 2008 and 2011.
    The Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan states that corridors 
providing cover may facilitate the movement of bears between highly 
fragmented forest tracts. It also states, however, that the Louisiana 
black bear has been known to

[[Page 29410]]

cross open, agricultural fields even when forested corridors were 
available, and that ``habitat blocks (large blocks of land) may provide 
more effective corridors'' (Service 1995, p. 6). This type of habitat-
block/satellite-population corridor occurs throughout the range of the 
Louisiana black bear in the form of remnant forested patches and tracts 
of restored habitat (on private and public lands), and has been 
augmented by the relocation of bears into east-central Louisiana. 
Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 90) concluded, based on the result of 
their work, that a patchwork of natural land cover between Louisiana 
black bear breeding subpopulations may be sufficient for movement of 
individuals between subpopulations (at least for males). Laufenberg and 
Clark (2014, p. 85) postulated that, while such corridors may be 
important, they were not more effective than the presence of a broken-
habitat matrix such as what is surrounding current Louisiana black bear 
subpopulations. As described above, research supports this corridor 
concept and the documented evidence of interchange between the UARB and 
the TRB subpopulations (and additional interchange with subpopulations 
in Arkansas and Mississippi) provides further validation. The Louisiana 
black bear recovery plan indicates ``key corridors or habitat blocks 
need to be identified and will be required to ease fragmentation within 
and between occupied habitat for the Louisiana black bear.'' We have 
clearly documented evidence of interchange between the TRB and UARB 
subpopulations by way of the TRC, and, therefore, we have met this 
criterion.
    Criterion (3): Long-term protection of habitat and interconnecting 
corridors that support each of the two viable subpopulations used as 
justification for delisting. The recovery plan states that long-term 
protection is defined as having sufficient voluntary conservation 
agreements with private landowners and public land managers in the 
Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins so that habitat degradation is 
unlikely to occur over 100 years (Service 1995, p. 14). Additionally, 
the Black Bear Restoration Plan states that criteria for determining 
whether long-term habitat and corridor protection has been achieved 
could include ``data projecting future habitat trend according to 
historical trend in acreage and habitat type/quality'' (BBCC 1997, p. 
58). It further states that other metrics to consider may include the 
extent of cooperating private landowners and the nature of their 
respective conservation agreements, as well as ``federal legislation 
restricting agricultural conversion of wetlands, and the nature of 
conservation easements such as those being obtained from private 
landowners by the Corps in the Atchafalaya Floodway'' (BBCC 1997, p. 
58). Employing those criteria, and based on the genetic and 
connectivity studies by Laufenberg and Clark (2014), it is evident that 
not only are corridors between the UARB and the TRB subpopulations 
present and functional, they are afforded long-term protection through 
a combination of conservation easements and environmental regulations.
    Habitat Protection Through Ownership or Permanent Easements: An 
estimated 450,000 to 550,000 ac (182,000 to 222,000 ha) of BLH forest 
habitat were restored in the LMRAV within 12 years of the Louisiana 
black bear being listed as a threatened species (Haynes 2004, p. 173). 
Since 1992, more than 148,000 ac (60,000 ha) of land has been 
permanently protected and/or restored in the HRPA via the WRP program 
(mostly in the TRB and UARB areas) (Table 2). It should also be noted 
that, in Louisiana, there are approximately 480,000 ac (195,000 ha) of 
public lands within the HRPA that are managed or maintained in a manner 
that provides benefits to bears (Table 5). Approximately 460,000 ac 
(186,000 ha) of public lands in Louisiana and Mississippi directly 
support Louisiana black bear breeding populations (Table 6, Figure 2).
    Habitat Protection Through Regulations and Mitigation: A large 
proportion of the remaining forested habitat that is not encumbered by 
perpetual conservation servitudes or public ownership and management 
are occasionally to frequently flooded and would not be suitable for 
conversion to agriculture or development without the construction of 
significant flood control features. The construction of such features 
or other activities would eliminate or reduce existing wetland habitat 
(including forested wetlands) and would be regulated via The Food 
Security Act of 1985 and/or Section 404 of the CWA. Although the CWA 
was initially considered insufficient to ensure the long-term 
protection of Louisiana black bear corridors, significant changes have 
occurred in the legal interpretation and authoritative limits of the 
CWA. As the result of multiple court cases and revised legal 
interpretations, the regulatory scope and enforcement authority of the 
Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the CWA was 
substantially broadened (see discussion under Factor D for additional 
information). With the institution of those regulatory changes, the 
trajectory of BLH forest loss in the LMRAV has not only improved, but 
has also been reversed. This trend reversal is heavily supported by 
published accounts (Haynes 2004, p. 173), natural resource management 
agency records (Table 2), and our analysis of classified imagery within 
the Louisiana black bear HRPA (Tables 7 and 8). The habitat loss trend 
reversal is further supported by an analysis of data obtained from the 
Corps' wetland regulatory program, which demonstrates that 
substantially more forested habitat is restored through compensatory 
wetland mitigation than is eliminated via permitted wetland development 
projects (Table 10). Furthermore, the Corps' wetland regulatory program 
data indicate that the ratio of wetland habitat gains from compensatory 
mitigation to wetland habitat losses attributed to permitted projects 
is 6:1 (R.M. Stewart, Vicksburg District Corps, personal communication, 
2014).

[[Page 29411]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY15.002

    In summary, the current distribution of habitat patches and 
breeding subpopulations have been documented to provide sufficient 
connectivity for interchange to occur between the UARB and the TRB 
subpopulations as detailed in Criterion 2 (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, 
pp. 83-84). A substantial amount of forested habitat within the 
Louisiana black bear HRPA system is perpetually protected through 
conservation easements (on private lands) and fee-title purchases 
(public lands) for the purpose of providing wildlife habitat (which 
includes Louisiana black bear habitat (Figure 2). All available data 
indicate that current environmental laws and regulations (in 
particular, the CWA) are sufficient to provide long-term protection of 
the Louisiana black bear corridor system. In fact, relating to the 
Louisiana black bear, data clearly demonstrate that the CWA regulatory 
program not only provides adequate protection for its habitat, but has 
also resulted in habitat gains due to compensatory mitigation 
requirements (see Table 11 and discussion under Factor A, below). The 
``Swampbuster'' provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 provide 
additional protections against the conversion of forested wetlands for 
agricultural purposes. There is no available information to suggest 
that either of these regulatory protections would be weakened or 
eliminated in the foreseeable future.
    We have no information to suggest that the current trend of habitat 
gains within the LMRAV and the HRPA from voluntary landowner-incentive 
based programs and environmental regulations would not continue for the 
foreseeable future (Tables 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10). A substantial acreage 
of the habitat that supports the main breeding subpopulations in the 
TRB and UARB is in public ownership (e.g., Tensas River NWR, Big Lake 
WMA, Buckhorn WMA, Richard K. Yancey WMA, Sherburne WMA, and Bayou 
Teche NWR) and managed to provide habitat for a variety of wildlife 
including the Louisiana black bear (see State-owned lands and U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife National Wildlife Refuges sections of Factor D). 
Accordingly, we believe that the habitat within the Louisiana black 
bear corridor system is functional, and is afforded long-term and 
adequate protection from

[[Page 29412]]

existing regulatory mechanisms and through the management efforts of 
our State, Federal, and non-governmental partners.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing 
species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
and Plants. To list a species, we must first evaluate whether that 
species may be an endangered species or a threatened species because of 
one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the 
Act. We must consider these same five factors in reclassifying or 
delisting a species. The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable 
future.'' For the purpose of this rule, we define the foreseeable 
future to be the extent to which, given the amount and substance of 
available data, we can anticipate events or effects, or reliably 
extrapolate threat trends, such that we reasonably believe that 
reliable predictions can be made concerning the future as it relates to 
the status of the Louisiana black bear. A recovered species is one that 
no longer meets the Act's definition of a threatened or an endangered 
species.
    The following analysis examines all five factors currently 
affecting, or that are likely to affect, the Louisiana black bear 
within the foreseeable future.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    The final rule that listed the Louisiana black bear as a threatened 
subspecies states that it ``meets the criteria for protection under the 
Act on the basis of past habitat loss alone'' (57 FR 588). It also 
identified the threat of further habitat loss of occupied habitats due 
to conversion to agriculture or other non-timber uses on top of past 
severe losses that occurred (historical modification and reduction and 
reduced quality of habitat, primarily as a result of conversion to 
agriculture), the lack of protection of privately owned woodlands in 
the north Atchafalaya and Tensas River Basins, and inadequacy of 
existing regulatory protections to protect Louisiana black bear habitat 
(see Factor D for regulatory mechanism discussion).
    We present multiple habitat assessment metrics to establish trends 
within the LMRAV and the Louisiana black bear HRPA. This relatively 
high level of redundancy is provided to demonstrate that habitat trends 
have been accurately identified, and to compensate for the limitations 
in geographic information system (GIS) technology at the time of 
listing of the Louisiana black bear. GIS technology was in its infancy 
in the 1990s, so our ability to accurately delineate the extent and 
distribution of Louisiana black bear habitat at the time of listing was 
determined from a best professional estimate based on hand-drawn maps. 
In addition, the geographic areas used for those initial estimates were 
not often well described and varied by study, making successive 
temporal comparisons quite difficult. Advances in technology, including 
GIS and remotely sensed data (e.g., aerial and satellite imagery), 
currently allow for highly accurate identification and delineation of 
habitat based on specified characteristics. This, subsequently, 
provides for a more consistent and reproducible estimate of Louisiana 
black bear habitat distribution and trend.
    According to Haynes (2004, p. 172), the forested wetlands of the 
LMRAV have been reduced from historic estimates of 21 to 25 million 
acres (8.5 to 10 million ha) to a remnant 5 to 6.5 million acres (2 to 
2.6 million ha). Significant increases in soybean prices in the late 
1960s and early 1970s provided the impetus for the large-scale 
conversion of forested habitat to agriculture, which was facilitated by 
improved flood control, drainage, and technology (Wilson et al. 2007, 
pp. 7-8). Allen et al. (2004, p. 4) concurred that the primary cause of 
bottomland hardwood loss has been conversion to agricultural 
production. According to Creasman et al. (1992) as cited by Haynes 
(2004, p. 170), approximately 78 percent of the bottomland forests in 
Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi had been lost to conversion at the 
time of listing. When the bear was listed in 1992, the Service 
recognized that the rate of loss of bear habitat had leveled off 
(Service 1992, p. 592). Since that time (1990-2010), forested habitat 
within the LMRAV has increased (Oswalt 2013, p. 4).
    The Black Bear Restoration Plan states that the delisting criteria 
standard of long-term habitat and corridor protection could involve a 
projection of future habitat trend based on historical trends in 
acreage and habitat type/quality (BBCC 1997, p. 58). In that regard, 
Schoenholtz et al. (2001, p. 612; 2005, p. 413) described a ``promising 
or encouraging'' trend in the annual increase of afforestation 
(planting of trees to create forested habitat) in the LMRAV. Available 
data indicates that over the past three decades, forest restoration in 
the LMRAV portions of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas has 
increased dramatically, and has led to a significant removal of land 
from agricultural production for the purpose of hardwood forest 
establishment (Gardiner and Oliver 2005, p. 243; and Oswalt 2013, p. 
6). In some areas, these gains have been especially noteworthy. For 
example, West Carroll Parish, Louisiana, experienced a 92 percent loss 
of forested area from 1950 (45 percent forest) to 1980 (8 percent 
forest), and in 2013, the parish was approximately 18 percent forested 
(Oswalt 2013, p. 4).
    As stated in Table 1, breeding habitat for the bear at the time of 
listing was roughly 340,400 acres. The total has grown based on 
implementation of recovery actions with numerous partners to more than 
1,800,000 acres by the end of 2014. This is approximately five times 
the amount of area occupied by breeding subpopulations than was 
occupied at the time of listing. Examples of actions that have helped 
reduce habitat loss or improve suitable habitat for the Louisiana black 
bear are discussed below.
    A major factor in this positive habitat trend is the success of 
incentive-based private land restoration programs, such as WRP, which 
was established by the Food Security Act of 1990. The WRP has been 
``perhaps the most significant and effective wetland restoration 
program in the world'' (Haynes 2004, p. 173). According to Haynes 
(2004, p. 173), within 12 years of the Louisiana black bear being 
listed as a threatened species, an estimated 450,000 to 550,000 ac 
(182,000 to 222,000 ha) of BLH forest had been restored in the LMRAV. 
Since 1992, more than 148,000 ac (60,000 ha) of land has been 
permanently protected and/or restored in the HRPA via the WRP program 
(mostly in the TRB and UARB areas) (Table 2). The entire 148,000 ac 
(60,000 ha) of restored land benefits movement between populations, 
with approximately 97,000 ac (39,000 ha) directly benefitting breeding 
populations (Table 2). The use of the Louisiana Black Bear Habitat 
Restoration Planning Maps in conjunction with the WRP has not only 
increased the total amount of available Louisiana black bear habitat, 
but has also allowed us and our partners to directly focus on 
addressing the recovery criteria. When WRP permanent easement lands are 
added to the habitat protected on Federal and State NWRs or WMAs, 
mitigation banks, and the numerous Corps fee title and easements (as 
discussed in detail under the Factor D section), approximately 638,000 
ac (258,000 ha) have been permanently protected and/or restored within 
the HRPA in Louisiana (Table 3). Although not permanently protected, an 
additional 122,000 ac (49,000 ha) of

[[Page 29413]]

lands currently enrolled in 10- to 15-year agreements via the CRP 
program of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) within the HRPA (Table 4) 
provide short-term habitat that can be used by bears for foraging/
denning and travel.
    Many of the remaining forested wetland areas (as we have detailed) 
have been protected within our National Wildlife Refuge System, in 
National Forests, in State WMAs, and on U.S. Department of Agriculture 
WRP or other conservation easement sites (King et al. 2006). The 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program focuses on conservation delivery 
adjacent to or nearby such protected areas to help meet our strategy of 
expanding main conservation areas and linking habitat by reducing 
fragmentation. Numerous projects administered through this program have 
provided direct habitat benefits for the Louisiana black bear. 
Additional details regarding the effectiveness of this program can be 
found in the Factor D section, titled Partners for Fish and Wildlife 
Act Regulations.
    It should also be noted that in Louisiana there are approximately 
480,000 ac (195,000 ha) of public lands (e.g., NWRs, WMAs, and Corps 
lands) that are managed or maintained in a way to benefit wildlife 
(including bears) in the HRPA (Table 5). A description of the formal 
guidance and/or legal documents that direct those management actions is 
provided in Factor D below. Several of these public lands did not exist 
or were not as large in the early 1990s as they are today (e.g., Bayou 
Teche NWR, Tensas River NWR, Buckhorn WMA). Approximately 460,000 ac 
(186,000 ha) of public lands (inside and outside of the HRPA) in 
Louisiana and Mississippi directly support Louisiana black bear 
breeding populations (Table 6).
    In summary, there are about 460,000 ac (186,000 ha) of Federal- and 
State-owned conservation lands managed for wildlife in Louisiana and 
Mississippi that directly support Louisiana black bear subpopulations. 
If this proposed delisting is finalized, those areas would continue to 
remain permanently protected. Since listing, we have gained more than 
4,000 ac (1,600 ha) of Federal land in Mississippi that benefit bears, 
acquired new NWRs (such as Bayou Teche NWR in Louisiana in 2001), and 
expanded others. In addition to the permanently protected habitat in 
public ownership, we have worked with States and landowners to secure 
148,000 ac (60,000 ha) of permanent WRP easements. Regardless of 
whether the bear is delisted, these voluntary permanent easements 
protect wetlands and ensure that habitat will be maintained (see Factor 
D for associated regulatory protections). In addition to the 
approximately 638,000 ac (258,000 ha) of permanently protected habitat 
(refer to Table 3), there are roughly 122,000 ac (49,000 ha) of habitat 
enrolled in CRP (with 10- to 15-year contracts), which also provides 
benefits to the Louisiana black bear.
    Forested wetlands throughout the range of the Louisiana black bear 
habitat that are not protected through direct public ownership or 
easements on private lands will continue to receive protection through 
Section 404 of the CWA and the ``Swampbuster'' provisions of the Food 
Security Act of 1985. Forested habitat trends in the LMRAV indicate 
that those regulations have provided adequate long-term protection of 
Louisiana black bear habitat since the listing of the Louisiana black 
bear in 1992. The trajectory of BLH forest loss in the LMRAV has been 
reversed with substantial gains in forested habitat being realized 
within both the LMRAV and the more restrictive HRPA.
    To further evaluate forested wetland habitat trends within the 
HRPA, we employed a digital GIS analysis of landscape changes in which 
classified habitat types were monitored over time. To increase the 
confidence level of that analysis, we evaluated two independent sets of 
imagery (image dates were based on availability). The results of both 
methodologies (shown in Tables 7 and 8 below) demonstrate significant 
gains in potential bear habitat within the Louisiana black bear HRPA in 
recent decades. Those results are consistent with government agency 
records for forested habitat restoration through programs such as WRP, 
CRP, and wetland mitigation banking.

   Table 2--Private Lands Enrolled in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Wetland Reserve Program
    (Permanent Easements) Supporting Breeding Habitat and Within the Louisiana Black Bear Habitat Restoration
                                       Planning Areas (HRPA), LA (ac [ha])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Upper            Lower
                                                Tensas River     Atchafalaya      Atchafalaya         Total
                                                 Basin \1\       River Basin      River Basin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breeding Habitat \2\........................          90,198            6,500                0           96,698
                                                     [36,502]          [2,630]               0          [39,132]
HRPA........................................         136,870           11,530                0          148,400
                                                     [55,389]          [4,666]               0          [60,055]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes the TRC subpopulation.
\2\ Breeding habitat is primarily contained within the HRPA, but has expanded beyond it in some areas.


   Table 3--Total Area (NWRs, WMAs, WRPs, Corps Lands, Farmers Home Administration [FmHA] Easement Tracts, and
 Wetland Mitigation Banks) Within Louisiana Black Bear Breeding Habitat and the Louisiana Black Bear HRPA Within
                                               Louisiana (ac [ha])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Upper            Lower
                                                Tensas River     Atchafalaya      Atchafalaya       Total \3\
                                                 Basin \1\     River Basin \3\  River Basin \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana black bear breeding habitat.......       1,002,750          290,263          130,839        1,423,853
                                                    [405,799]        [117,465]         [52,949]        [576,213]
Permanently protected Louisiana black bear           493,639           91,880            7,614          593,133
 breeding habitat \2\.......................        [199,769]         [37,182]          [3,081]        [240,032]
Percent of Louisiana black bear breeding                49.2             31.7              5.8             41.7
 habitat that is permanently protected \2\..

[[Page 29414]]

 
Louisiana black bear HRPA...................       2,054,811        1,200,844          366,001        3,621,656
                                                    [831,553]        [485,964]        [148,115]      [1,465,632]
Permanently protected habitat within the             408,400          217,936           11,573          637,909
 Louisiana black bear HRPA..................        [165,274]         [88,195]          [4,683]        [258,152]
Percent of the Louisiana black bear HRPA                19.9             18.1              3.2             17.6
 that is permanently protected..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes the TRC subpopulation.
\2\ Breeding habitat is primarily contained within the HRPA but has expanded beyond it in some areas.
\3\ Figures shown in this table are based on currently available spatial data and represent the most accurate
  estimates to date. Certain protected habitat estimations presented here are lower than the figures provided in
  the Louisiana black bear 5-year status review document due to improved data availability and associated
  methodology, and not to actual reductions in protected habitat.


   Table 4--CRP Within the Louisiana Black Bear Breeding Habitat and Louisiana Black Bear Habitat Restoration
                                          Planning Areas, LA (ac [ha])
                                     [Numbers may not total due to rounding]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Upper            Lower
                                                Tensas River     Atchafalaya      Atchafalaya         Total
                                                 Basin \1\       River Basin      River Basin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breeding Habitat \2\ \3\....................          44,766           21,770                0           66,536
                                                     [18,116]          [8,810]              [0]         [26,926]
HRPA........................................         120,793            1,344               11          122,149
                                                     [48,883]            [544]              [5]         [49,432]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes the TRC subpopulation.
\2\ Breeding habitat area is largely a subset of (i.e., contained within) the total HRPA.
\3\ Breeding habitat areas have expanded beyond the HRPA boundary.


 Table 5--State and Federal Management Areas Within the Louisiana Black Bear Habitat Restoration Planning Areas,
                                                  LA (ac [ha])
                                     [Numbers may not total due to rounding]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Upper            Lower
                                                Tensas River     Atchafalaya      Atchafalaya       Total \2\
                                               Basin \1\ \2\   River Basin \2\  River Basin \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NWRs........................................         111,966           17,614            7,426          137,006
                                                     [45,311]          [7,128]          [3,005]         [55,444]
WMAs........................................         143,933           59,423            1,474          204,830
                                                     [58,248]         [24,048]            [597]         [82,892]
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway Master Plan        ...............         126,417   ...............         126,417
 Easements and Acquisitions \3\.............                          [51,159]                          [51,159]
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................         255,899          226,037            8,900          480,836
                                                    [103,559]         [91,476]          [3,602]        [194,588]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes the TRC subpopulation.
\2\ Some acreage figures are less than that presented in the Louisiana Black Bear 5-Year Status Review due to
  property boundary refinements and corrections for certain NWRs and WMAs.
\3\ This acreage (126,417) does not equal the 141,400 ac estimated by the Corps (Lacoste 2014). The reason for
  the apparent discrepancy is that the LDWF has been granted management authority over portions of the 141,400
  ac (which include both fee title and easement properties). In our analysis, the management-transfer acreage
  was credited to LDWF (in the form of WMA acreage) rather than to the Corps. However, the total calculated
  protected-habitat acreage remains consistent (and accurate) regardless of that management authority
  reassignment.


           Table 6--Federal and State Natural Resource Management Areas That Supports Louisiana Black Bear Breeding Subpopulations (ac [ha]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Upper
                                                      Tensas River     Atchafalaya         Lower                          Mississippi
                                                       Basin \1\     River Basin \2\    Atchafalaya    Louisiana total     total \4\          Total
                                                                           \3\          River Basin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NWRs..............................................         160,815           16,030            7,355          184,199            4,383          188,582
                                                           [65,079]          [6,487]          [2,976]         [74,543]          [1,774]         [76,316]

[[Page 29415]]

 
WMAs..............................................         223,926           49,042                0          272,968                0          272,968
                                                            [90620]         [19,846]                         [110,466]                         [110,466]
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................................         384,741           65,071            7,355          457,167            4,383          461,550
                                                          [155,699]         [26,333]          [2,976]        [185,009]          [1,774]        [186,783]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes the TRC subpopulation and the Louisiana black bear subpopulation in north-central Louisiana near the Arkansas State line.
\2\ Includes the Louisiana black bear subpopulation found in the Florida parishes of Louisiana (east of the Mississippi River).
\3\ These figures do not include Atchafalaya Basin Floodway Master Plan easements and acquisitions purchased by the Corps, or lands not managed as part
  of a Federal or State natural resource management area.
\4\ Although there are Louisiana black bear breeding subpopulations in Warren, Wilkinson, Issaqueena, and Sharkey Counties, only the Issaqueena/Sharkey
  subpopulation is currently located by State and Federal lands.

  [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY15.003
  
  [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY15.004
  
    In 1992, when the Louisiana black bear was listed, the lack of 
habitat protection within the Atchafalaya River Basin was considered a 
significant component of the overall habitat loss threat to Louisiana 
black bears. The final rule that listed the Louisiana black bear as a 
threatened subspecies states that ``privately owned lands of the 
Atchafalaya River Basin south of U.S. 190 may remain exposed to threat 
from clearing and conversion to agricultural uses'' (Service 1992, p. 
591). It further states that approximately one-half of the forests in 
the northern Atchafalaya River Basin and the Tensas River Basin are 
``privately owned and under no protection through conservation 
easements or acquisition'' (Service 1992, p. 591). The Corps' 
Feasibility Study for the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System projected 
the ``conversion of about 200,000 ac [81,000 ha] of forestland to 
agricultural land'' within the Lower

[[Page 29416]]

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway (Corps 1982, p. 29). Partly in response to 
that threat, when the Corps' Atchafalaya Basin Multi-Purpose Plan was 
approved, it authorized the acquisition of more than 300,000 ac 
(121,000 ha) of non-developmental easements on private lands and the 
fee-title purchase of more than 50,000 ac (20,000 ha) of land for 
conservation purposes within the Atchafalaya Basin covering a 
substantial amount of land between the UARB and the LARB subpopulations 
(Corps 1983, p. 3). According to the most current Corps' data, 
approximately 94,000 ac (38,000 ha) of environmental easements have 
been purchased and 47,400 ac (19,000 ha) of land have been purchased in 
fee title for conservation purposes within the Basin (Lacoste 2014).
    Developmental and environmental provisions of those easements 
prohibit the conversion of land from existing uses (e.g., conversion of 
forested lands to cropland). Camp development and timber harvests 
within the easement area must be conducted in compliance with 
associated easement restrictions. The current and future acquisition of 
land (via easement and fee-title purchase) for environmental purposes 
within the Basin have substantially reduced, and will continue to 
substantially reduce, the threat of habitat loss within this region of 
the State. In addition to those protections afforded to existing 
forested lands, the Service estimated that more than 35,000 ac (14,000 
ha) of lakes and cypress-tupelo swamps would convert to higher 
elevation forests within the Basin by the year 2030 (LeBlanc et al. 
1981, p. 65). This prediction is supported by more recent studies 
documenting increased and ``substantial'' sedimentation within the 
Basin, to the extent that certain areas exhibit ``the highest 
documented sedimentation rates in forested wetlands of the United 
States'' (Hupp et al. 2008, p. 139). Sedimentation results in increased 
forest floor elevation, and areas currently subject to frequent 
inundation will eventually reach elevations that are significantly less 
prone to flooding. Such elevation and hydrology changes are typically 
accompanied by a shift in vegetative community (reflective of the 
hydrologic conditions) resulting in habitats that are more suitable for 
bear foraging and habitation. Such changes could ultimately expand the 
acreage of suitable habitat for the UARB and LARB subpopulations, and 
improve habitat linkage and genetic exchange between those groups.
    Although trends related to agricultural conversion of forested land 
have been reversed since the listing of the Louisiana black bear, 
another possible source of future habitat loss may be development 
associated with increased urbanization. To assess potential future 
habitat losses associated with development, we acquired population 
trend projections for all of the parishes within the Louisiana black 
bear HRPA. Population projections are available through year 2030; see 
Table 9. The Louisiana Parish Population Projections Series (2010-2030) 
were developed by Louisiana State University-Department of Sociology 
for the State of Louisiana, Office of Information Technology, Division 
of Administration (http://louisiana.gov/Explore/Population_Projections/
).
    Of the 17 parishes included within our Louisiana Black Bear Habitat 
Restoration Planning Area, 15 were projected to experience human 
population declines, including several that may experience substantial 
reductions (population declines of 10- 23 percent). St. Landry and St. 
Martin Parishes were the only parishes within our analysis polygon with 
projected population growth over the next 15 years (though increases of 
only 3.88 and 5.07 percent, respectively, are expected). It should be 
noted that significant portions of those parishes, including their 
largest urban areas where most future population growth and associated 
development would be expected, occur outside of the HRPA. In summary, 
based on our review of the available human population projections, it 
appears that there is an extremely low threat of future Louisiana black 
bear habitat loss from urban expansion or other types of development.

[[Page 29417]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY15.005

    Summary of Factor A: Under current landscape conditions and 
forested habitat extent, the subpopulations within the Tensas and Upper 
Atchafalaya River Basins [specifically the TRB, UARB, and TRC]) have an 
overall probability of persistence of approximately 100 percent (0.996; 
Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 2). This indicates that current available 
habitat is sufficient in quality and quantity to meet long-term 
survival requirements of the Louisiana black bear. Much of that habitat 
is protected and the extent of protected habitat continues to increase. 
Since the listing of the Louisiana black bear in 1992, voluntary 
landowner-incentive based programs and environmental regulations have 
not only stopped the net loss of forested lands in the LMRAV, but have 
resulted in significant habitat gains within both the LMRAV and the 
Louisiana black bear HRPA. We do not have any data indicating that 
future enrollment in voluntary landowner-incentive based programs would 
deviate significantly from recent historic trends.
    There is also a substantial amount of private land that supports 
Louisiana black bears, but that is not encumbered by conservation 
easements. To conservatively estimate long-term habitat availability 
for the Louisiana black bear, those lands were excluded from much of 
our analyses (Tables 2, 3, 5, and 6). It should be noted, however, that 
those lands largely consist of forested habitats that are occasionally 
to frequently flooded and would not be suitable for conversion to 
agriculture or development without the construction of significant 
flood control features. The construction of such features or other 
activities that would eliminate or reduce existing wetland habitat 
(including forested wetlands), and would be regulated via The Food 
Security Act of 1985 and/or Section 404 of the CWA (refer to the Factor 
D section for further discussions on long-term protections afforded to 
private land through existing regulatory mechanisms). Due to the 
increase in available and restored habitat following the listing of the 
Louisiana black bear, including more than 460,000 ac (186,000 ha) held 
in Federal and State ownership, the protection of a substantial portion 
of restored habitats with perpetual non-developmental easements 
(through the WRP or wetland mitigation banking programs), and the 
protection of remnant and restored forested wetlands through applicable 
conservation regulations (e.g., Section 404 of the CWA), we find that 
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
its habitat or range is no longer a threat to the Louisiana black bear.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Hunting During the Past 23 Years: In addition to habitat loss, 
prior to listing, Louisiana black bear numbers had been reduced 
throughout its range due to historical overexploitation (Barker et al. 
2005, p. 3; Davidson et al. 2015, p. 3; St. Amant 1959, p. 42; 
Shropshire 1996, p. 20). For example, Keul (2007, p. i) reviewed 
historical literature on the black bear in East Texas and concluded the 
primary reason for loss of bears was due to aggressive and uncontrolled 
sport hunting. Currently, there are no legal commercial or recreational 
consumptive uses of Louisiana black bears. In the mid-1950s, the bear 
hunting season in Louisiana was temporarily closed due to low bear 
numbers (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 5). In spite of low numbers, bear 
hunting remained legal for short time periods in restricted areas of 
Louisiana until 1988, when the season was once again closed; it has not 
since reopened (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 5; Murphy, 2015, personal 
communication). Additional protection was provided by the State listing 
of the Louisiana black bear (listed as threatened in Louisiana in 1992, 
as endangered in Mississippi in 1984, and as threatened in Texas in 
1987) (refer to the Factor D section for further discussions on 
regulatory mechanisms).

[[Page 29418]]

    Hunting in the Future: Should the Louisiana black bear be delisted 
and the accompanying protection afforded under the Act removed, the 
bear would remain protected under State law and the State penalties for 
poaching or harming a Louisiana black bear would remain in place (see 
Factor D discussion) (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 57). This includes 
protection that would remain in place for all bear species. After the 
bear is no longer protected by the ESA, however, the legal harvest of 
bears, with approval from the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries 
Commission, could occur in Louisiana based on demographic monitoring 
data (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 55). Based on the 2015 Louisiana black 
bear management plan, LDWF has the authority, capability, and 
biological data to implement careful hunting restrictions and 
population management (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 55). If this rule is 
finalized, the LDWF would only consider the possibility of a limited 
hunt through a quota system, allocated by management area, based on 
harvest models accounting for such things as demographics, reproductive 
vital rates, genetic characteristics, and the magnitude of human-caused 
mortality (Davidson et al. 2015, pp. 55-56). Baseline estimates would 
be established for every Louisiana black bear subpopulation, and 
population monitoring would be conducted (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 55). 
The baseline estimates and population monitoring would be based on the 
extensive data and monitoring methods developed by LDWF and described 
in the PDM. The LDWF management plan states that no regulated hunt 
would be allowed if it compromises Louisiana black bear sustainability 
(Davidson et al. 2015, p. 55). Harvest seasons cannot be set without 
Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission approval and a public 
review and comment period. If approved, the harvest would be monitored 
by the LDWF, who would also reserve the right to revoke tags and/or 
cancel harvest seasons at any time (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 55).
    Scientific Research and Public Safety: Bears are routinely captured 
and monitored for scientific and public safety purposes. During 
scientific research activities, there is a rare chance a bear could be 
accidentally killed during the capture process, but these activities 
are conducted via State permits and closely monitored by the State 
agencies to reduce the likelihood of such events. Since listing in 
1992, in Louisiana there have been at least 8 documented mortalities 
incidental to research activities (USGS et al. 2014) and 15 
euthanizations due to conditioning to anthropogenic food sources and 
subsequent human habitation (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 15). In 
Mississippi, two research-related deaths have occurred since listing 
(Rummel 2015, personal communication).
    Summary of Factor B: The small number of mortalities occurring from 
research activities or removal due to public safety concerns does not 
represent a significant threat to the Louisiana black bear population. 
In addition, recreational hunting is not a threat because there has 
been no existing functional mechanism to hunt or take bears in the 
States in its range since 1984 (refer to Factor E discussion for a 
discussion of mortality due to poaching). Also if this rule is 
finalized, bear species would remain protected in the States where the 
Louisiana black bear occurs through State regulations so there is no 
identified threat to the Louisiana black bear (refer to Factor D 
discussion for a discussion of regulations that will remain in place). 
Therefore, the associated protections afforded to the American black 
bear due to similarity of appearance will no longer be necessary. The 
potential for a regulated restricted harvest of the Louisiana black 
bear population exists. The LDWF would not consider a harvest if 
existing data and simulated population dynamics models indicate a 
restricted hunt could potentially compromise Louisiana black bear 
sustainability. Louisiana's State management plan has measures in place 
to ensure the Louisiana black bear population would not be impacted. 
Based on this, we do not have any evidence to suggest that 
overutilization is a threat to the Louisiana black bear.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    When we listed the Louisiana black bear in 1992, we did not 
consider disease or predation to be limiting or threatening to the 
Louisiana black bear (57 FR 588). Several diseases and parasites have 
been reported for black bears but are not considered to have 
significant population impacts (Pelton 2003, p. 552). Limited 
information has been collected in the wild on diseases or parasites of 
black bears and causes of cub mortality (LeCount 1987, p. 75). Natural 
predation has been documented as a result of cannibalism by other bears 
and cub predation by other animals (LeCount 1987, pp. 77-78; Rogers 
1987, p. 54; Pelton 2003, p. 552). Rogers (1987, pp. 53-54) documented 
four yearling bears that had been eaten (including one that had been 
eaten by its mother) but could not determine if they had been killed or 
scavenged and noted that small bears in poor condition would be more 
susceptible to predation. Cannibalism rates are not likely to regulate 
population growth (Rogers 1987, p. 55). It is unknown how many juvenile 
males are killed (rather than dispersed from the area) by adults, but 
that mortality probably has little effect population growth due to the 
polygamous (having more than one mate) mating system of bears (Rogers 
1987, p. 55). O'Brian's (2010, p. 17), literature review of black bear 
disease indicated bears may be susceptible to a number of parasitic, 
bacterial, and viral diseases but none are likely to cause high 
morbidity or mortality. Similarly, Pelton (1982, p. 511) listed the 
following diseases of black bears--liposarcoma and unidentified tumors, 
Elokomin fluke, rabies, and several bacterial and parasitic 
infestations--noting that none appeared to have significant effects on 
population regulation and LeCount (1987, p. 79) did not believe disease 
represented a substantial mortality factor for bear populations. 
Disease vectors are monitored by the LDWF whenever bears are handled.
    Summary of Factor C: We have no evidence or data indicating that 
disease or predation present a threat to the Louisiana black bear 
population.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Louisiana: Overharvest was identified as one of the factors that 
resulted in low Louisiana black bear numbers. Currently, in addition to 
protections afforded by the Act, Louisiana black bears are protected 
from take (``Take'' is defined in Louisiana law at Title 56:8(131): In 
its different tenses, as the attempt or act of hooking, pursuing, 
netting, capturing, snaring, trapping, shooting, hunting, wounding, or 
killing by any means or device.), possession, and trade by State laws 
throughout its historical range (Louisiana: Title 56, Chapter 8, Part 
IV. Threatened or Endangered Species; Mississippi: Title 49, Chapter 
5--Fish, Game and Bird Protections and Refuges, Nongame Endangered 
Species Conservation); Texas: Title 5. Wildlife and Plant Conservation, 
Subtitle B. Hunting and Fishing, Chapter 68. Endangered Species). The 
LDWF will be the sole agency responsible for Louisiana black bear 
management in Louisiana if the bear is delisted. The potential removal 
of the Louisiana black bear from protection under the Act would not 
alter or negate State laws or penalties protecting the bear. In 
Louisiana, there are nine laws and regulations

[[Page 29419]]

authorized under Louisiana Title 56 and Louisiana Title 76 regulating 
and setting violation classes for such things as taking, possessing, 
and feeding (Davidson et al. 2015, pp. 57-59). The LDWF Law Enforcement 
Division (LED) is responsible for enforcing State and Federal laws 
relative to fish and wildlife resources. In fiscal year 2012-2013, the 
LED conducted 226,427 patrol hours on land and made 730,942 contacts 
with the public, the majority of whom were in compliance with State and 
Federal wildlife and fisheries regulations (LDWF 2014a, p. 2). Agents 
issued more than 20,000 criminal citations and 5,700 warnings during 
this period, with the most common related to actions like fishing 
without a license, or not abiding by rules and regulations on wildlife 
management areas (see Factor E for a discussion of documented illegal 
poaching). In the last 10 years, the LDWF enforcement division has 
prosecuted seven black bear cases (M. Davidson, 2015, LDWF, personal 
communication). Operation Game Thief (OGT) is a non-profit corporation 
program that provides cash awards to individuals who provided LDWF with 
information regarding a wildlife violation that result in an arrest. 
Since its inception in 1984, over 700 violators, convicted of numerous 
State and Federal charges, have been apprehended as a result of 
information provided by OGT informants (LDWF 2015, http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/enforcement/operation-game-thief).
    The LDWF Louisiana Black Bear Management Plan (Plan) was finalized 
in 2015 (Davidson et al. 2015). The management objective for that Plan 
is to maintain a sustainable black bear population in suitable habitat 
and has the following key requirements: Sufficient habitat available 
within dispersal distance, maintaining connectivity among 
subpopulations, and continued monitoring of subpopulation demographics 
(Davidson et al. 2015, p. 2). The LDWF identified three bear management 
actions it will implement: (1) Continued public education and outreach; 
(2) minimizing human-bear conflicts; and (3) bear harvest as a 
management action if such actions do not impede sustainability of bears 
(as determined by the ongoing population monitoring program as 
described in the LDWF Black Bear Management Plan (Davidson et al. 2015, 
p. 32-33, 55-56).
    Mississippi: The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and 
Parks will be the agency responsible for black bear management in 
Mississippi if the bear is delisted. MDWFP developed a management plan 
entitled ``Conservation and Management of Black bears in Mississippi'' 
in 2006 (Young 2006). The purpose of that plan was to: (1) Serve as a 
basis for information about black bears in Mississippi; and (2) outline 
protocols and guidelines for dealing with the continued growth of black 
bear populations in Mississippi (Young 2006, p. 6). That plan covered 
black bear habitat management and restoration needs, public education, 
conflict management, and research needs (Young 2006, pp. 25-36).
    Texas: The TPWD will be the agency responsible for black bear 
management in Texas if the bear is delisted. An East Texas Black Bear 
Conservation and Management Plan was developed in 2005 (Barker et al. 
2005). Its purpose is to facilitate the conservation and management of 
black bears in East Texas through cooperative efforts. Broadly 
described components of the plan include: Habitat management and 
enhancement, public education, conflict management, and research needs 
(Barker 2005, pp. 31-41). Louisiana black bears currently do not exist 
in Texas; however, this Plan contains a framework to improve habitat 
and provide possibilities for future bear conservation in the State.
    State-owned Lands: The LDWF is responsible for administering the 
many State-owned wildlife management areas in Louisiana. The WMAs 
within the HRPA include Big Lake WMA (19,587 ac (7,927 ha)), Buckhorn 
WMA (11,238 ac (4,548 ha)), Richard K. Yancy WMA (73,433 ac (29,717 
ha)), and Grassy Lake WMA (13,214 ac (5,348 ha)), Sherburne WMA and the 
adjacent (State-managed) Corps-owned Bayou Des Ourses Area (29,883 ac 
(12,093 ha)), and Attakapas Island WMA (26,819 ac (10,854 ha)). Those 
areas are managed according to the LDWF Master Plan for Wildlife Areas 
and Refuges (LDWF 2014a). The vision identified is to build an 
interconnected system of natural areas and open spaces (a green 
infrastructure) consisting of core areas (e.g., NWRs and WMAs), and 
corridors to provide essential habitat to endangered and threatened 
species as well as other species important to ecosystem function (LDWF 
2014b, p. 18). Implementation of the strategic plan includes potential 
land acquisition in support of threatened and endangered species, 
cooperating with the Service in the recovery of listed species, and 
restoration of BLH forest habitat (LDWF 2014b, p. 16).
    The MDWFP is responsible for administering the many State-owned 
wildlife management areas in Mississippi. The WMAs within the MAVU 
include Leroy Percy WMA (2,664 ac (1,078 ha)), Shipland WMA (4,269 ac 
(1,728 ha)), Copiah County WMA (6,830 ac (2,764 ha)), and O'Keefe WMA 
(5,918 ac (2,395 ha)). Those areas are managed according to the MDWFP 
Strategic Plan (MDWFP undated, p. 17) and are actively managed to 
provide for a diversity of wildlife species. The management goals are 
to manage agency-owned lands for the long-term conservation of wildlife 
habitat and for multiple user groups to enjoy diverse outdoor 
recreational opportunities that are consistent with natural resource 
management goals.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wildlife Refuges: The NWRs shown in 
the following table (see Table 10) occur within the Louisiana HRPA and 
the Mississippi MAVU.

[[Page 29420]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY15.006

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 
requires that every refuge develop a Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
(CCP) and revise it every 15 years, as needed. CCPs identify management 
actions necessary to fulfill the purpose for which an NWR was enacted. 
CCPs allow refuge managers to take actions that support State Wildlife 
Action Plans, improve the condition of habitats, and benefit wildlife. 
The current generation of CCPs will focus on individual refuge actions 
that contribute to larger, landscape-level goals identified through the 
Landscape Conservation Design process. CCPs address conservation of 
fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their related habitats, while 
providing opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation 
uses.
    An overriding consideration reflected in these plans is that fish 
and wildlife conservation has first priority in refuge management, and 
that public use be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible 
with, or does not detract from, the Refuge System mission and refuge 
purpose(s). Each NWR within the Louisiana black bear range addresses 
management actions for maintaining appropriate bear habitat on their 
lands as follows: Tensas River NWR (Service 2009a, pp. 77-78); Bayou 
Teche NWR (Service 2009b, p. 34); Atchafalaya NWR (Service 2011, pp. 
68-75); Grand Cote NWR (Service 2006a, p. 54); Upper Ouachita NWR 
(Service 2008, pp. 85-86); Lake Ophelia NWR (Service 2005a, pp. 49-50); 
Bayou Cocodrie NWR (Service 2004, p. 40); Hillside, Matthews Brake, 
Morgan Brake, Panther Swamp, Theodore Roosevelt, and Yazoo NWRs 
(Service, 2006c, pp. 92-93); Coldwater and Tallahatchie NWRs (Service 
2005b, pp. 78-79); and St. Catherine Creek NWR (Service 2006b, p. 58).
    Morganza and Atchafalaya Basins: The lands in the Atchafalaya Basin 
and Morganza Floodway are prominent features of the Mississippi River 
and Tributaries flood control project authorized by the Flood Control 
Act of May 15, 1928. In 1985, the Corps enacted the Atchafalaya Basin 
Multipurpose Plan with the purpose to protect south Louisiana from 
Mississippi River floods and to retain and restore the unique 
environmental features and long-term productivity of the Basin. The 
purpose of the Morganza Floodway is to provide a controlled floodway to 
divert Mississippi River flood waters into the Atchafalaya basin during 
major floods on the Mississippi River. The Corps has acquired fee title 
ownership and permanent easements of approximately 600,000 ac (200,000 
ha) for perpetual flowage, developmental control and environmental 
protection rights. The developmental control and environmental 
protection easement prohibits conversion of land from existing uses 
(e.g., conversion of forested lands to cropland). Landowners may 
harvest timber only in compliance with specified diameter-limit and 
species restrictions. The construction or placement of new, permanently 
habitable dwellings or other new structures, including camps, except as 
approved by a Corps real estate camp consent and in accordance with 
Corps restrictions, is prohibited on the easement lands in the 
Atchafalaya Basin.
    NRCS Administered Permanent Conservation Easements on Private 
Lands: The WRP is a voluntary program that provides eligible landowners 
the opportunity to address wetland, wildlife habitat, soil, water, and 
related natural resource concerns on private lands in an 
environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. The WRP is 
authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3837 et seq., and the implementing regulations 
are found at 7 CFR part 1467. The first and foremost emphasis of the 
WRP is to protect, restore, and enhance the functions and values of 
wetland ecosystems to attain habitat for migratory birds and wetland-
dependent wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. The 
WRP is administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS) (in agreement with the Farm Service Agency) and in consultation 
with the Service and other cooperating agencies and organizations. The 
Service participates in several ways, including assisting NRCS with 
land eligibility determinations; providing the biological information 
for determining environmental benefits; assisting in restoration 
planning such that easement lands achieve maximum wildlife benefits and 
wetland values and functions; and providing recommendations regarding 
the timing, duration, and intensity of landowner-requested compatible 
uses.
    Participating landowners may request other prohibited uses such as 
haying, grazing, or harvesting timber. When evaluating compatible uses, 
the NRCS evaluates whether that proposed use is consistent with the 
long-term protection and enhancement of the wetland resources for which 
the easement was established and Federal funds expended. Requests may 
be approved if the NRCS determines that the activity both enhances and 
protects the

[[Page 29421]]

purposes for which the easement was acquired and would not adversely 
affect habitat for migratory birds and threatened and endangered 
species. NRCS retains the right to cancel an approved compatible use 
authorization at any time if it is deemed necessary to protect the 
functions and values of the easement. According to the authorizing 
language (16 U.S.C. 3837a(d)), compatible economic uses, including 
forest management, are permitted if they are consistent with the long-
term protection and enhancement of the wetland resources for which the 
easement was established. Should such a modification be considered, 
NRCS would consult with the Service prior to making any changes.
    According to the WRP Manual, prior to making a decision regarding 
easement modification, the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS) must:
    (1) Consult with the Service;
    (2) evaluate any modification request under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
    (3) investigate whether reasonable alternatives to the proposed 
action exist; and
    (4) determine whether the easement modification is appropriate 
considering the purposes of WRP and the facts surrounding the request 
for easement modification or termination.
    Any WRP easement modification, must:
    (1) Be approved by the Director of the NRCS in consultation with 
the Service (the National WRP Program Manager must coordinate the 
consultation with the Service at the national level);
    (2) not adversely affect the wetland functions and values for which 
the easement was acquired;
    (3) offset any adverse impacts by enrolling and restoring other 
lands that provide greater wetland functions and values at no 
additional cost to the government;
    (3) result in equal or greater ecological (and economic) values to 
the U.S. Government;
    (4) further the purposes of the program and address a compelling 
public need; and
    (5) comply with applicable Federal requirements, including the Act, 
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Executive Order 11990 (Protection of 
Wetlands), and related requirements.
    The WRP manual states that ``NRCS will not terminate any of its 
easements, except for a partial termination that may be authorized as 
part of an easement modification request. . .in which additional land 
will be enrolled in the program in exchange for the partial 
termination.'' Therefore, based on our assessment of these 
requirements, the termination of an entire WRP easement, or a reduction 
in the total acreage of WRP lands via authorized modifications, appears 
highly improbable. In addition, we have partnered with NRCS to 
administer WRP in Louisiana since the inception of that program in 
1992. Following a comprehensive review of our local files and a search 
of national WRP records, we have been unable to find a single instance 
of a WRP easement being terminated in the history of that program 
(which includes nearly 10,000 projects on approximately 2 million ac 
(800,000 ha) of land nationwide).
    Food Security Act Regulations: The Food Security Act of 1985 
included Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation 
Compliance (i.e., ``Swampbuster'') provisions to deter forested wetland 
loss by withholding many Federal farm program benefits from producers 
who convert wetland areas to agricultural purposes. Persons who convert 
a wetland and make the production of an agricultural commodity possible 
are ineligible for NRCS program benefits until the functions of that 
wetland were restored or mitigated. According to the NRCS, those 
wetland conservation provisions have sharply reduced wetland conversion 
for agricultural uses (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/alphabetical/camr/?cid=stelprdb1043554).
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act Regulations: The Partners for 
Fish and Wildlife Act of 2006 provides for the restoration, 
enhancement, and management of fish and wildlife habitats on private 
land through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, a program that 
works with private landowners to conduct cost-effective habitat 
projects for the benefit of fish and wildlife resources in the United 
States. This program provides technical and financial assistance to 
private landowners for the conduct of voluntary projects to benefit 
Federal trust species by promoting habitat improvement, habitat 
restoration, habitat enhancement, and habitat establishment, as well as 
technical assistance to other public and private entities regarding 
fish and wildlife habitat restoration on private lands. Numerous 
projects providing direct habitat benefits for the Louisiana black bear 
have been accomplished via the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. 
One such example involves a 120-acre site within Louisiana black bear 
breeding and critical habitat. Because it is also located within the 
Morganza Floodway (which is encumbered with a Corps flowage easement), 
the site was ineligible for most other habitat restoration programs 
such as WRP. Prior to enrollment into the Partners for Fish and 
Wildlife Program, that site was maintained as a marginally productive 
agricultural field. In 2002, through the planting of a diverse mixture 
of over 36,000 native seedlings, the entire site was restored to a 
bottomland hardwood forest, reducing fragmentation and providing 
habitat benefits for a variety of species including the Louisiana black 
bear.
    Clean Water Act Regulations: For the first several years following 
the passage of the CWA (enacted as the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act Amendments of 1972), the Corps only regulated activities that 
clearly constituted a deposition of dredge and fill material in 
wetlands or other waters of the United States. Subsequently, large-
scale clearing of BLH wetlands was largely unregulated during this era 
(Houck 2012, pp. 1495-1503).
    In response to the considerable wetland habitat conversion 
throughout the LMRAV, and fueled by the ongoing clearing of the Lake 
Long tract, the Avoyelles Sportsmen's League and partnering 
organizations sued the Corps and EPA for allegedly failing to properly 
enforce Section 404 of the CWA. On March 12, 1981, a U.S. District 
Court (Western District of Louisiana-Alexandria Division) ruled in 
favor of the plaintiffs with a decision that would substantially alter 
the regulatory scope and enforcement authority of the Corps and EPA 
under the CWA. The decision noted: (1) The term ``wetland vegetation'' 
was more broadly defined which would ultimately result in the 
reclassification of many areas that were previously considered non-
wetland (such as the Lake Long tract), and (2) the Corps' and EPA's 
jurisdiction were expanded beyond the limited scope of dredge and fill 
regulation to include all activities that may result in the placement 
or redistribution of earthen material, such as mechanized land clearing 
(Avoyelles Sportsmen's League, Inc. v. Alexander, 511 F. Supp. 278, 
(W.D. La. 1981)).
    To summarize, though the CWA was enacted in 1972, it was a full 
decade later before the authority and associated protection that it 
affords to forested wetlands was legally recognized. In the interim, 
and in the decade prior, the BLH forests of the LMRAV were decimated 
(Creasman et al. 1992; Haynes 2004, pp. 170, 172) ultimately 
constituting the primary threat that warranted the listing of the 
Louisiana black bear (Service 1992, p. 592). After

[[Page 29422]]

the new legal protection of forested wetlands defined via the Avoyelles 
Sportsmen's League rulings on CWA authority, the trajectory of BLH 
forest loss in the LMRAV was reversed. Available data regarding the 
extent of forested wetlands in the LMRAV (e.g. image classification of 
digital orthophoto quarter quadrangles [DOQQs], analysis of NLCD data, 
and government agency records for forested habitat restoration in the 
LMRAV [via programs such as WRP, CRP, and wetland mitigation banking 
(see below)] clearly demonstrate that trend reversal and suggest that 
the long-term protection of forested wetlands (largely absent prior to 
the Avoyelles Sportsmen's League rulings of the early 1980s) are now 
being realized (See discussion under Factor A above).
    Mitigation banking has been an additional factor responsible for 
alleviating wetland losses associated with the Corps' wetland 
regulatory program. Persons obtaining a wetland development permit from 
the Corps (pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA and/or Section 10 of the 
Rivers and Harbors Act) that authorizes impacts to waters of the United 
States, including wetlands, are typically required to compensate for 
wetland losses in a manner that ensures project implementation would 
result in no net loss of wetlands. Mitigation banks are intended to 
provide a mechanism to assist permit applicants, who may be unable or 
unwilling to implement an individual compensatory mitigation project, 
in complying with those mitigation requirements. The design and 
implementation of compensatory wetland mitigation projects 
(particularly wetland mitigation banks) are accomplished through a 
coordinated effort among the Corps, the Service, and other State and 
Federal environmental resource management agencies, and are 
individually authorized by a mitigation banking instrument (MBI). With 
a high degree of specificity, MBIs mandate restoration practices, 
contingencies and remedial actions, long-term monitoring and 
maintenance, adherence to performance standards, financial assurances, 
and the establishment of perpetual conservation servitudes. Without 
exception, wetland mitigation banks are restored and managed with the 
intent of providing the full array of wetland functions and values 
(such as providing habitat for a multitude of wildlife species, which 
typically includes the Louisiana black bear).
    For permitted projects that would impact Louisiana black bear 
habitat, the Service routinely requests that any associated wetland 
mitigation project (or wetland mitigation bank option) be sited in a 
location, and conducted in a manner, that would result in the 
restoration of suitable Louisiana black bear habitat including all of 
the various functions that would be potentially impacted by the 
corresponding development project (e.g., travel corridors or breeding 
habitat). The quality/functionality of habitat restored through such 
conservation efforts, coupled with typical compensatory mitigation 
ratios, outweighs any loss resulting from individual development 
projects.
    Our analysis of impacts and mitigation associated with the Corps' 
wetland regulatory program suggests that substantially more forested 
habitat is restored through compensatory wetland mitigation than is 
eliminated via permitted wetland development projects (Table 11). That 
analysis was conducted over a 5-year period spanning July 1, 2009 
through July 31, 2014. According to personnel within the Corps wetland 
regulatory program, a standardized electronic database to track 
permitted projects was not developed until 2004, and was not reliably 
used by permit analysts until 2009. Therefore, there is no reliable 
database for which to query such records prior to that time. It should 
also be noted that the corresponding table displays permitted wetland 
losses and approved wetland mitigation banks that would be available to 
offset those losses. We were unable to obtain the baseline data 
necessary to calculate a loss-to-gain wetland habitat ratio. However, 
personnel within the Corp's wetland regulatory program evaluated their 
records for specific mitigation requirements associated with each 
permitted activity and estimated that the ratio of wetland habitat 
gains from compensatory mitigation to wetland habitat losses attributed 
to permitted projects is 6:1 (Stewart 2014).

[[Page 29423]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY15.007

    The results of our GIS landscape analysis indicate that the recent 
(post 1990) positive trends in forested habitat extent within the LMRAV 
(as documented above) have also been realized within our more focused 
HRPA. Regardless of our methodology (1-meter DOQQ analysis or 30-meter 
NLCD analysis), the analyses yielded similar results. There has been a 
significant gain in the acreage of potential Louisiana black bear 
habitat within the HRPA since the 1992 listing of the Louisiana black 
bear (Tables 7 and 8). Our review of available literature and research, 
in conjunction with our own analyses, suggest that those gains are the 
result of both voluntary private land restoration programs (mainly CRP 
and WRP) and wetland regulatory mechanisms (primarily Section 404 of 
the CWA).
    The documented trends in Louisiana black bear population growth, 
population viability, and increase in the extent of forested habitat 
further validate the assertion that existing environmental regulatory 
mechanisms and conservation measures are sufficient for the Louisiana 
black bear. We do not have any other data indicating that current 
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to provide long-term protection of 
the Louisiana black bear and its habitat. Accordingly, we conclude that 
existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to address the threats to 
the Louisiana black bear posed by the other listing factors, especially 
habitat loss.
    Summary of Factor D: Louisiana black bears are currently, and will 
continue to be, protected from taking, possession, and trade by State 
laws throughout their historical range (Louisiana: Title 56, Chapter 8, 
Part IV. Threatened or Endangered Species; Mississippi: Title 49, 
Chapter 5--Fish, Game and Bird Protections and Refuges, Nongame 
Endangered Species Conservation); Texas: Title 5. Wildlife and Plant 
Conservation, Subtitle B. Hunting and Fishing, Chapter 68. Endangered 
Species).
    Regulatory mechanisms that currently protect Louisiana black bear 
habitat through conservation easements or ownership by State and 
Federal agencies will remain in place (e.g., WRP tracts, WMAs, NWRs, 
FmHAs, and Corps easements in the Atchafalaya and Morganza Floodways). 
Forested wetlands throughout the range of the Louisiana black bear 
habitat that are not publicly owned or encumbered by conservation 
easements will continue to receive protection through Section 404 of 
the CWA and the ``Swampbuster'' provisions of the Food Security Act of 
1985. Forested habitat trends in the LMRAV indicate that those 
regulations have provided adequate long-term protection of Louisiana 
black bear

[[Page 29424]]

habitat since the listing of the Louisiana black bear in 1992. 
Specifically, the trajectory of BLH forest loss in the LMRAV has not 
only improved, but has been reversed with substantial gains in forested 
habitat being realized within both the LMRAV and the more restrictive 
HRPA. Therefore, we find that existing regulatory mechanisms are 
adequate to address the threats to the Louisiana black bear posed by 
the other listing factors.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

    When we listed the Louisiana black bear, the Service discussed what 
at the time appeared to be a threat from hybridization resulting from 
the introduction of bears from Minnesota (57 CFR part 588). We noted 
that the threat from hybridization at the subspecies level might not be 
a cause for significant concern and acknowledged that the 
subpopulations in the TRB and UARB were possibly intraspecifically 
hybridized and mostly unchanged (genetically) because of the low 
probablitity of reproductive isolation since they were relatively close 
geographically. Reproductive isolation is required for an extended 
period for the evolutionary process of differentiation to operate (57 
CFR part 588). At that time, genetic investigations did not identify 
real differences in subpopulations and the Service noted that, to the 
extent a pure genetic heritage is a realistic concept when applied to a 
subspecies not likely to be reproductively isolated, the threat may 
have existed. Subsequent studies have revealed differing results on the 
extent of hybridization. The most recent unified analyses of genetic 
data by Laufenberg and Clark (2014, pp. 50-58) found varying levels of 
genetic structure among pairs of subpopulations and identified five 
genetically distinct groups (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 60) and an 
affinity between Minnesota and UARB subpopulations (Laufenberg and 
Clark 2014, p. 84).
    The analyses concluded that differentiation between the Louisiana 
black bear subpopulations within the LMRAV can be explained as the 
result of restricted gene flow, accelerated genetic drift, and 
differing levels of genetic introgression as a result of the Minnesota 
introductions (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 84). The results also show 
some interchange of Louisiana black bear subpopulations with Arkansas 
populations and found affinities to the WRB subpopulation and Minnesota 
bears. The level of genetic affinity or differentiation between the 
Louisiana black bear subpopulations and the WRB subpopulation and 
Minnesota bears is not sufficient evidence for determining taxonomic 
status (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 85). Thus, while recent genetic 
analyses results did indicate the existence of some effects of the 
Minnesota reintroductions (as postulated at listing), those effects do 
not seem to be great enough to pose a significant threat to this 
subspecies' genetic integrity by hybridization as speculated at 
listing. In fact, genetic exchange that is occurring among bears from 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas can be considered a positive 
genetic and demographic contibution to the Louisiana black bear 
(Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 85) (see the Distribution and Taxonomy 
discussion of the Species Information Section).
    Davidson et al. (2015, p. 15) described the Louisiana black bear as 
susceptible to drowning, maternal abandonment of cubs, and climbing 
accidents; but the remaining leading cause of black bear mortalities is 
human-related (Pelton 2003, p. 552; Simek et al. 2012, p. 164; 
Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 76). Increased movement during food 
shortages substantially increases their chances for human encounters 
and human-related mortality (Rogers 1987, p. 436; Pelton 2003, p. 549). 
These mortality rates are suspected to be greater for yearling and 
subadult black bear males dispersing from the family unit, and are 
probably the result of starvation, accidents (e.g., vehicular 
collisions), and poaching.
    Since listing in 1992, at least 246 black bears have been killed in 
vehicular collisions in Louisiana (USGS et al. 2014) and 11 bears 
killed in Mississippi (Rummel 2015, personal communication) making this 
the leading known cause of death for Louisiana black bears (Davidson et 
al. 2015, p. 15). In spite of these numbers, black bear populations 
have increased over this same time period. Black bear population growth 
in conjunction with urban expansion and habitat fragmentation has 
resulted in the increased availability of anthropogenic foods sources 
(Davidson et al. 2015, p. 15). Conflict management of black bears 
exhibiting nuisance behavior can result in mortality and, in the rare 
case where a bear cannot be left in the wild (as a result of nuisance 
behavior resulting in a demonstrable threat to human safety), it may be 
captured and placed into permanent captivity by management agencies or 
humanely euthanized. LDWF personnel have euthanized 15 black bear since 
1992 (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 15).
    The listing rule for the Louisiana black bear (57 FR 588) 
identified illegal kill as a potential threat to this species that 
could not be ruled out until better data could be obtained. The 
majority of illegal kills have been the result of direct poaching; 
however, there have been 3 documented mortalities incidental to the use 
of snares in Louisiana for nuisance animal control (Davidson, M. 2015, 
LDWF, personal communication). Since 1992, there have been 32 
documented illegal bear killings in Louisiana (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 
15) and 9 documented in Mississippi (Rummel 2015, personal 
communication). If all other documented deaths of unknown causes are 
assumed to be the result of illegal taking, a total of 75 bears have 
been documented as killed since listing (USGS et al. 2014). Taken 
altogether, since Federal listing, approximately 300 individual 
Louisiana black bears are known to have been killed as a result of 
anthropogenic conflicts in Louisiana (USGS et al. 2014), and in 
Mississippi, 22 bears have been reported killed (Rummel 2015, personal 
communication), or approximately 13 bears per year have succumbed to 
anthropogenic causes of mortality since 1992 in Louisiana (Davidson et 
al. 2015, p. 16) and approximately 1 bear per year in Mississippi 
(Rummel 2015, personal communication).
    Hurricanes and tropical storms can affect forested habitat 
throughout the LMARV. The potential effects of any tropical storm event 
will depend on where it makes landfall and what area is receiving the 
brunt of the wind and force of the cyclone. They can also have 
additional negative effects to the LARB subpopulation due to its 
proximity to the coast; however, they are deemed to be a low magnitude 
because of the Louisiana black bear's ability to quickly adapt and move 
while using a variety of habitats. Murrow and Clark (2012) studied the 
impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on habitat of the LARB 
subpopulation. They did not detect in their research any significant 
direct impacts to forested habitat. For example, suitable bear habitat 
was found to have decreased only by 0.9 percent (from 348 to 345 square 
kilometers (km\2\)) within the occupied study area and only 1.4 percent 
(from 34,383 to 33,891 km\2\) in the unoccupied study area following 
the hurricanes. The analysis showed that bear habitat was not 
significantly degraded by the hurricanes and the effects of wind and 
storm surge that came with them. Hurricane Katrina represents the 
highest recorded storm

[[Page 29425]]

surge in the Southeast. If hurricane events occur during the seven year 
PDM monitoring period, we will assist our State partners in monitoring 
the possible effects of these hurricanes (e.g., vegetation changes from 
flooding, introduction of toxic chemicals, or water quality changes).
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that 
warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2014, p. 3). The 
more extreme impacts from recent climate change include heat waves, 
droughts, accelerated snow and ice melt including permafrost warming 
and thawing, floods, cyclones, wildfires, and widespread changes in 
precipitation amounts (IPCC 2014, pp. 4, 6). Due to projected climate-
change associated sea level rise, coastal systems and low-lying areas 
will increasingly experience adverse impacts such as submergence, 
coastal flooding, and coastal erosion (IPCC 2014, p. 17). In response 
to ongoing climate change, many terrestrial, freshwater, and marine 
species have shifted their geographic ranges, seasonal activities, and 
migration patterns (IPCC 2014, p. 4). Species that are dependent on 
specialized habitat types or are limited in distribution will be most 
susceptible to future impacts of climate change. Many species will be 
unable to relocate rapidly enough to keep up with their climate niche 
under mid- and high-range rates of climate change. The climate velocity 
(the rate of movement of the climate across the landscape) will exceed 
the maximum velocity at which many groups of organisms, in many 
situations, can disperse or migrate, under certain climate scenarios. 
Populations of species that cannot migrate at effective speeds will 
find themselves in unfavorable climates, unable to reach areas of 
potentially suitable climate. Species with low dispersal capacity (such 
as plants, amphibians, and some small mammals) could be especially 
vulnerable (IPCC 2014, p. 275).
    Biological and historical evidence suggests that the Louisiana 
black bear is well-adapted to endure the predicted effects of climate 
change throughout its range. As stated above, Louisiana black bears 
inhabit more than 1.4 million ac (approximately 576,000 ha) of habitat 
in all or portions of 21 Louisiana parishes and 6 Mississippi counties. 
It is a generalist that uses a variety of habitat types within and 
adjacent to the LMRAV, including forested wetlands, scrub-shrub, marsh, 
spoil banks, and upland forests (including upland hardwoods and mixed 
pine-hardwood forests). On a larger scale and to make a comparison to 
the Louisiana black bear's capability to use many habitat types, 
American black bears (in the other portions of the United States and 
Canada) are known to inhabit vast mountainous areas, coastal plains, 
chaparral and pinyon-juniper woodlands (Pinus spp., Juniperus spp.), 
oak-hickory forests (Quercus spp., Carya spp.), upland and bottomland 
hardwood forests, redwood-sitka spruce-hemlock woodlands (Sequoia 
sempervirens--Picea sitchensis-Tsuga spp.), and ponderosa pine forests 
(Pinus ponderosa), to name only a few (Pelton 2003, pp. 549-550). There 
is a vast array of habitats and associated food sources available for 
black bears throughout their current range, and bears have demonstrated 
adaptability and mobility in finding such areas. Therefore, it is 
highly unlikely that currently predicted climate change scenarios would 
impact black bear habitat to the extent that the Louisiana black bear 
would be unable to locate suitable habitats (in both quality and 
quantity) to maintain a viable population for the foreseeable future.
    The Louisiana black bear is capable of efficiently traversing the 
landscape, and individual bears incorporate relatively large expanses 
of habitat within their respective home ranges (which varies based on 
gender and subpopulation). Home ranges vary from approximately 1,000 ac 
[400 ha] to 84,000 ac [34,000 ha] (Beausoleil 1999, p. 60; Wagner 1995, 
p. 12). Numerous long-distance movements of the Louisiana black bear 
have been confirmed, and there is documented evidence of dispersal 
throughout most of their current range (Figure 1, Davidson et al. 2015, 
p. 24). In the event habitat is lost due to climate change effects 
(such as extreme flooding or drought), Louisiana black bears have 
demonstrated the ability not only to move at a relatively rapid pace to 
more suitable areas, but also to adapt to a wide range of potential 
habitats and food sources.
    Habitat supporting the LARB subpopulation (population range from 
136 to 194 adult bears (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 45)) of the 
Louisiana black bear is more vulnerable to the impacts of global 
climate change than other subpopulations due to its occurrence within 
low-elevation coastal habitats that are susceptible to flooding from 
extreme rainfall events, significant tidal surges (including those 
associated with tropical weather systems), and riverine flooding. That 
subpopulation occurs entirely within the Louisiana Coastal Zone which 
was delineated by the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources-Office 
of Coastal Management (LDNR-OCM) based on storm surge data, geology, 
elevation, soils, vegetation, predicted subsidence/sea level rise, and 
boundaries of existing coastal programs (LDNR-OCM 2010, pp. 54-60). 
Based on the current sea level rise estimates (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml), we do not 
anticipate a complete and persistent inundation of the coastal zone of 
Louisiana within the next 100 years. Any such sea level rise impacts 
are likely to be ameliorated to some extent by the projected 
successional changes in the Atchafalaya Basin that would eventually 
convert many of its swamps to BLH forest, thus improving the 
suitability of that habitat for the Louisiana black bear (e.g., 
facilitating its dispersal to higher elevation habitats if necessary 
for survival).
    The Service estimated that more than 35,000 ac (14,000 ha) of lakes 
and cypress-tupelo swamps would convert to higher elevation forests 
within the ARB by the year 2030 (LeBlanc et al. 1981, p. 65). This 
prediction is supported by studies documenting increased sedimentation 
within the Basin (Hupp et al. 2008, p. 139). Sedimentation increases 
elevation, and areas that were once wet will be naturally colonized 
with vegetation that will ultimately result in upland forests (Hupp et 
al. 2008, p. 127) that are more suitable for bear foraging and 
habitation. Even if the most conservative models were exceeded and the 
entire coastal zone of Louisiana were subject to permanent inundation 
in the future (prior to projected habitat changes in the Atchafalaya 
Basin), only a relatively small proportion of Louisiana black bears and 
their habitat would be affected. Specifically, more than 80 percent of 
the Louisiana black bear HRPA, more than 90 percent of Louisiana black 
bear breeding habitat, 85 percent of Louisiana black bear critical 
habitat, and 70 percent of the Louisiana black bear population occur 
outside of the Louisiana Coastal Zone.
    A specific illustration of the resilience of the Louisiana black 
bear to survive and adapt to extreme climatic events occurred during 
the recent operation of the Morganza Floodway. The UARB subpopulation 
occupies a 175-square-mile (453-square-km) area within and adjacent to 
the Morganza Floodway. Much of the area inhabited by the UARB 
subpopulation is subject to extreme flooding, especially when 
Mississippi River stages rise to levels that warrant the Corps' 
operation of the Morganza Floodway (which has only occurred twice, in 
1973 and 2011). The 2011 operation of the Morganza Flood Control 
Structure coincidentally occurred during an ongoing 6-year

[[Page 29426]]

Louisiana black bear genetics and population dynamics study that 
included both radio telemetry and mark-recapture (via hair snares and 
genetics analyses) methods within and adjacent to the Morganza Floodway 
(O'Connell et al. 2014, pp. 479-482). Approximately 60 percent of the 
breeding habitat that supports the UARB subpopulation was covered in 
floodwaters ranging in depth from approximately 10 to 20 feet (3 to 6 
meters; O'Connell et al. 2014, p. 477). Study results indicate that 
most bears (88.7 percent) maintained residence within the Morganza 
Floodway (presumably in the remaining 40 percent of available habitat 
that was less severely flooded) throughout the 56-day operational 
period of the Morganza Flood Control Structure (O'Connell et al. 2014, 
p. 482). A small number of bears did temporarily disperse to higher 
elevation forests, but most returned to their original home ranges 
following floodwater recession. The study concluded that the 2011 
operation of the Morganza Flood Control Structure had ``no negative 
biological effects'' on adult Louisiana black bears within the UARB 
subpopulation (O'Connell et al. 2014, p. 483). Based on their 
adaptability, mobility, and demonstrated resiliency, and the lack of 
evidence suggesting that previous and ongoing climate change has had 
any adverse impact on the Louisiana black bear or its habitats, we 
conclude that climate change is not a threat to the Louisiana black 
bear now or within the foreseeable future.
    Summary of Factor E: Based on recent genetic analyses, the effects 
of Minnesota bear reintroductions, while evident to some extent in the 
UARB subpopulation do not represent a threat to the Louisiana black 
bear. Other potential threats such as anthropogenic sources of 
mortality (e.g., poaching, vehicle strikes, and nuisance bear 
management) and potential effects of hurricanes or climate change do 
not represent significant threats to the Louisiana black bear. In spite 
of ongoing mortality from those anthropogenic sources, recent research 
concludes that the Louisiana black bear within the Tensas and Upper 
Atchafalaya River Basins [specifically the metapopulation composed of 
the TRB, UARB, and TRC subpopulations] has an overall probability of 
persistence in the wild for the next 100 years in spite of any random 
demographic, genetic, environmental, or natural catastrophic effects, 
of approximately 100 percent (0.996; Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 2) 
and population numbers in the LARB subpopulation have nearly doubled 
since listing. The effects of climate change are not threats based on 
the species' adaptability, mobility, and demonstrated resiliency in 
regard to extreme climatic events. Based on all these factors, we find 
that there are no other natural or manmade factors that are threats to 
the Louisiana black bear.

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis

    Under section 3 of the Act, a species is endangered if it is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and threatened if it is ``likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the threats faced by the Louisiana 
black bear in developing this proposed rule. Research has documented 
that the four main Louisiana subpopulations (TRB, TRC, UARB, and LARB) 
are stable or increasing (Hooker 2010, O'Connell 2013, Troxler 2013, 
Laufenberg and Clark 2014, entire documents respectively). Emigration 
and immigration (i.e., gene flow) has been documented among several of 
the Louisiana and Mississippi subpopulations (Laufenberg and Clark 
2014, pp. 91-94). Overall, the Louisiana black bear metapopulation 
(TRB, UARB, and TRC) has an estimated probability of long-term 
persistence (more than 100 years) of 0.996 under even the most 
conservative scenario (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 82). The areas 
supporting Louisiana black bear breeding subpopulations have also 
increased over 430 percent, for a total of 1,806,556 ac (731,087 ha) 
(Table 1). Based on the analysis in this rule and given the reduction 
in some threats and evidence that other factors are not threats, we 
conclude that the Louisiana black bear is not in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range or likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. With the detailed 
monitoring and management actions described in our PDM plan (see Post-
Delisting Monitoring section) and the referenced Louisiana Black Bear 
Management Plan, we believe that if this rule is finalized, the 
Louisiana black bear metapopulation will continue to remain viable for 
at least the next century (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, entire document). 
As the PDM plan is implemented, we will monitor subpopulations and 
threat levels to ensure that no triggers are reached that would require 
instituting ESA protection for this bear. In addition, if this rule is 
finalized and the bear is ultimately delisted, the Service, other 
partners and States will continue past delisting to implement programs 
and conservation actions (e.g., habitat restoration, protection and 
management) that will directly and indirectly contribute to the 
conservation of the Louisiana black bear across its range.

Significant Portion of the Range Analysis

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Having determined 
that the Louisiana black bear is not endangered or threatened 
throughout all of its range, we next consider whether there are any 
significant portions of its range in which the Louisiana black bear is 
in danger of extinction or likely to become so. We published a final 
policy interpreting the phrase ``Significant Portion of its Range'' 
(SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The final policy states that (1) if 
a species is found to be endangered or threatened throughout a 
significant portion of its range, the entire species is listed as 
endangered or threatened, respectively, and the Act's protections apply 
to all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the 
range of a species is ``significant'' if the species is not currently 
endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's 
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, 
without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of 
extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, 
throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is considered 
to be the general geographical area within which that species can be 
found at the time the Service makes any particular status 
determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or 
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, and the 
population in that significant portion is a valid Distinct Population 
Segment (DPS), we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic 
species or subspecies.
    The procedure for analyzing whether any portion is a SPR is 
similar, regardless of the type of status determination we are making. 
The first step in our analysis of the status of a species is to 
determine its status throughout all of its range. If we determine that 
the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become endangered 
in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range, we list the 
species as an endangered species or threatened species and no SPR 
analysis will be required. If the species is neither

[[Page 29427]]

in danger of extinction nor likely to become so throughout all of its 
range, as we have found here, we next determine whether the species is 
in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout a significant 
portion of its range. If it is, we will continue to list the species as 
an endangered species or threatened species, respectively; if it is 
not, we conclude that listing the species is no longer warranted.
    When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of 
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a 
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways. However, there is no purpose in analyzing portions of 
the range that have no reasonable potential to be significant or in 
analyzing portions of the range in which there is no reasonable 
potential for the species to be endangered or threatened. To identify 
only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine 
whether substantial information indicates that: (1) The portions may be 
``significant'' and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction 
there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Depending 
on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it 
might be more efficient for us to address the significance question 
first or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a 
portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to 
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we 
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion 
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is 
``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the determination that a 
species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its 
range is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some 
way. If the threats to the species are affecting it uniformly 
throughout its range, no portion is likely to have a greater risk of 
extinction, and thus would not warrant further consideration. Moreover, 
if any concentration of threats apply only to portions of the range 
that clearly do not meet the biologically based definition of 
``significant'' (i.e., the loss of that portion clearly would not be 
expected to increase the vulnerability to extinction of the entire 
species), those portions would not warrant further consideration.
    Applying the process described above, we have already determined 
that the species is no longer endangered or threatened throughout its 
range. We next evaluated the range of this subspecies to determine if 
any areas could be considered a significant portion of its range. One 
way to identify portions for further analyses is to identify any 
natural divisions within the range that might be of biological or 
conservation importance. While there is some minor variability in the 
habitats occupied by the Louisiana black bear across its range, the 
basic ecological components required for the species to complete its 
life cycle (e.g., BLH or upland forest habitat having a high species 
and age class diversity that provides for hard and soft mast supplies, 
denning sites, and escape cover) are present throughout the habitats 
occupied by this species. No specific location within the current range 
of the species provides a unique or biologically significant function 
that is not found in other portions of the range.
    We next examined whether any threats are geographically 
concentrated in some way that would indicate the Louisiana black bear 
would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in that area. 
In Louisiana, both the Louisiana and Mississippi black bear breeding 
populations occur in the LMRAV. These subpopulations make up the 
majority of the overall Louisiana black bear bear population and all 
face the same type of potential threats--primarily habitat conversion. 
We have already discussed that trends in that threat have been 
significantly reduced and in some cases reversed (see Factors A and D). 
Estimates of long-term viability of the TRB and the UARB subpopulations 
were greater than 95 percent except for the two most conservative 
models for the UARB (long-term viability estimates of 85 percent and 92 
percent).
    Through our review of potential threats we identified the LARB 
subpopulation as one that that may be at greater risk of extinction due 
to its additional threats from future anticipated development and sea 
level rise. We thus considered whether this subpopulation may warrant 
further consideration as a significant portion of the Louisiana black 
bear range. The LARB is located within the coastal area of Louisiana in 
St. Mary, Iberia, and Vermillion Parishes in forested habitat similar 
to other Louisiana black bear subpopulations. That subpopulation is 
separated from the other subpopulations and the habitat between them 
within the Basin is believed to be too wet currently to support 
breeding females, although bears have been observed along the higher 
areas on both sides of the Basin. The probability of interchange 
between the LARB and the other subpopulations is low (Laufenberg and 
Clark 2014, p. 93); however, reports of bear live-captures, known natal 
dens, and confirmed sightings indicate bears can and do move out (at 
least temporarily) of this subpopulation (Figure 1, Davidson et al. 
2015, p. 24). Dispersal by male bears of more than 100 miles by males 
is not unusual and combined with the documented occurrences of bears 
(likely males) on the higher portions (levees and ridges) of the 
Atchafalaya Basin spanning the area between the UARB and LARB 
subpopulations, movement of individuals among other subpopulations 
cannot be ruled out. Increased sedimentation is occurring in the 
interconnecting habitat in the Atchafalaya Basin (Hupp et al. 2008, p. 
139) as predicted by LeBlanc et al. (1981, p. 65). The increase in 
sedimentation is resulting in higher elevations within the Basin that 
will produce suitable bear habitat (e.g., less wet and more food 
sources).
    Additionally, range expansion by bears from the northern 
subpopulations would take advantage of the improved Atchafalaya Basin 
habitats. At the current time, the LARB subpopulation is stable to 
increasing, although we did not have data to determine its long-term 
viability. The LARB has been characterized by some, based on its 
genetic uniqueness, as more representative of the Louisiana black bear 
and thus should be given special consideration for its integrity 
(Triant et al. 2003, p. 647). However, Csiki et al. (2003, p. 699) 
suggested that the distinctness of the Louisiana black bear was the 
result of a genetic bottleneck rather than a true genetic difference. 
Since 2003, our understanding of genetic markers has improved. Studies 
by Troxler (2013) and Laufenberg and Clark (2014) reached similar 
conclusions (e.g., that distinctness is likely due to isolation 
resulting in restricted gene flow and genetic drift) as Csiki et al. 
(2003) concluded.
    Habitat supporting the LARB subpopulation (population range from 
136 to 194 adult bears (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 45)) of the 
Louisiana black bear is more vulnerable to one of the particular 
effects of global climate change, the long term threat of sea level 
rise, than other subpopulations due to its occurrence within low-
elevation coastal habitats. However, as discussed above, in the event 
of coastal bear habitat loss due to climate change effects, bears have 
demonstrated the ability to adapt and move to more suitable areas and 
would likely move into suitable areas. Additionally, any long-term 
threat of sea level rise would likely be ameliorated to some extent by

[[Page 29428]]

the projected successional changes in the Atchafalaya Basin that would 
eventually convert many of its swamps to BLH forest, thus improving the 
suitability of that habitat for the Louisiana black bear. It is 
unlikely that such changes would cause the loss of this subpopulation 
or appreciably reduce the long-term viability of the Louisiana black 
bear.
    We also evaluated whether the other occurrences that we cannot 
currently consider self-sustaining in Mississippi and northern 
Louisiana could be considered a significant portion of the species' 
range. However, those subpopulations have formed as the result of 
emigration from nearby subpopulations. Therefore, based on examination 
of information on the biology and life history of the Louisiana black 
bear, we determined that there are no separate areas of the range that 
are significantly different from others or that are likely to be of 
greater biological or conservation importance than any other areas.
    In conclusion, we have determined that none of the existing or 
potential threats, either alone or in combination with others, are 
likely to cause the Louisiana black bear to be in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, nor is it likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. On the basis of this evaluation, we 
conclude the Louisiana black bear no longer requires the protection of 
the Act, and propose to remove the Louisiana black bear from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11(h)).

Effects of This Proposed Rule

    This rule, if finalized, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove 
Louisiana black bear from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife. In addition, the rule would revise Sec.  17.11(h) to remove 
similarity of appearance protections for the American black bear, which 
are in effect within the historical range of the Louisiana black bear. 
This designation is assigned for law enforcement purposes to an 
unlisted species that so closely resembles the listed species that its 
taking represented an additional threat to the Louisiana black bear at 
the time of listing. With the delisting of the Louisiana black bear, 
such a designation would no longer be necessary.
    If this proposed rule is finalized, the prohibitions and 
conservation measures provided by the Act would no longer apply to the 
Louisiana black bear. Federal agencies would no longer be required to 
consult with us under section 7 of the Act to ensure that any action 
authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize 
the bear's continued existence. The prohibitions under section 9(a)(1) 
of the Act would no longer make it illegal for any person subject to 
the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in 
interstate or foreign commerce, or take, possess, sell, deliver, carry, 
transport, or ship Louisiana black bears. Finally, this rule would also 
remove the Federal regulations related to the Louisiana black bear 
listing: The special rule provisions at 50 CFR 17.40(i) and the 
critical habitat designation at 50 CFR 17.95(a).

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to implement a system in 
cooperation with the States to monitor effectively, for not less than 5 
years the status of all species that have recovered and been removed 
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants 
(List). Section 4(g)(2) of the Act directs us to make prompt use of its 
emergency listing authorities under section (4)(b)(7) to prevent 
significant risk to the well-being of any recovered species. PDM refers 
to activities undertaken to verify that a species delisted due to 
recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after the 
protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to 
ensure that the species' status does not deteriorate, and if a decline 
is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that proposing it 
as threatened or endangered is not again needed. If at any time during 
the monitoring period, data indicate that protective status under the 
Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, 
including, if appropriate, emergency listing. At the conclusion of the 
monitoring period, we will review all available information to 
determine if relisting, the continuation of monitoring, or the 
termination of monitoring is appropriate.
    Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires that we cooperate with 
the States in development and implementation of PDM programs. However, 
we remain ultimately responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and, 
therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM. We also 
seek active participation of other entities that are expected to assume 
responsibilities for the species' conservation after delisting. In 
August 2013, LDWF and the Service agreed to be cooperators in the PDM 
of the Louisiana black bear.
    We have prepared a Draft PDM Plan for the Louisiana black bear 
(Ursus americanus luteolus) (Service 2015). This plan is designed to 
detect significant declines in Louisiana black bear populations with 
reasonable certainty and precision. The draft Plan:
    (1) Summarizes the species' status at the time of delisting;
    (2) Defines thresholds or triggers for potential monitoring 
outcomes and conclusions;
    (3) Lays out frequency and duration of monitoring;
    (4) Articulates monitoring methods including sampling 
considerations;
    (5) Outlines data compilation and reporting procedures and 
responsibilities; and
    (6) Proposes a PDM implementation schedule including timing and 
responsible parties.
    Concurrent with this proposed delisting rule, we announce the draft 
plan's availability for public review. The draft PDM plan can be viewed 
in its entirety at: http://www.fws.gov/lafayette/ or at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014. Copies can 
also be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana 
Ecological Services Field Office, Lafayette, Louisiana (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section). We seek information, data, and comments 
from the public regarding the Louisiana black bear and the PDM 
strategy. We are also seeking peer review of this draft plan 
concurrently with this comment period. We anticipate finalizing this 
plan, considering all public and peer review comments, prior to making 
a final determination on the proposed delisting rule.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published in the Federal Register on 
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and the OMB's Final Information Quality 
Bulletin for Peer Review, dated December 16, 2004, we will solicit the 
expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent 
specialists regarding the science in this proposed rule and the draft 
PDM plan. The purpose of such review is to ensure that we base our 
decisions on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We 
will send peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule and the draft PDM 
plan immediately following publication of this proposed rule in the 
Federal Register. We will invite peer reviewers to comment, during the 
public comment period, on the specific assumptions and conclusions 
regarding the proposed delisting rule and draft PDM plan. We will 
summarize the opinions of these

[[Page 29429]]

reviewers in the final decision documents, and we will consider their 
input and any additional information we receive as part of our process 
of making a final decision on this proposal and the draft PDM plan. 
Such communication may lead to a final decision that differs from this 
proposal.

Clarity of This Proposed Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Required Determinations

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proposed rule does not contain collections of information that 
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This proposed 
rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on state 
or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. We may 
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, as defined in the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in 
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that no 
tribal lands or interests are affected by this proposal.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014.

Author

    The primary author of this document is Deborah Fuller, Louisiana 
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


Sec.  17.11  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by removing the entries for ``Bear, American 
black'' and ``Bear, Louisiana black'' under ``MAMMALS'' from the List 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.


Sec.  17.40  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.40 by removing and reserving paragraph (i).


Sec.  17.95  [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec.  17.95(a) by removing the entry for ``Louisiana Black 
Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)''.

    Dated: May 5, 2015.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-11748 Filed 5-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-55-P