[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13123-13171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05206]
[[Page 13123]]
Vol. 81
Friday,
No. 48
March 11, 2016
Part III
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; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2016 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 13124]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014; FXES11130900000C2-167-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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing
the Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List). This action is based
on a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, which indicates that this subspecies has recovered and no
longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Our review
of the status of this subspecies shows that the threats have been
eliminated or reduced, adequate regulatory mechanisms exist, and
populations are stable such that the species 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. This rule also
removes from the List the American black bear, which is listed within
the historical range of the Louisiana black bear due to similarity of
appearance, and removes designated critical habitat for the Louisiana
black bear. Finally, this rule also announces the availability of a
final post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan for the Louisiana black
bear.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 11, 2016.
ADDRESSES: This final rule and the post-delisting monitoring plan are
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014. Comments and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule, will be
available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the Service's Louisiana Ecological Services Field Office, 646
Cajundome Boulevard, Suite 400, Lafayette, LA 70506.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Rieck, Acting Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Ecological Services Field
Office, 646 Cajundome Boulevard, Suite 400, Lafayette, LA 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
This document contains: (1) A final rule to remove the Louisiana
black bear from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR
17.11(h) due to recovery, removal of regulatory provisions for the
Louisiana black bear at 50 CFR 17.40(i), and removal of designated
critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear at 50 CFR 17.95(a); (2) a
final rule to remove the similarity of appearance protections for the
American black bear; and (3) a notice of availability of a final post-
delisting monitoring plan.
Species addressed--The Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus
luteolus) 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 American black 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
occurring in the southeastern United States; the Louisiana black bear
historically occurred from eastern Texas, throughout Louisiana, and
southwestern Mississippi (Hall 1981, pp. 950-951). The Louisiana black
bear was listed as a threatened subspecies 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). 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.
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 (see
Figure 1 in the supporting documents section, in Docket Number FWS-R4-
ES-2015-0014 at http://www.regulations.gov) in Louisiana. An indirect
result of habitat fragmentation was isolation of the already small bear
populations, subjecting them to threats from such factors as
demographic stochasticity and inbreeding. 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.
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, Three Rivers Complex
(TRC), UARB, and LARB (see Figure 1, http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014) are stable or increasing (Hooker
2010, O'Connell 2013, Troxler 2013, Laufenberg and Clark 2014, entire
documents respectively). Furthermore, results of our analyses 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) that supports breeding subpopulations and
interconnects 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; a subset of the Lower
Mississippi River Valley limited to Louisiana and Mississippi only),
but have also resulted in significant habitat gains within both the
LMRAV and the Louisiana black bear habitat restoration planning area
(HRPA) in Louisiana. A substantial portion of those restored habitats
are protected with perpetual non-development easements (through the
Natural Resources Conservation
[[Page 13125]]
Service's [NRCS]' Wetland Reserve Program [WRP]) (see the Factor D
evaluation). 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.
Purpose of the Regulatory Action--In 2015, we proposed to remove
the Louisiana black bear from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (80 FR 29394, May 21, 2015), based on recovery
criteria in the recovery plan and the five-factor threats analysis
required under section 4(a) of the Act. Threats to this subspecies have
been largely ameliorated or reduced; therefore, the purpose of this
action is to remove the Louisiana black bear and the American black
bear, which is listed within the historical range of the Louisiana
black bear due to only similarity of appearance, from the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This rule also removes the
critical habitat designation for the Louisiana black bear throughout
its range.
Basis for the Regulatory Action--Under the Act, we may determine
that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of
five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We must consider the same factors in delisting a
species. Further, we may delist a species (or subspecies) if the best
scientific and commercial data indicate the species is neither
endangered nor threatened 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 scientific data used at
the time the species was classified were in error.
We reviewed all available scientific and commercial information
pertaining to the five threat factors for the Louisiana black bear, and
the results are summarized below.
We consider the Louisiana black bear to be ``recovered''
because all substantial threats to this 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.
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed rule to remove the Louisiana black
bear from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (80 FR
29394, May 21, 2015) for a detailed description of previous Federal
actions concerning this species.
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this final rule only those topics
directly relevant to the removal of the Louisiana black bear from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. A list of acronyms
used in this rule may be found at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014 under the Supporting Documents.
Species Information
The following section contains information updated from that
presented in the proposed rule to remove Louisiana black bear from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, which published in
the Federal Register on May 21, 2015 (80 FR 29394).
Species Description and Life History-- 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). These figures are similar to those reported for black
bears throughout their range by Pelton (2003, p. 547).
Average age at first reproduction varies widely across black bear
studies; however, most reports state that bears first reproduce between
3 and 5 years of age (Weaver et al. 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; however, reproduction may occur as early as 2 years of age
for black bears in high-quality habitat and in poor or marginal
habitat, reproduction may not occur until 7 years of age (Rogers 1987,
pp. 51-52). 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 et al. 1990a, p. 5;
Pelton 2003, 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
[[Page 13126]]
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 (mast
includes food sources such as acorns and pecans) 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).
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 prey
on vertebrates only 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 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.
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, but 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 [Committee] (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 large-cavity trees (especially
bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) or water tupelo gum (Nyssa aquatic)),
that are commonly found along water courses and 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, or
shallow depressions that are either bare or are lined with vegetation
found 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).
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 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).
Abundance and Distribution--Historically, the Louisiana black bear
was believed to be common or numerous in BLH forests such as the Big
Thicket area of Texas, the TRB, UARB, LARB, 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
[[Page 13127]]
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 occurred in
fragmented BLH forest communities of the TRB, LARB, and UARB of
Louisiana (Weaver et al. 1990a, p. 2; Service 1992, p. 2) (Figure 1,
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014), and
were believed to be demographically isolated (BBCC 1997, p. 10). No
reliable estimates of population numbers were available 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 et al.
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, 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, and 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 LMRAV in Louisiana and western Mississippi. However, based on the
number and distribution of confirmed sighting reports by the Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) and Mississippi Department
of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) (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 has also increased (Table 1; Figure 1, http://www.regulations.gov
at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014). These
changes have resulted in a more scattered distribution of breeding
females between the original TRB and UARB subpopulation areas.
Table 1--Estimated Area Supporting
Louisiana Black Bear Breeding Subpopulations
(Shown in acres (ac) and
[hectares (ha)]) in 1993 and 2014)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Lower
Tensas River
Atchafalaya Atchafalaya Louisiana Mississippi
Breeding habitat basin \1\
River basin River basin total total \3\
Total
\2\ \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 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 the
LARB subpopulation has likely not changed over time.
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 multi-year
reintroduction project (2001-2009) (Figure 1, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014), 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 bears from White River Basin (WRB; Figure 1, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014). 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, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-
2015-0014; and see Factor A discussion).
[[Page 13128]]
Table 2--Private Lands Enrolled in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Wetland Reserve Program
(Permanent Easements) Supporting Breeding Habitat and Those Lands Enrolled 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.
Tensas River Basin (TRB) Subpopulation
Demographics: 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 of the
Louisiana black bear have steadily increased since its 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
occurring 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 Laufenberg 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 support some successful
interchange (Laufenberg 2015, personal communication; Murphy and
Davidson 2015, p. 13). Furthermore, the current genetic structure of
Louisiana black bear subpopulations groups bears in those two areas
into 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 (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 (Laufenberg 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, p. 18). Therefore,
Laufenberg and Clark (2014, pp. 18-19) used two models to estimate
population numbers. Model 1 assumed that detection heterogeneity
followed a logistic-normal distribution, and Model 2 assumed a 2-point
finite mixture distribution. 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
326 bears.
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 and low effective population size (Ne) as a result
of isolation due to habitat fragmentation (Boersen et al. 2003, p.
204). They documented low genetic diversity and Ne to be as
small as 32 individuals at that time, and recommended population
augmentation be considered as a way to increase genetic diversity
(Boersen et al. 2003, p. 204). Effective population size is ``the
number of individuals that would result in the same loss of genetic
diversity, inbreeding, or genetic drift if they behaved in the manner
of an idealized population'' (Frankham et al. 2014, Appendix 1). It is
frequently used to quantify how populations may be affected by genetic
drift and generally is lower than the actual number of individuals in a
population. Smaller breeding populations can be more susceptible to the
effects of genetic drift, demographic stochasticity, and
[[Page 13129]]
environmental factors (e.g., isolation) than larger ones. Effective
population size is sometimes used instead of demographic viability
criteria (such as used in our analyses) to assess population viability.
Murphy and Davidson (2015) analyzed DNA data collected between 2006
and 2012 to reevaluate the genetic characteristics of the TRB
subpopulation. They found that the genetic diversity and effective
population size had increased in the TRB subpopulation since the 1999
study (Murphy and Davidson 2015, p. 17). They also documented gene flow
within the TRB subpopulation (between the Deltic and the Tensas River
NWR portions). Combined with gene flow into the TRB from other bear
populations (see below), genetic diversity and effective population
size had increased by 17 and 50 percent, respectively (Murphy and
Davidson 2015, p. 17). Based on Frankham et al.'s recommendation that
an effective population size is 100 bears or greater (2014, p. 62), we
do not believe that inbreeding represents a concern based on our
current population estimates for the Louisiana black bear. Restored
habitat (as discussed in Factor A), along with connectivity studies,
evidence of physical movement of bears (from GPS data) among
subpopulations, and genetic evidence, all indicate that interchange is
occurring among subpopulations within and adjacent to Louisiana
subpopulations. This situation supports our belief that long-term
genetic viability is not a significant concern.
The recent study by Laufenberg and Clark (2014, pp. 84-85)
indicates that genetic exchange with other subpopulations has occurred
at a level substantial enough to increase genetic diversity at TRB
(Murphy and Davidson 2015, p. 16), primarily as a result of bear
emigration from the WRB subpopulation of Arkansas into the TRB
subpopulation. The results of recent population structure analyses 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 one 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 (Davidson and Murphy 2015, pp. 13-14; 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.
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 continuous 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 occurred. In addition,
because there is uncertainty (i.e., variation) in various model
parameters that may affect the outcome, three population projections
were analyzed using 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).
Habitat: 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) of forested habitat in the TRB
HRPA (see Table 8). Currently, based on 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 there were approximately 85,000 ac (34,398 ha) of forested
habitat 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, an increase of over 900,000 acres (see Table 1).
Upper Atchafalaya River Basin (UARB) Subpopulation
Demographics: Nowak (1986, p. 6) suggested that UARB population
numbers were extremely low or bears in this location were believed to
be nonexistent before the introduction of Minnesota bears to Louisiana
in the 1960s (see the proposed rule (80 FR 29397, May 21, 2015) for
more detail) 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)
[[Page 13130]]
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 (see Barriers to Movement) 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, undated,
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.
Habitat: 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 et al. 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, January 7,
1992)). Based on the analyses used for listing, we estimated there were
approximately 600,000 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 (see
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 (see Table 1), an increase over the 111,275 ac
(45,031 ha) estimated around the time of listing.
Lower Atchafalaya River Basin (LARB) Subpopulation
Demographics: In 1986, 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. One reason for this situation is that this area is
experiencing a high degree of mortality associated with vehicular
collision and nuisance-related removals (Troxler 2013, pp. 37-38;
Davidson et 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
[[Page 13131]]
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 historical 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 in 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.
Habitat: We were not able to estimate the amount of forested
Louisiana black bear habitat in the LARB at the time of listing based
on internal maps and reports, nor were we able to determine it 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 because it
was based primarily on trapping data and did not include Avery Island
to the west, a forested salt dome 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 (see
Table 8). We estimated that there were approximately 9,921 ac (4,015
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 (4,683 ha) of
conservation lands in the LARB HRPA (Table 3).
In 1993, we estimated approximately 144,803 ac (58,600 ha)
supported the LARB breeding population (see Table 1). Today, we
estimate 130,839 ac (52,949 ha) are occupied by the LARB breeding
subpopulation (see Table 1). The LARB breeding area appears to have
decreased in acreage over time; however, the apparent 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, there is an apparent increase in distribution over time (see
Figure 1, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-
0014)) because we did not have the data in 1993 to support the
inclusion of breeding bears at the western edge on Avery Island, even
though we knew bears were present. We now have the data and, therefore,
included those 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.
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 in
Louisiana (ac [ha])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Lower
Tensas River Atchafalaya Atchafalaya
Basin \1\ River Basin River Basin Total \3\
\3\ \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 habitat 49.2 31.7 5.8 41.7
that is permanently protected \2\..............
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 that is 19.9 18.1 3.2 17.6
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.
Three Rivers Complex (TRC) Subpopulation
Demographics: A new breeding subpopulation, not present at the time
of listing, currently exists in Louisiana as a result of reintroduction
efforts (Benson and Chamberlain 2007, pp. 2,393-2,403; Davidson et al.
2015, pp. 27-28). The subpopulation occurs in the TRC located primarily
on the Richard K. Yancey WMA. 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 had been
taken to expedite expansion into unoccupied habitats. Initiated in
2001, the objective of the reintroduction 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
[[Page 13132]]
interchange of individuals between the subpopulations currently
existing within the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins. This area of
east-central Louisiana is within the historical range of the Louisiana
black bear, but was not known to be occupied by reproducing females
when this effort began.
Range expansion of breeding females is a slow process even when
bear habitat is in large contiguous blocks because females typically
disperse only very short distances. In 1995, 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
Louisiana 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 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 0.90 (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
within 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).
Habitat: 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
Demographics: 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; see Figure 2, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014)), 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 (Young 2013, personal communication). 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, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014)). 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).
Habitat: 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
[[Page 13133]]
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). Combining
WRP permanent easement lands with 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
Demographics: At the time the bear was listed, populations 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 were 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. Sightings of bears in east
Texas have gradually increased since 1977, 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 (Holdermann 2014, personal communication). There
is currently no evidence of a resident breeding population of black
bears in east Texas. 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
(Holdermann 2014, personal communication).
Habitat: 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). 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). Recent studies by Kaminski and Comer (2013, p.
4), Kaminski et al. (2013, p. 10), and Siegmund (2104, pp. 1-2) have
documented large, contiguous forested areas in East Texas capable of
supporting viable black bear populations. Currently there are
approximately 1,115,443 ac (451,404 ha) of Federal and State lands
(NWRs, U.S. Forest Service and WMAs) within the historical range of the
Louisiana black bear in east-central Texas. Black bear recovery and
range expansion in bordering Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma may
increase bear occurrence and activity in east Texas in future years.
Louisiana Black Bear Population Summary
Recent population studies for the Louisiana black bear have focused
on vital statistics for individual subpopulations such as abundance,
reproduction, and survival (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)
is 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 (see
Figure 1 in the supporting documents section, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014)).
(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
[[Page 13134]]
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 and Recovery Plan Implementation
Background--Section 4(f) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation
and survival of endangered and threatened species unless we determine
that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species.
Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), recovery plans must, to the maximum
extent practicable, include: ``Objective, measurable criteria which,
when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with the
provisions of [section 4 of the Act], that the species be removed from
the list.'' However, revisions to the list (adding, removing, or
reclassifying a species) must reflect determinations made in accordance
with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires
that the Secretary determine whether a species is endangered or
threatened (or not) because of one or more of five threat factors.
Section 4(b) of the Act requires that the determination be made
``solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available.'' Therefore, recovery criteria should help indicate when we
would anticipate that an analysis of the five threat factors under
section 4(a)(1) would result in a determination that the species is no
longer an endangered species or threatened species because of any of
the five statutory factors (see Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species section).
While recovery plans provide important guidance to the Service,
States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed
species and measurable criteria against which to measure progress
towards recovery, they are not regulatory documents and cannot
substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations
required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the
status of or remove a species from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is ultimately based on an analysis
of the best scientific and commercial data available to determine
whether a species is no longer an endangered or threatened species,
regardless of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
Recovery plans may be revised to address continuing or new threats
to the species, as new, substantive information becomes available. The
recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that will
achieve recovery of the species, measurable criteria that set a trigger
for review of the species' status, and methods for monitoring recovery
progress. Recovery plans are intended to establish goals for long-term
conservation of listed species and define criteria that are designed to
indicate when the substantial 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.
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 criteria may be exceeded while other criteria may
not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we may determine that the
threats are minimized sufficiently and the species is robust enough to
delist. In other cases, recovery opportunities may be discovered that
were not known when 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 discovered that was
not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new
information may change the extent to which criteria need to be met for
recognizing recovery of the species. Recovery of a species is a dynamic
process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully
follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
Recovery Planning and Implementation--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
Area 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 Summary of the Factors 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 1994 and updated it in 1997. The 1995
Louisiana black bear recovery plan, prepared by the Service in
coordination with the BBCC, relies heavily upon that restoration plan.
The BBCC restoration
[[Page 13135]]
plan has additional goals focused on moving beyond recovery and into
restoration throughout its range. All three States (LA, MS, TX) now
have black bear management plans in place that guide their restoration
and management activities. The 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
to provide 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 (LDOTD) 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., underpasses).
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 understand
and 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 (LDWF 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
Recovery Criterion 1: At least two viable subpopulations, one each
in the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins. This criterion has been
met. 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 Model 1 process-only and 95 percent
confidence interval estimates and was 1.00 and 0.96 for Model 2
process-only and 95 percent confidence interval 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 the 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;
[[Page 13136]]
however, the presence of the relatively large LARB subpopulation and
projections for improving habitat conditions (refer to Factor A and D
discussions) 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 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, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014).
Recovery Criterion 2: Immigration and emigration corridors between
the two viable subpopulations. This criterion has been met. 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 BBCC 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. 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. Based
on their results and that of other pertinent studies (Laufenberg and
Clark 2014, p. 90; Hilty et al. 2006, p. 192-193; Stratman et al. 2001,
p. 57; Hellgren and Vaughn 1994, p. 279; Maehr et al. 1988, p. 4), we
define ``Louisiana black bear corridor'' as a landscape that consists
of ``stepping stones'' of habitat such as large forested tracts that
support reproducing subpopulations, smaller forested blocks that
support one or more reproductive-aged females, and the matrix of
riparian corridors, agricultural fields, and other undeveloped lands
that are sufficiently permeable to allow interchange between the
existing subpopulations.
Most satellite populations exist today as a result of the multi-
agency project undertaken specifically to reduce demographic isolation
of the existing TRB and UARB subpopulations (see discussion under TRC).
That translocation project, initiated in 2001, was based on the
assumptions that relocated females with cubs would remain at a new
location (not currently supporting a Louisiana black bear
subpopulation) and that 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
[[Page 13137]]
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 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.
Recovery Criterion 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
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 (see Table 6, and
Figure 2, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-
0014)).
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 similar activities that would eliminate or reduce existing wetland
habitat (including forested wetlands) 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 (Houck 2012, pp. 1473-1525). 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 Factor D for additional
information). With the institution of those regulatory changes, BLH
forest loss in the LMRAV has 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
[[Page 13138]]
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 (Stewart 2014, personal
communication).
Based on our review of the Louisiana black bear recovery plan, we
conclude that the status of the species has improved due to
implementation of recovery activities and the criteria of the recovery
plan have been met. Our analysis of whether the species has achieved
recovery and thus no longer requires the protections of the Act because
it is no longer an endangered or threatened species is based on the
five statutory threat factors identified in section 4 of the Act, and
is discussed below in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
We have not made any substantive changes in this final rule based
on the comments that we received during the public comment period. We
received some additional information, which has been incorporated, and
text has been added to better present our decision. For example, State
agencies provided additional updated data on mortalities that we have
incorporated.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published May 21, 2015 (80 FR 29394), we
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by July 20, 2015. We also contacted appropriate Federal and
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Legal
notices were published in the Advocate and News Star (Louisiana),
Clarion Ledger (Mississippi), and Longview News Journal (Texas)
newspapers. We held two public hearings, one in Tallulah, LA, on June
23, 2015, and one in Baton Rouge, LA, on June 25, 2015. Those hearings
were announced with the proposed listing and legal notices, and again
in a June 12, 2015, media advisory, shortly before the hearings.
During the comment period for the proposed rule, we received 126
comment letters or statements (some individuals commented more than
once) directly addressing the proposed action. Three comments were
received from peer reviewers, two from State agencies, and 114 from the
public (including 54 form letters) posted on the Federal docket, and 7
were presented at the hearings. We did not receive any comments from
Tribes. Three additional comment letters were submitted after the close
of the comment period. We reviewed those three letters in accordance
with the requirements of the Act and Administrative Procedure Act. They
did not provide any significant new information but were similar to
other comments received by the close of the comment period, and thus
are addressed through our response to those comments that were received
by the closing date.
We received several comments providing editorial corrections (e.g.,
defining acronyms, adding additional tables) and suggestions regarding
formatting, and requests for clarification. We have made those
corrections and changes as appropriate. All substantive information
provided during the comment period is either incorporated directly into
this final determination or is addressed in our responses below.
Several comments and questions were not explicitly addressed in the
respective comment sections below because the information was already
included in the proposed delisting rule and thus is carried forward in
the body of this final rule (involving topics such as educational
programs, increased sightings, nuisance bear protocols, habitat
restoration and protection efforts, status of legal protection for
bears, subpopulation-specific demographics, and the geographic extent
of breeding subpopulations).
Several commenters simply expressed opposition to or support for
the proposed delisting of the Louisiana black bear without providing
any additional supporting information. We have noted those responses
but, as stated in our proposed rule, 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.''
State and Peer Review Comments
Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act states that the Secretary must
give actual notice of a proposed regulation under section 4(a) to the
State agency in each State in which the species is believed to occur,
and invite the comments of such agency. Section 4(i) of the Act states,
``the Secretary shall submit to the State agency a written
justification for his failure to adopt regulations consistent with the
agency's comments or petition.'' The Service submitted the proposed
regulation to the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. We
received formal written comments from Louisiana, including a
substantive comment addressed below. The State of Texas' Parks and
Wildlife Department was supportive of our proposed rule and agreed with
our findings; they did not have substantive comments. We appreciate the
support from Texas for the action we are working on together and the
State's ongoing commitment to protect black bears. The MDWFP provided
support for this action in a telephone call and did not have
substantive comments. Issues and information provided by the State
agencies are summarized in the State Comments section, and where they
overlap with similar issues identified by the public, they are included
in the Public Comments section.
In accordance with our peer review policy, which was published on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion on the proposed
rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring plan from three
knowledgeable, independent individuals with scientific expertise that
included familiarity with the Louisiana black bear (and other black
bears) and its habitat, biological needs, threats, recovery efforts,
and current research methodologies. We received responses from all
three peer reviewers. Issues and information provided by the peer
reviewers are summarized in the Peer Reviewer Comments section, and
where they overlap with similar issues identified by the public, they
are included in the Public Comments section. All peer reviewers
supported our conclusions and provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rule.
State Comments
Comment (1): The LDWF was supportive of our proposed rule and
concurred with our findings. The LDWF added that it is ``prepared to
accept full responsibility for the management of bears in Louisiana,
and that regulations are in place that protect all bears, regardless of
sub-specific designation within Louisiana.'' The LDWF also stated that
its Black Bear Management Plan was presented to and reviewed by the
Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission (LWFC), had undergone a 30-
day public review and comment period, and was published on the LDWF
[[Page 13139]]
Web site (www.wlf.louisiana.gov) immediately thereafter. LDWF also
provided supplementary information from a genetics study of the TRB
Louisiana black bear subpopulation and asked us to contact the agency
regarding additional data and reports on updated sightings and
mortalities entered into its BearTrak database.
Our response: We appreciate LDWF's commitment to continued black
bear conservation. We understand that, upon delisting, LDWF will accept
full responsibility for the care, conservation, and management of the
Louisiana black bear. We look forward to working together with LDWF on
post-delisting monitoring and have incorporated the additional
information provided by LDWF into this document and the PDM plan.
Peer Reviewer Comments
Comment (2): One reviewer suggested we add a discussion of
effective population size (Ne) to our discussion of genetic
diversity. The reviewer suggested this addition because estimates of
effective population size are sometimes used in lieu of demographic
viability criteria when discussing genetic diversity. In the reviewer's
opinion, for this action, exclusive use of effective population size
would be misguided. The reviewer also commented that, based on the data
presented in the proposal and supporting documentation, there is no
indication that genetic viability is a concern.
Our response: We have added a discussion of Ne to the
rule (see Species Information section).
Comment (3): All peer reviewers stated that the PDM plan was sound,
had no major deficiencies, and that the categories of response
scenarios and corresponding triggers were appropriate. One peer
reviewer suggested we use ``stable or positive growth rate'' as a
metric in our post-delisting monitoring plan.
Our response: We appreciate the comments by all peer reviewers and
their assessment of soundness of our approach. We agree that stable or
positive growth rates are desirable goals; however, that metric can be
affected by the carrying capacity of an area. For example, in areas
where carrying capacity is being approached, has been met, or has been
exceeded, the growth rates may not be increasing and that is not
necessarily an indication that a population is experiencing stress. We
believe the demographic monitoring parameters we have chosen (e.g.,
adult survival and fecundity) allow us to accurately assess the status
of bear subpopulations; those metrics and the other data we are
collecting will give us the ability to examine population growth;
however, for the reason stated above, we chose not to specifically use
population growth rate as an identified monitoring parameter.
Comment (4): One reviewer suggested adding a component to the PDM
[plan] that involves recording of public bear sightings as a means to
examine changes in the overall area of occupation as well as possible
changes in public sentiment.
Our response: We agree with the reviewer that maintaining and
monitoring public sightings provide useful information regarding bear
population distribution and public sentiment. The LDWF currently
maintains a database of all significant bear sightings with geographic
coordinates (e.g., sightings, mortalities). Credible reports of bears
outside of the current known range are recorded for the purpose
recommended by the reviewer; public reports of bears within currently
known areas are not always recorded unless the call is to report
nuisance activity (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 32). The purposes of this
database are to monitor bear range expansion and recolonization,
monitor anthropogenic mortality locations and frequency, and human-bear
conflict abatement (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 52). We have included a
statement in the final PDM plan that indicates information in that
database may be considered in post-delisting monitoring.
Comment (5): One reviewer stated that our use of ``no new or
increasing threats'' as a criterion seemed to be vague.
Our response: In our review of the best available and commercial
data, we did not identify any factors that are likely to reach a
magnitude that threatens the continued existence of the species. The
PDM is designed to monitor the threats that caused this species to be
listed. We included the term ``new or increasing threats'' in our
response category triggers to allow for consideration of any currently
unknown factors we could not reasonably predict but that may appear
during the post-delisting monitoring period (e.g., a new disease that
could affect the Louisiana black bear or its habitat). In that sense,
we believe that this needs to be a general category. However, we agree
with the reviewer that our use of the term ``no new or increasing
threats'' in our Category I response trigger is vague in terms of
defining what level of impact would require consideration. In
Categories II and III, we used the term ``new and increasing threats
that are considered to be of a magnitude and imminence that may
threaten the continued existence of the Louisiana black bear within the
foreseeable future.'' We added the language regarding magnitude and
imminence to our Category I response triggers.
Comment (6): One reviewer suggested that using 2013 as a reference
year for our PDM demographic monitoring, instead of 2006, was a more
logical choice because 2006 may not have represented the current
population conditions at delisting. In addition, using 2013 would be
more comparable to the habitat data, which uses 2013 as a baseline.
Our response: We agree with the reviewer that the 2006 data do not
represent the population's conditions at delisting. The latest
demographic data used in Laufenberg and Clark were collected in 2012;
therefore, we chose to use 2012, instead of 2013, to more accurately
reflect a baseline or reference year.
Comment (7): One reviewer noted that it was unclear to what degree
female survival and per-capita recruitment, as used in the triggers,
would be calculated and assessed. He noted that assessment on an annual
basis could create the risk of over-reaction and suggested
incorporating a ``sliding scale,'' based on timeframes, into the three
categories may help determine the level of response needed and thus
increase the effectiveness of management responses.
Our response: We have clarified our explanation of the demographic
measures to indicate our evaluation will be based on 3-year averages.
We will still have the data collected and summarized annually in the
event something unusual is detected within subpopulations.
Comment (8): One reviewer suggested a grammatical correction and
that it was not clear whether a single condition or all conditions need
to be met for each of the trigger criteria categories. He noted a
particular concern with Trigger Category III but suggested clarifying
the decisions for all three triggers.
Our response: We have re-worded our definitions (for all three
Category triggers) to include the terms ``and'' and ``or'' after each
condition so that the combination of conditions necessary to activate a
trigger is clearly defined. We also re-worded our final paragraph for
the Category II trigger to include the term ``If any of these
conditions. . .'' in order to clarify the necessary conditions to
address this reviewer's comments (see Post Delisting Monitoring Plan
section).
[[Page 13140]]
Public Comments
Comment (9): Several commenters stated that the Service did a poor
job in advertising public meetings. One commenter stated that time
restrictions placed on public hearing speakers were improper. One
commenter requested that the Service extend the comment period, citing
the example of the Service extending the comment period for listing.
Our response: We proactively scheduled public hearings and
published the dates, times, and locations for those public hearings in
the proposal to delist the Louisiana black bear on May 21, 2015 (80 FR
29396), well before the hearing dates (June 23 and 25, 2015) in order
to provide the public opportunities to provide comments. The dates,
times, and locations for those public hearings were also included in
news releases provided to appropriate Federal and State agencies,
scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties in
Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi at the time of the proposal.
Additionally, the news releases were posted on the Service's national
and regional Web sites. Legal notices for the hearings were published
in the Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA) and News Star (Monroe, LA) on June 2,
2015, Clarion Ledger (Mississippi) on June 2, 2015, and Longview News
Journal (Texas) on June 3, 2015. Finally, the Service issued a June 12,
2015, media advisory shortly before the hearings.
We conducted public hearings in a manner we believed would be
productive and fair to all attendees, including placing time limits on
speakers. We hold hearings to solicit public input; as such, they are
organized in a way that allows us to hear as many comments as possible
to help inform our decision. We included an open house before the
hearings in order to provide time for participants to ask questions and
have discussions regarding our proposal. We notified all hearing
participants of the several ways to contribute any additional comments
(e.g., in writing at the public hearing, in writing via the U.S. postal
service, and in writing on www.regulations.gov).
A 60-day comment period is the Service's standard comment period
for substantive decisions. Based on the comments presented at the
public hearings and during the comment period, we concluded that it was
not necessary to reopen the comment period.
Comment (10): Several commenters noted that the BBCC has played a
significant role in the recovery of the Louisiana black bear.
Our response: We agree that the BBCC and its large and varied
membership (Federal and State agencies, landowners, and the public)
have played an important role in Louisiana black bear recovery. BBCC
provided a common forum from which to develop a path forward in
recovery (e.g., the Louisiana black bear recovery plan was a subset of
the broader BBCC Restoration Plan) at listing and for subsequent
recovery implementation. In addition to the numerous contributions by
BBCC members, we acknowledge that many individuals and agencies have
made substantial contributions to the recovery of this species. We
celebrate all partners involved with this recovery success.
Comment (11): One commenter stated that we had never defined the
term Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley (LMRAV) and requested we
correct the statement indicating that Louisiana and Mississippi black
bear breeding populations occur in the LMRAV.
Our response: We regret the confusion resulting from failing to
describe the LMRAV as we used it. We have added a geographic
description to better define our use of the term LMRAV.
Comment (12): One commenter disagreed with the Service's
determination that to be considered a significant portion of the range,
the portion of the range must be so important that the species cannot
survive without it.
Our response: For our analysis, we followed the Service's final
policy on ``Significant Portion of its Range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July
1, 2014). Based on our evaluation of the biology and current and
potential threats to the Louisiana black bear that have been
sufficiently ameliorated, it is not reasonable to conclude that any
portion of the range has a different status than any other portion. See
the Significant Portion of the Range discussion.
Comment (13): One commenter, referencing several imperiled species
on the Service's candidate list, questioned why the Service would
pursue a complex action like delisting of the Louisiana black bear (an
action apparently not planned until completion of the 5-year review and
availability of Laufenberg and Clark's (2014) research) over listing
more imperiled species. He asked if the Service is using funds
appropriated by Congress for specifically delisting the Louisiana black
bear and, if not, requested the Service to explain why we pursued
delisting instead of providing protection to other species long known
to be in imminent danger.
Our response: Both preventing extinction and achieving recovery
have been and will continue to be among the Service's highest
priorities. Activities providing protection for species on the
Service's candidate list are funded from separate budget activities
than those relating to recovery and delisting actions. In other words,
not producing this rule would not have provided additional funding for
efforts to list imperiled species. Recovery funds support efforts to
protect and improve a listed species' status and also to remove a
species from the list once we have determined a species no longer
requires the protection provided by the Act. By promptly removing
``recovered'' species from no-longer-needed protection of the Act, we
can then direct that funding to recover other listed species or improve
their status.
Efforts for recovering and delisting the Louisiana black bear have
been ongoing. Since the bear was listed in 1992, the Service and many
partners have actively worked towards its recovery (see response to
Comment 14).
Comment (14): Several commenters stated that the delisting proposal
and draft post-delisting monitoring were ``fast-tracked'' as a result
of political pressures. They also stated that, as a result, scientific
evidence has been edited to show only documents supporting the
delisting proposal.
Our response: Many partners have been actively working on Louisiana
black bear recovery since its listing in 1992 (see Recovery Plan and
Recovery Plan Implementation). Specifically, in August 2008, the
Service, as part of the Service's Endangered Species Program Strategic
Plan, designed a framework for achieving conservation of listed species
and clearly articulating accomplishments (Service 2009c). As part of
this plan, more than 100 Spotlight Species (including the Louisiana
black bear) were identified across the United States to receive
increased attention from the Endangered Species Program (including
funding) and, based on a 5-Year Action Plan, demonstrate results toward
species conservation goals. The goal of the 5-Year Action Plan (fiscal
year 2009 through fiscal year 2013) for the Louisiana black bear was to
improve the bear's status to the point where it no longer required
protection of the Act (Service 2009d). The plan identified conservation
actions including continued habitat protection, conflict management,
and public education. It also prioritized population viability studies
in the Tensas and Atchafalaya
[[Page 13141]]
River Basin studies of population interchange and corridor assessments.
The work published by Laufenberg and Clark (2014) represents many years
work and largely addresses those goals.
The development of a post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan is
typically an iterative process that is incorporated into recovery
planning and refined during the later stages of recovery so that it is
ready to be released at the time a species is proposed for delisting
(Service 2008b, p. 3-1). Preliminary development of the PDM plan for
the Louisiana black bear began in 2011 to ensure that it would be built
upon established data sets collected during recovery in order to
document ``baseline'' conditions prior to delisting so that changes
post-delisting could be adequately assessed.
All of the available scientific data has been considered to
evaluate the recovery progress of the Louisiana black bear. We did not
edit documents to show only results favorable towards delisting. This
final action was supported by the peer reviewers, who were all highly
familiar with literature on the black bear in general and the Louisiana
black bear as well.
Comment (15): Several commenters questioned the quality of the
science that the Service used as a basis for our delisting proposal or
stated that the research results were inconclusive. One commenter
claimed that we had presented only the research that supported our
proposal.
Our response: We believe that the data we used in our proposal to
delist the Louisiana black bear are credible. We did not receive any
data during the comment period that would change our determination.
Peer review evaluation of our proposal by recognized experts in black
bear biology and research confirmed our determination, finding our
reliance on the analyses of Laufenberg and Clark (2014) to be
appropriate because that work represents the best available science
regarding Louisiana black bear population dynamics (see Peer Review
Comments). Peer reviewers did not note any major oversights, omissions,
or inconsistencies in our proposed rule, but agreed that our proposal
accurately reflected the interpretation of current science.
Comment (16): One commenter stated that the Service and the public
did not have access to the best available scientific and commercial
data because we had eliminated significant and substantial data by
failing to conduct section 7(a)(1) consultations for the section 4(d)
rule providing protection of den or candidate den trees.
Our response: We have used the best available and pertinent
scientific data in our decision to delist the Louisiana black bear. We
also requested that the public submit relevant data and information
during the 60-day comment period that followed our delisting proposal
(80 FR 29394). Section 7(a)(1) of the Act states that all Federal
agencies shall proactively utilize their authorities, in consultation
with the Secretary (Service), to develop and carry out programs to
conserve species listed under the Act; as such, there is no
consultation. Section 7(a)(2) states that Federal agencies shall ensure
that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of listed species and/or destroy or adverse modify their designated
critical habitat while implementing their actions. That latter section
authorizes the Service to consult with Federal agencies on proposed
actions that may affect federally listed species; for the Louisiana
black bear, this authority includes those actions potentially impacting
actual and candidate Louisiana black bear den trees (57 FR 588, January
7, 1992). Since listing in 1992, we have consulted on all projects
within our regulatory authority (i.e., with a Federal nexus) that could
have potentially impacted such trees, including a federally authorized
timber harvest.
Comment (17): One commenter stated that the public did not have
access to the best available data because the Service eliminated
significant and substantial data for several reasons addressed here
(e.g., failure to conduct required 5-, 10-, and 15-year reviews and
failure to include long-time partners in the 2014 5-year review,
halting a black bear vulnerability analysis by the Gulf Coastal Plain
and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GCPO LCC) and excluding
long-time partners from the development of the post-delisting
monitoring plan (see response to Comment 56). The commenter further
asserts that the Service conducted non-public revisions of the recovery
plan based on the Service's failure to produce a map of occupied and
potential bear habitat (see response to Comment 40), eliminating the
multi-State, multi-agency conflict resolution plan and team,
eliminating the use and support for the BBCC Black Bear Management
Handbook, eliminating the multi-agency, multi-State USGS-generated
mortality database, and the Service's determining that the recovery
actions, 3.4-3.6, directed at developing and implementing Bear
Management Units (BMUs), are obsolete. The commenter stated that, prior
to making a final decision on whether to delist the Louisiana black
bear, the Service should: (1) Complete a new 5-year review following
notice and opportunity for public comment; (2) complete a formal public
revision of the Louisiana black bear recovery plan and provide public
notice and an opportunity for public review; and (3) complete a new
draft post-delisting monitoring plan in accordance with the 2008
Service guidance.
Our response: The Service is required under section 4(c)(2) of the
Act to conduct reviews of each federally listed species every 5 years.
These 5-year reviews are conducted to evaluate the status of a
federally listed species and determine if the species should be
delisted, reclassified from endangered to threatened status or from
threatened to endangered status, or the status of the species should
remain the same. The public notice initiating the first Louisiana black
bear 5-year review was published in 2007 (72 FR 42425, August 2, 2007);
stakeholders and the public were also notified via press releases and
individual letters via the U.S. postal service, and the review was
completed in 2014. Prior to that time, because of budget constraints
and higher priority workload issues (e.g., Deepwater Horizon), the
Service had not been able to complete a review for the bear. We did not
receive any information from the public for that review. Even though
delayed, the 5-year review was comprehensive and included all research
and recovery activities for the Louisiana black bear since its listing
in 1992 through early 2014. In that review, we stated that we
anticipated making additional progress with partners and we believed
delisting could be considered for this subspecies in the near future.
In December 2014, we received a final report from Laufenberg and Clark
regarding long-term population viability for the Louisiana black bear
and, based on our assessment of those results and our studies of
habitat trends, we began to work on a delisting proposal.
The Service did not halt a GCPO LCC black bear vulnerability
analysis; however, we did participate in a BBCC meeting where that
analysis was presented and discussed. The GCPO LCC functions as a self-
directed applied conservation partnership among Federal, State,
university, and nongovernmental organizations who are collaboratively
seeking to understand and improve conservation actions at the very
large or landscape, scale. It spans 12 States in the south central
United States. The Service provides funding to
[[Page 13142]]
help support the coordination of science staff of the GCPO LCC
partnerships and some science projects. The Service is represented on
the Steering Committee and other GCPO LCC subteams (science teams,
working groups, etc.) as an equal partner--one voice and one vote. Our
participation as a partner is to identify shared conservation
priorities.
With regard to the commenter's assertion that we have conducted
non-public revisions of the Louisiana black bear recovery plan, all
tracking of implementation of the recovery plan is reported annually in
the Service's publicly available Recovery Plans module. Additionally,
no changes were made to the approach outlined in the original recovery
plan, but some implementation methods did differ from what was
originally planned.
When the commenter states the Service eliminated the USGS database,
he is referring to Recovery Plan Task 3.2 related to Coordination of
Record Keeping for bear deaths. No USGS database existed until 2010, at
which time the Service provided USGS 3 years of funding to develop a
digital bear reporting database. That database, referred to as
BearTrak, is still in use and is regularly updated.
When the commenter asserts that the Service eliminated the Conflict
Resolution Team, he is referring to recovery Task 2.3. That Team
originally functioned within the framework of the BBCC according to a
1994 Contingency Plan and voluntarily provided much-needed rapid
responses to the limited number of bear-human conflicts that occurred
shortly after the bear's listing. In 1999, as the number of human-bear
conflicts increased, State agencies such as the LDWF and the MDWFP took
the lead for conflict management and had appropriately trained staff
assigned to regularly respond to those situations. The Service did not
eliminate the Conflict Resolution team; instead, the State agencies
assumed responsibility for those actions as the bears' numbers and
resulting conflicts increased, which required the skills of the State
agencies. The task identified in the Recovery Plan is still being
implemented, just in a different manner than originally conceived.
When the commenter asserts that the Service had declared certain
recovery tasks as obsolete, we believe that he is referring to recovery
tasks 3.4 through 3.6 to develop, implement, and monitor Bear
Management Units (BMUs). The Service had noted in the Recovery Plans
module that these tasks were obsolete. We made that assessment based on
the 2006 revision to the 1997 BBCC Restoration Plan (BBCC 2006), which
stated ``The BMU concept met with little success [and] will not be
pursued further. As with many volunteer organizations, this became a
daunting task that ultimately led to state agencies taking the lead in
bear restoration activities for their respective states. Those
restoration activities include many of the actions contained in the
Bear Management Unit Plan Outline (Table 4) with a focus on habitat
restoration, population monitoring, and reintroduction'' BBCC (2006, p.
2). The commenter asserts that the changes in BBCC Restoration do not
apply to the recovery plan; however, the responsible parties for those
tasks include the Service, BBCC, and State agencies. Based on the
restoration plan revisions, it was logical to assume that those tasks
were obsolete. Recovery plans are guidance documents. As such, some
methods originally identified in plans may not work, just as other
methods, not available at the plan's initial development may become
available based on best available information or partnerships. The
Service did not actively eliminate BMUs; we merely reported the status
of those efforts in the Recovery Plans module. The assumption by State
agencies of the recovery activities (e.g., population and habitat
conditions, conflict management) addresses the recovery plan tasks
intended by BMUs (BBCC 1997, pp. 73-90).
The commenter incorrectly asserts that the Service eliminated the
use of and support for the BBCC Black Bear Management Handbook. We
continue to support its use as evidenced in the Service's 2015 update
to Recovery Task 1.23, in ROAR, ``this task is accomplished . . .
through the use of the BBCC Black Bear Management Handbook (completed
in 1992 and periodically updated) as a guide for private landowners.''
As discussed in our Response to Comment 56, we believe we correctly
followed Service guidance when we developed the post-delisting
monitoring plan.
Therefore, we believe that we have based this decision on the best
available data and have made those data available to the public for
comment and review. Given the status review conducted as part of the
proposed rule, we do not believe conducting a formal update of the
recovery plan or re-drafting the post-delisting monitoring plan would
provide any new significant information or data that would affect our
assessment of the Louisiana black bear's recovery.
Comment (18): One commenter questioned the scientific criteria for
designation of main and satellite subpopulations.
Our response: The term ``satellite population'' was taken from a
Louisiana black bear population viability and connectivity study by
Laufenberg and Clark (2014). Though not explicitly defined, satellite
populations were generally described as ``populations of resident
breeding bears between the subpopulations to be linked.'' (Laufenberg
and Clark 2014, p. 90). The subpopulations referenced (which may also
be termed ``main'' or ``core'' populations) in that statement include
those that were present at the time of listing, as well as the one more
recently established through the relocation of bears on, and in the
vicinity of, the Richard K. Yancey WMA. We refer to the isolated
individuals or small groups of bears residing in habitat patches
between those larger subpopulations as satellite populations, which is
consistent with the description provided by Laufenberg and Clark
(2014).
Comment (19): Several commenters stated that the public was not
provided access to Louisiana black bear mortality data. In addition,
they felt the data we cited regarding black bear mortality were
erroneous.
Our response: We stated in our proposed rule that all data and
reports used for the proposed rule were available for inspection at the
Service's Lafayette Louisiana Office; however, no one requested to see
that data. This included bear mortality data for Louisiana from the
LDWF and for Mississippi from the MDWFP. In its comments on the
proposed rule, the LDWF stated it had updated mortality data and could
provide them to the Service. Based on concerns raised at the public
hearing and during the comment period, we contacted the LDWF for that
data and have revised the mortality estimates cited in this rule to
reflect this most recent data (see Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species). As with the proposed rule, we will also provide this
information to anyone who requests it.
Comment (20): One group stated that bears play an important role in
the ecology of forests, and they must continue to be protected. Another
commenter stated we should give consideration to the effect that
delisting the black bear will have on wildlife and education.
Our response: The Service is delisting the Louisiana black bear
because threats present at the time of listing no longer exist or have
been reduced to a point where the Louisiana black bear no longer
requires protection under the
[[Page 13143]]
Act. The Act specifically requires that the status of a species is
determined based the five factors described in the Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species section.
After delisting, the LDWF will continue to monitor and actively
manage the Louisiana black bear. The LDWF Plan has the stated objective
of maintaining a sustainable black bear population in suitable habitat
even after the bear is delisted. Additionally, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Texas have developed and are distributing public education and bear
safety informational material. LDWF regularly sponsors and will
continue to provide public education and outreach as described in the
Plan.
Comment (21): One commenter questioned whether the genetic analyses
presented by Laufenberg and Clark (2014) require the Service to revisit
the current Louisiana black bear taxonomy.
Our response: Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 85), in discussing the
results of the population structure and migrant analyses and affinities
of Louisiana bears to Minnesota and WRB bears, stated that they did not
believe that the level of genetic affinity or differentiation they
detected between populations was sufficient to determine taxonomic
status. Numerous other studies of both morphometric and genetic
characters have also found evidence of affinities among bears in
Louisiana, Arkansas, and Minnesota producing differing interpretations
of the taxonomy and distribution of bears in Louisiana with no
definitive determination or conclusion that has been widely accepted.
Therefore, although we recognize that there are still questions around
the taxonomy, we still consider the Louisiana black bear to be a
distinct subspecies described by Hall (1981, pp. 948-951).
Comment (22): One commenter questioned the process by which the
Service evaluates the validity of the scientific research used in the
rule. One commenter wanted to know if the peer reviewers would receive
copies of public comments to consider prior to submission of their
comments and whether the names of peer reviewers would be made
available to the public.
Our response: The research presented by Laufenberg and Clark (2014)
was peer reviewed before the final publication was released to the
Service in 2014. Additionally, in accordance with our 1994 peer review
policy, we solicited independent scientific peer review of our
delisting proposal, which included a review of the data we used and our
interpretation and use of that data. Peer review was conducted by
recognized experts in black bear biology. All peer reviewers indicated
that we had correctly interpreted the results (see Peer Review
Comments). All public comments and peer review comments (including
commenter names for both public comments and peer reviewers) were made
available for public review in the docket (http://www.regulations.gov
at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014). Although peer reviewers were
able to look at comments on the docket, the Service did not provide
them with copies prior to completion of their peer review.
Comment (23): One commenter questioned whether our reliance on the
research by Laufenberg and Clark (2014) set a precedent for a
methodology to be used under the Act regarding continued viability
analyses.
Our response: There are several approaches that can be used to
assess a population's viability, and the availability of the best
available data and subsequent analyses will vary by species. In the
case of the Louisiana black bear, the demographic, viability, and
connectivity analyses conducted by Laufenberg and Clark (2014)
represent the best available science (based on extensive data) and, as
noted by a peer reviewer, are the currently most advanced or
sophisticated analyses for the Louisiana black bear. We do not view use
of this methodology as precedent setting for viability analyses in
general, but consider our approach to satisfy section 4(b) of the Act,
which requires that the determination to add or remove a species from
the list be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.'' This determination is made on a species-
by-species basis.
Comment (24): One group suggested we should structure our delisting
decision and the post-delisting monitoring plan on the basis of
Louisiana black bear subpopulations and not on a ``one size fits all''
metapopulation approach.
Our response: We do not believe that our approach to this rule is
``one size fits all.'' As described in the Recovery and Recovery Plan
Implementation section of the proposed rule, the metapopulation
analysis was only one aspect of our assessment of Louisiana black bear
recovery. We began by looking at individual subpopulation numbers and
habitat conditions, and then we examined recovery criteria for TRB and
UARB subpopulation viabilities. Finally, based on the overall objective
of the recovery plan (i.e., ``sufficiently alleviate threats to the
metapopulation''), we assessed metapopulation viability. Although the
recovery plan addresses metapopulations, the decision to revise the
status of or remove a species from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is ultimately based on an analysis
of the best scientific and commercial data that are available to
determine whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a
threatened species based on the evaluation of the five factors in
section 4 of the Act.
The purpose of the PDM plan is to detect any declines in Louisiana
black bear populations (at extremely early stages) upon delisting, and
the PDM plan includes threshold triggers that would allow for
corrective actions to be taken before the species would require
protection of the Act. The PDM plan focuses on the subpopulations and
habitat features that we relied on to demonstrate the black bear's
recovery. Only in Category III of the PDM plan's ``Definition of
Response Triggers for Potential Monitoring Outcomes'' (Service 2016c,
p. 33) is metapopulation reassessed, in the event of individual
subpopulation declines or habitat loss, as part of a decision to
reassess the bear's status.
Comment (25): Several commenters stated that they did not believe
the data we presented indicated that the species had recovered, and
requested we ensure that all delisting criteria had been met and that a
long-range conservation plan had been established. Other commenters
claimed that the Service had not followed the recovery plan, and
requested that protection be maintained for American black bears (due
to similarity of appearance) within the range of U. a. luteolus because
the Louisiana black bear was not recovered.
Our response: Recovery plans include criteria to assist in
evaluating the status of a listed species; recovery plans are not
regulatory documents. Species recovery may be accomplished via multiple
avenues and may be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For
the Louisiana black bear, however, the Service has determined that all
recovery criteria have been met (see the discussion for Recovery
Criteria). Additionally, our analysis of pertinent data and best
available science confirms that the Louisiana black bear is fully
recovered based on the absence of threats that were present at listing
and the lack of new threats. Providing protection of the Act for this
subspecies or other American black bear subspecies within its range
based on similarity of appearance is, therefore, no longer warranted.
The Service is not required under the Act to establish a long-range
conservation plan. However, as we have
[[Page 13144]]
discussed in our rule, all three States within Louisiana black bear
range have management plans that we have evaluated and have determined
provide for the long-term conservation of this species (see the
discussion in Factor D). Additionally, we did get valuable comments on
our post-delisting monitoring plan to ensure it is protective of the
Louisiana black bear.
Comment (26): Numerous commenters asserted that there are still
active threats to the Louisiana black bear population, such as habitat
loss, pollution, and human-induced mortality, and cited a lack of
adequate regulatory mechanisms to prevent such occurrences. Numerous
commenters identified vehicular collisions as an important source of
mortality that should be addressed before delisting.
Our response: The Service reviews the best scientific and
commercial information available when conducting a threats analysis. In
considering what factors might constitute a threat, we must look beyond
the mere exposure of individuals of the species to the factor to
determine whether the exposure causes actual impacts to the entire
species. The mere identification of factors that could negatively
impact a species is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing (or
maintaining a currently listed species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants) is appropriate. We
require evidence that these factors are operative threats currently
acting on the species to the point that the species meets the
definition of endangered or of threatened under the Act. In this case,
we reviewed all known activities that could potentially threaten the
Louisiana black bear (see Factors A-E discussion). While many of the
anthropogenic sources of mortality (e.g., poaching, vehicle strikes,
and nuisance bear management) have impacted individual animals, we
determined that, based on the analyses of population viabilities and
the level of occurrences, they do not represent significant threats to
the Louisiana black bear population (see Summary of Factor E).
Comment (27): One commenter suggested that the evaluation of future
trends in human population growth should not be compared to data from
2015. Rather, data from 1900 should be considered baseline.
Our response: While historical population trends may provide an
opportunity to track the effect of human population growth on Louisiana
black bear habitat and demographics throughout history, we question the
relevance of such data for assessing future threats to that species.
Nonetheless, to ensure that we have fully considered potential threats
associated with future human population growth, we evaluated the data
referenced by the commenter. We found that, from 1900 to 2010 (using
known population figures rather than projections), only 4 of the 17
parishes evaluated (which are those included within the Louisiana black
bear HRPA) had their peak human population at the end of that
evaluation period (i.e., 2010). In contrast, the 13 remaining parishes
experienced their highest populations prior to 2010, including 9 that
peaked prior to 1950, and 4 that experienced a peak population in 1900
(http://louisiana.gov/Explore/Historical_Census/; downloaded on
December 3, 2015). Such figures are not unexpected as population-
influencing factors of the early 1900s may no longer exist, or may have
changed dramatically over the last century (e.g., educational
opportunities, employment prospects, and discovery/utilization of
natural resources such as hydrocarbons or agricultural crops).
Accordingly, we defer to expert analysts at the Louisiana State Census
Data Center to properly account for historical and current trends (and
associated influences) in developing human population projections for
the State. Therefore, we anticipate minimal threats to the Louisiana
black bear from future population growth based on projections provided
by that agency (using the longest-range population forecast data
currently available, which predict population declines from current
levels in 15 of the 17 parishes within the Louisiana black bear HRPA).
Comment (28): One commenter mentioned recent bear mortalities
resulting from incidental capture in snares and asserted that this new
source of mortality constituted a demonstrable threat.
Our response: Available data demonstrate that the extent of
Louisiana black bear mortality attributable to incidental capture in
snares (intended for such species as feral hogs or coyotes) is minimal.
In their comprehensive review of mortality data collected over the 23-
year period since the bear was listed, Davidson and Murphy (2015, p. 9)
found that a total of four bears have been killed in Louisiana from
incidental capture in snares. This equates to approximately one percent
of all known bear mortalities in the State. To our knowledge, the most
comprehensive snaring effort within the range of the Louisiana black
bear is associated with the feral swine damage management program
administered by USDA-Wildlife Services. According to their data (USDA
2013, p. B-1), in approximately 6,000 snare days spanning over 8 years,
no Louisiana black bears have been caught by their personnel.
Accordingly, based on the best available scientific data, we do not
believe that the incidental snaring of Louisiana black bears
constitutes a threat to the subspecies.
Comment (29): Several public commenters asserted that the effects
of climate change and the potential reduction in habitat resulting from
changes in sea level posed a threat to the LARB subpopulation.
Our response: As stated in our response to Comment 26, simply
identifying factors that could negatively impact a species is not
sufficient to compel a finding that protection under the Act is
necessary; we require evidence that these factors are operative threats
that act on the species to the point that the species meets the
definition of endangered or threatened under the Act. In the case of
the effects of climate change, we reviewed the best available
scientific and commercial information available that examined its
potential effects (e.g., tropical storms, sea level rise, increased
flooding) on black bear habitat, including research on the habitat
needs of Louisiana black bears and their ability to adapt to potential
habitat changes. Regarding sea level rise threats, more than 90 percent
of Louisiana black bear breeding habitat and 70 percent of the
Louisiana black bear population occur outside of the Louisiana Coastal
Zone. Furthermore, the Louisiana black bear is extremely adaptable,
highly mobile, and has the ability to successfully traverse large
expanses of terrain that may include unsuitable or hostile landscape
features. A recent study of the effects of the 2011 emergency opening
of the Morganza Flood Control Structure verified the resiliency of the
Louisiana black bear when faced with extreme environmental challenges,
and concluded that adult Louisiana black bears experienced no negative
biological effects from the extensive flooding that occurred during the
operation of that structure (O'Connell-Goode et al. 2014, p. 483).
Therefore, we continue to believe that it is highly unlikely that
currently projected effects of climate change would impact Louisiana
black bear habitat to the extent that it would represent a substantial
threat to this species. A more detailed discussion of the ability of
the Louisiana black bear (including the LARB subpopulation) to survive
the effects of global climate change and sea level rise is presented
under Factor E.
[[Page 13145]]
Comment (30): One group recommended that we consider social
tolerance, as was discussed in the proposed rule and PDM for the gray
wolf populations. They provided several references for us to consider.
Our response: The Act specifically requires that the status of a
species is determined based on the five factors as described in the
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section. The lack of social
tolerance for listed species that may cause property damage (such as
black bears) may translate into a lack of public support or even
opposition to the recovery of such species. We considered social
tolerance in the sense that it may also result in increased mortality
via illegal killings. These concerns have been recognized since the
black bear was listed and have been and will continue to be addressed
and managed through rapid State agency responses to human-bear
conflicts (see Recovery Implementation--Protecting and Managing Bear
Populations). We have added information to the rule explaining the need
for rapid response to potential conflict situations in order to
maintain social tolerance. Part of the post-delisting monitoring
activities and the ongoing management efforts by the LDWF is the
maintenance of the existing database of reliable public sightings to
aid research and management, to monitor bear range expansion and
recolonization, to monitor anthropogenic mortality locations and
frequency, and to help with human-bear conflict abatement. We have
included a statement in the final PDM plan that information in the LDWF
database may be considered in post-delisting monitoring.
Comment (31): One commenter made reference to Murrow and Clark's
(2012) statements that the Louisiana black bear comprises three small,
geographically isolated subpopulations that are vulnerable to
extinction.
Our response: Murrow and Clark made the referenced statement in the
abstract of their paper and also in discussing the small population
size and vulnerability as reason the Louisiana black bear was listed as
a threatened species under the Act in 1992, but the statement was not
in reference to its current status (Murrow and Clark 2012 p. 192). Our
reliance on the more recent and best available research by Laufenberg
and Clark (2014) is appropriate.
Comment (32): Several commenters stated that the estimated total
number of Louisiana black bears was too small, the populations not
stable enough, or we lacked sufficient information about populations to
support delisting. Another commenter referenced the discussion
regarding minimum population sizes needed for viability in the BBCC
Restoration Plan (1997). This commenter also questioned our statement
that the recovery criteria had been met for the Louisiana black bear
based on the Lowe (2011) UARB population size estimates. One commenter
indicated that we should not proceed with delisting until there is a
self-sustaining population.
Our response: The best available information supports delisting the
Louisiana black bear. Population size, while an important component in
a species' status, is not the only factor that should be assessed when
evaluating a species' long-term survival. Environmental and other
species-specific factors (e.g., mortality, fecundity, genetic
diversity, isolation) must also be considered. Estimating a ``minimum
viable population size'' is one way to estimate a species' probability
for long-term persistence. Another approach is to utilize existing data
to conduct stochastic population modeling and extinction risk
assessment, such as that conducted by Laufenberg and Clark (2014).
Laufenberg and Clark's (2014) approach represents the best science and
provides sound estimates of Louisiana black bear numbers and long-term
viability over the next 100 years. Our peer reviewers agreed with our
assessment, stating the data and analyses methods of Laufenberg and
Clark (2014) were extensive and rigorous and the results highly
credible (see Peer Review Comments).
Comment (33): One commenter, using multiple data sources, provided
an estimate of historical population numbers of Louisiana black bears
in order to assess the degree of ``recovery.'' This commenter estimated
80,000 individual U.a. luteolus bears within this species' range prior
to human colonization. The comment questions whether this subspecies
can be considered to have recovered in light of these estimates.
Our response: The assumption that historical habitats would have
supported a density of bears comparable to that currently observed
under existing landscape conditions is not well supported. The
relatively recent creation of a forest-patch/agriculture-field habitat
matrix within the historical range of the Louisiana black bear,
although partly responsible for an overall population decline, may be
directly responsible for formation of multiple high-density
subpopulations. Because the extent of reduced and highly fragmented
habitat was likely not the case historically, it is unlikely that
subpopulations occurred at these high densities and use of these
numbers to extrapolate back to historically population numbers is
unreliable. We believe that it is probable, therefore, that the
historical Louisiana black bear population density and overall
abundance was significantly lower than the estimates provided by the
commenter.
Regardless of the method used to estimate historical population
numbers, it is important to note that the recovery status of the
Louisiana black bear is not contingent upon such figures. We determined
that the Louisiana black bear has reached recovery because its
metapopulation has long-term viability, there is adequate long-term
protection of its habitat; and it no longer faces long-term threats to
its viability.
Comment (34): One commenter questions the recovery criterion that a
population should have a probability of persistence for only 100 years.
Our response: The criterion describing viable subpopulations as
those that have a 95 percent or better chance of persistence over 100
years was developed for the 1995 Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan
(Service 1995, p. 14). At that time, data were insufficient to reliably
extend persistence probabilities beyond 100 years. That said, we
continue to believe that a population capable of maintaining viability
for 100 years (where significant threats to the species have been
removed, as in the present case) is considered recovered and no longer
requires the protections of the Act. Although current Louisiana black
bear population data far exceed that available in 1995, and modeling
techniques have become much more sophisticated, the reliability of
Louisiana black bear population models that extend beyond 100 years
remains highly questionable in light of the long-term effects of, and
prediction uncertainty for, potential stochastic influences
(environmental, demographic, genetic, and/or natural unknowns). For
that reason, we do not believe that extending the timeline of such
analyses would prove beneficial given the reduction in confidence in
the outcome.
Comment (35): One commenter, though supportive of the delisting
overall, raised concerns regarding the LARB stating it should remain
listed as a threatened ``Unique Population Segment'' due to: Unknown
long-term viability, the relatively high rate of adult female
mortality, its genetic uniqueness (i.e., more representative of the
Louisiana black bear subspecies), and vulnerability of habitat
supporting this
[[Page 13146]]
subpopulation due to the effects of climate change. Another commenter
asserted the LARB is the most isolated population and that it faces an
additional risk from hybridization with UARB (Minnesota) bears (if the
Atchafalaya River Basin, as projected, becomes more suitable as bear
habitat and facilitates exchange between those subpopulations).
Our response: We will first address the perceived threats raised by
the commenter. We do not currently have an estimate on the long-term
viability of the LARB; however, in spite of the relatively high female
mortality, population numbers in the LARB subpopulation have nearly
doubled since the Louisiana black bear was listed. We discussed the
potential effects of climate change on the LARB (see Factor E) and
determined they do not pose a threat based on the Louisiana black
bears' adaptability, mobility, and demonstrated resiliency to extreme
climatic events. We agree with the commenters that LARB is the most
isolated subpopulation; however we also presented evidence that the
intervening habitat between the LARB and the UARB (currently too wet to
support breeding populations) is projected to convert to cypress swamp
and early successional hardwood; habitat types more suitable for black
bear use by 2030 (LeBlanc et al. 1981, pp. 55-57). 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. In response to the comment that the resulting
exchange would cause hybridization between the UARB and LARB and
threaten this subpopulation, we do not agree with the assertion that
the UARB consists primarily of bears descended from Minnesota bears
(see Comment 37). We have addressed this point in the Summary of
Factors (see revised discussion under Factor E). Finally, although the
LARB subpopulation has occasionally been characterized by some 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. In that sense, exchange of genetic material between the two
subpopulations would likely be beneficial for the LARB subpopulation.
We believe that the commenter intended to recommend that the LARB
subpopulation be listed as a ``Distinct Population Segment (DPS).''
Under the Act, a listable entity is a species, subspecies, or a DPS of
a vertebrate species. The DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996),
requires the Service first to determine whether a vertebrate population
is discrete and, if the population is discrete, then to determine
whether the population is significant. Lastly, if the population is
determined to be both discrete and significant, then the DPS Policy
requires the Service to evaluate the conservation status of the
population to determine whether or not the DPS falls within the Act's
definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.''
Due to the mobility of Louisiana black bears, their ability to disperse
long distances, and existing genetic and GPS studies (Laufenberg and
Clark 2014), we do not believe this factor is met. As such, the LARB
does not qualify as a DPS.
Comment (36): One commenter questioned why the Service had not
discussed the population studies of the Upper Atchafalaya River Basin
subpopulations conducted by Lowe (2011), in particular the statement
``the ARB population remains vulnerable to environmental and
demographic stochasticity because of its small size and isolation'' and
suggested that omission affected the scientific accuracy of our
statements regarding that subpopulation.
Our response: We presented Lowe's (2011) population annual survival
rate estimates in our proposal (80 FR 29394, May 21, 2015, p. 29400).
The long-term viability of the ARB had not been determined in 2011.
That work was subsequently updated with additional field studies in
order to obtain better estimates of the effects of environmental
variation on population vital rates (O'Connell 2013, p. 5; Laufenberg
and Clark 2014, p. 46) to provide more current estimates of population
parameters, and to ultimately provide data for use by Laufenberg and
Clark (2014) in estimating that population's long-term viability.
Therefore, because we based our analyses on the Laufenberg and Clark
(2014) research results, we believe our presentation of data regarding
that subpopulation and our statements about it are accurate.
Comment (37): One commenter (supported by two other commenters who
re-submitted a letter) does not believe the UARB subpopulation consists
of true Louisiana black bears and, therefore, cannot be used to assess
Louisiana black bear recovery. The commenter, in referencing the 1960s
reintroduction of American black bears from Minnesota into the area now
occupied by the UARB breeding subpopulation, described that area as a
``bear free'' zone at the time of the introductions and contended that
the UARB bears do not represent a population that has been influenced
by admixture (populations that were previously isolated begin
interbreeding) but consists ``largely, probably, entirely'' from the
introduced Minnesota bears (U.a. americanus). In addition, the
commenter stated that the Louisiana black bear should retain its
classification as threatened or possibly be reclassified as endangered
under the Act, because we should not include the UARB subpopulation in
our assessment of recovery. This commenter also asserted that the
subsequent reintroduction of bears resulting in the formation of the
TRC breeding subpopulation between the TRB and UARB subpopulations now
facilitates introgression (gene flow from one species into the gene
pool of another) of genetic material from the American black bears in
the UARB subpopulation into the TRB subpopulation. The commenter stated
that the TRB subpopulation may have been the population that best
maintained the genetic purity of the Louisiana black bear (U.a.
luteolus) and should not be considered for any change in legal status
except for reclassification as endangered. The commenter also suggested
that the way to recover and preserve the Louisiana black bear is to
continue protection for the TRB and LARB subpopulations, allow hunting
to proceed on the UARB subpopulation, and remove bears in the TRC.
Our response: We disagree with the commenter's statement that the
UARB subpopulation consists primarily or entirely of Minnesota bears.
The commenter raised one of the same questions that we had considered
before the Louisiana black bear was listed. At listing, we stated that
expecting to preserve U.a. luteolus as is presupposed a static
condition that does not exist. The greatest likelihood was that the
bears inhabiting the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins were probably
interspecifically hybridized and that, biologically, hybridization at
this taxonomic level would not be a significant cause for concern
(Service 1992, p. 592). At that time, the genetic studies did not show
significant differences between the subspecies. However, because it is
difficult to distinguish between the two black bear subspecies based on
outward appearance, we listed the Louisiana black bear as a ``practical
means available for protecting any possibly remaining unique genetic
material
[[Page 13147]]
belonging to U.a. luteolus'' (Service 1992, p. 592).
The commenter referenced Figure 15A in Laufenberg and Clark (2014,
p. 54) as providing evidence that the UARB subpopulation is largely or
entirely descended from Minnesota bears. We agree that these data
indicate an affinity of UARB bears with Minnesota bears; however, the
commenter did not acknowledge the additional all-population and the
WRB-TRB clustering analyses that indicated at least five genetically
distinct subpopulations (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, pp. 60-63). Under
that scenario, the UARB subpopulation is distinguishable from the
Minnesota population. The commenter describes the UARB area as a bear-
free zone at the time of the Minnesota releases (all released bears
were tagged) but Taylor (1971, p. 66) observed a large untagged male
bear in that area after the releases. The commenter contends that this
individual was an offspring of a released bear; however, the presence
of suitable bear habitat in the area, and the documented wide-ranging
habits of male black bears support the possibility that this was a bear
``native'' to the area.
Prior to listing, Pelton (1989, p. 5) argued there was considerable
evidence that a pure strain of U. a. luteolus subspecies no longer
existed because: (1) There was a broad continuum of habitat between the
TRB and UARB populations (based on Weaver's [1990] maps) of Minnesota
bears; (2) habitat corridors still existed [1989] between those areas
allowing for continued dispersal; (3) bear releases in Arkansas
resulted in widespread dispersals; (4) the presence of narrow dispersal
corridors through Arkansas following such rivers as the Ouachita and
Saline Rivers were still being used by transplant offspring and
evidence of use had been observed all the way to the Louisiana border;
and (5) long-distance natural movements of bears had been documented.
Based on historical descriptions of the UARB release area, we believe
it is very likely there was no known breeding population in that area
at the time of the releases; however, it is not determinable whether
that area was ``bear-free'' as supposed by the commenter. Our knowledge
of bear behavior coupled with the habitat in existence at that time
would support the presence of males in or traveling through that area.
This, in combination with the findings presented by Laufenberg and
Clark (2014, pp. 60-63), would support our assumption that the UARB is
not strictly composed of Minnesota bears and our inclusion of that
subpopulation in our recovery assessment.
The commenter suggested that the TRB subpopulation maintained the
best genetic purity of the Louisiana black bear and is at risk from
genetic introgression; however, the data shows that this subpopulation
was experiencing immigration of Arkansas bears at the time of listing.
At that time, questions regarding interchange between WRB bears and the
TRB subpopulation generated considerable discussion about whether or
not the WRB bears should be considered Louisiana black bears.
Subsequently, Miller et al. (1998, p. 337) found a high level of
genetic similarity between WRB and TRB populations and suggested it
indicated gene flow had occurred between those populations. Most
recently, Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 63) documented numerous bears
with evidence of WRB ancestry in the TRB subpopulation and some
Mississippi populations. Therefore, we stand by our assertion that the
introduction of gene flow among the TRB, WRB, TRC, and UARB
subpopulations benefits the Louisiana black bear and has improved its
population health. This assertion is supported by our peer reviewers.
However, this position does not mean that we have dismissed concerns
regarding the matter of hybridization and the Louisiana black bear as
suggested by the commenter.
In the final listing rule (57 FR 588, January 7, 1992), we
acknowledged that the Louisiana black bear was not a geographic
isolate. Numerous studies (many funded by the Service) have produced
differing and sometime conflicting results with no definitive, widely
accepted conclusion. We listed the taxonomic entity defined as the
Louisiana black bear in 1992 to be protective of the subspecies in
recognition of those concerns, and we and our many partners have worked
to recover this entity. We have determined that the threats to the
taxonomic entity currently classified as Louisiana black bear have been
eliminated or reduced. In acknowledgment of interchange that is
occurring at the contact zone between the Louisiana and American black
bear subspecies, we are not aware of threats to the American black bear
population. Interest in the correct classification of black bear
subspecies continues. Recent analyses by Puckett et al. (2015 p. 9)
provide yet another interpretation and suggest that previously
identified American black bear (Ursus americanus) subspecies
differentiation may be the result of genetic drift due to population
size (Puckett et al. 2015, pp. 2343-2346). The authors used both
nuclear and mitochondrial range-wide data from 94 black bear samples in
order to study genetic lineages and species divergence patterns of the
American black bear. The results of their study suggests the three
subspecies in the southeast (U.a. americanus, U.a. floridanus, and U.a.
luteolus) represent a single genetic cluster. Combined with the results
for other geographic areas, they suggest that U.a. americanus may be
the most accurate subspecies designation for bears in the eastern range
of black bears. This would support our original supposition at the time
of listing that hybridization at this taxonomic level would not be a
significant cause for concern.
Comment (38): One commenter raised multiple questions regarding our
treatment of several breeding bear subpopulations located in
Mississippi, northern Louisiana (west of the TRB subpopulation), and
southern Arkansas. Specific questions raised by the commenter included
why the Service did not: (1) Extend protection of the Act to Arkansas
bears located within the historical range as described by Hall (1981);
(2) conduct research on the Arkansas reintroductions; (3) include the
Felsenthal NWR (FNWR), Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge (UONWR),
and the TRC populations in the original population research that
included only TRB, UARB, and LARB subpopulations, and revise the
Louisiana black bear recovery plan to include the FNWR, UONWR, and TRC
bears in the metapopulation and recovery criteria; and (4) include all
subpopulations in the metapopulation (including FNWR and UONWR
subpopulations) on the basis of documented interchange.
Our response: As background, when the Service listed the Louisiana
black bear, it primarily relied on Hall's (1981) depiction of the
historical distribution; however, Hall (1981) included the southernmost
counties of Arkansas as part of the historical range. The Service,
while acknowledging that the Louisiana black bear was not a geographic
isolate, did not include those Arkansas counties as part of the
historical range for protection under the Act because there were no
specimens to support doing so (57 FR 588, January 7, 1992). Since
listing, there have been numerous studies relevant to the subspecies,
many focusing on the relationship of the southern Arkansas WRB black
bear subpopulation (U.a. americanus) to the Louisiana black bear. For a
more detailed summary of those studies, see the 5-year review (Service
2014, pp. 21-27). Those studies (both morphometric and genetic) have
produced differing
[[Page 13148]]
interpretations of the subspecies distribution; however, no all-
inclusive, generally accepted, definitive determination or conclusion
has been reached.
Current observations support the fact that the Louisiana black bear
is not geographically isolated from the American black bear (see
Comment 37). Kennedy (2006, p. 23) suggested that WRB bears probably
consisted of individuals with some genetic and morphometric combination
of both subspecies as well as some individuals sharing similarities in
those characters with both subspecies. He suggested this finding could
be taken to support Hall's (1981) delineation of southern Arkansas as a
zone of contact between the two subspecies. Kennedy was reluctant to
assign the WRB bears to a subspecific status, suggesting they occur in
a zone of intergradation between the two subspecies where populations
may contain characteristics of both subspecies (2006, pp. 26-27). Given
the difficulties in determining subspecific status where two subspecies
meet (Pelton 1989, p. 23; Hall 1981, pp. viii-vix), documentation of
intergradation between the two subspecies, and the amount of
uncertainty remaining regarding taxonomy of bears in this zone, we
continued to base our delineation of Louisiana black bear range as
described by Hall (1981). We have determined that the threats to the
taxonomic entity currently classified as Louisiana black bear have been
eliminated or reduced.
With respect to the FNWR, it is located in southern Arkansas just
north of the Louisiana border and the UONWR is located directly south,
in Louisiana. From 2000 through 2003, the Arkansas Fish and Game
Commission (AFGC) in cooperation with FNWR staff reintroduced 46 adult
black bear females and 112 cubs from the native population at WRB to
the FNWR (Wear et al. 2005, p. 1,367) in order to restore black bears
to that area. Additional bears were moved through 2007, resulting in a
total of 55 adult females and 116 cubs being released at the FNWR
(Service 2015, p. 71). Research was conducted on the factors related to
the population establishment of black bears on FNWR and reported by
Wear et al. (2005).
Numerous bears were documented as moving from FNWR into Louisiana.
For example, females were known to move to the UONWR and elsewhere and
establish recently documented breeding subpopulations referred to here
as satellite subpopulations (it is unknown if these bears bred with
bears from Arkansas, Louisiana, or Mississippi). One male bear,
released as a cub at FNWR, was subsequently recaptured in the WRB
population in Arkansas, and one year later was documented as traveling
to Lake Ophelia NWR in central Louisiana. Due to the logistical
difficulty in conducting detailed long-term population studies on a
species with individuals with large home ranges that have the potential
to disperse long distances, such studies have focused on the original
subpopulations identified in the recovery plan as important to
recovery. This circumstance does not mean that other subpopulations
were not protected by the Act; and research and habitat restoration
efforts were focused on the Louisiana black bear within its entire
listed range.
We have not included the Arkansas FNWR subpopulations in the
Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan for the reasons described above, nor
did we feel it necessary to modify the recovery plan to specifically
include the TRC subpopulation. Recovery opportunities not available
when a recovery plan is finalized can contribute significantly to
recovery without necessitating plan revisions. This situation is the
case for the efforts that established the TRC subpopulation, using a
``soft release'' methodology not previously tested. The exchange
between existing subpopulations fostered by the TRC subpopulation
contributes directly to achieving the recovery criteria. We mention
other satellite populations in Louisiana and Mississippi for which we
have known but limited data (i.e., telemetry or captures of a few
individuals) as evidence supporting the overall recovery of the
Louisiana black bear (e.g., breeding range expansion, improved
demographics among subpopulations); however, in order to be
conservative, we have based our assessment of recovery primarily on the
extensive studies of the TRB and UARB subpopulations.
Comment (39): One commenter noted that our statement ``The habitat
occupied by the TRB, UARB, and LARB breeding subpopulations has
increased'' (80 FR 29394, p. 29400) contradicts the following statement
we made ``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''
(80 FR 29394, p. 29404).
Our response: We do not find these two statements to be
contradictory. The first statement accurately references the overall
increase in habitat occupied by all three breeding subpopulations
whereas the latter statement (which is also accurate) is specific to
the LARB subpopulation.
Comment (40): One commenter alleged the Service has refused to
produce a map of occupied and potential habitat as required in the
Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan (Service 1995, p. 14) or if
produced, the Service has refused to provide the maps upon request.
Our response: The maps we refer to as the Habitat Restoration and
Planning Area (HRPA) maps depict ``occupied'' (we now use the term
``breeding'') and potential habitat for the Louisiana black bear. The
first versions of those maps were developed in the early to mid-1990s
(almost concurrent with the bear's listing) by the Service, LDWF, The
Nature Conservancy (TNC), and BBCC working with USDA NRCS State
Technical Committees to establish ranking systems for most Farm Bill
conservation programs. In 1999, the initial planning group expanded
into a multi-agency collaboration to produce the ``Louisiana Black Bear
Habitat Restoration and Planning Area Maps.'' The result was a version
of the HRPA maps in use today consisting of delineation of breeding and
potential habitat and overlain with the ranking criteria zones
(including a new ranking for potential corridor habitat). The HRPA maps
were revised in 2005, 2011, and 2015 to incorporate updated
conservation program databases, to account for the expansion of
occupied bear habitat, and to consider new bear telemetry data (see
Figure 2, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-
0014 which is a simplified version of those maps). We regularly provide
copies of these maps upon request.
Comment (41): Several commenters claimed that the Service did not
provide a clear definition of a corridor.
Our response: Various definitions of the term ``corridor'' have
been proposed over time (Hilty et al. 2006, p. 89), and the physical
attributes of functional corridors vary by species. Defining those
attributes for a particular species is challenging due to the fact that
humans perceive connectivity differently than the organisms that use
them (Hilty et al. 2006, p. 190). We are aware of the sentiment held by
some that corridors must always consist of a contiguous, linear
vegetative landscape feature that connects larger vegetated tracts.
Hellgren and Vaughn (1994, p. 279) stated that maintaining such large,
contiguous forested tracts, however, ``is difficult to impossible,
especially in areas with human densities as high as the southeastern
United States.'' Regarding black bears in the
[[Page 13149]]
southeastern United States, they also state that ``disjunct populations
may not be as effectively isolated as previously believed'' (Hellgren
and Vaughn 1994, p. 283). Further, Maehr et al. (1988, p. 4) argued
that ``for black bears, well-defined travel corridors are not necessary
so long as the areas separating population fragments do not impede
movements'' and ``that low levels of human habitation or disturbance
may not be a hindrance for dispersing or wide ranging bears.'' Stratman
et al. (2001, p. 57) state that their study of long-distance movements
of black bears in the southeastern United States ``may raise questions
about the need for connective corridors between disjunct populations.''
Additionally, Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 85) found in their study
documenting interchange among Louisiana black bear subpopulations, that
hypothetical forested corridors ``were not more effective than the
broken habitat matrix that surrounded many of the subpopulations.''
Because of that documented interchange, Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p.
90) assert 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.
Consistent with this published research, we define ``Louisiana
black bear corridor'' as a landscape that consists of ``stepping
stones'' of habitat such as large forested tracts that support
reproducing subpopulations, smaller forested blocks that support one or
more reproductive-aged females, and the matrix of riparian corridors,
agricultural fields, and other undeveloped lands that are located to
allow interchange between the existing subpopulations. In addition to
all of the above-referenced research findings, Hilty et al. (2006, pp.
192-193), in their book on corridor ecology, support this definition
stating that ``functional connectivity for some biota may not require a
connection of relatively intact natural habitat but could involve
stepping stones of habitat or protected areas that are not physically
connected'' and that ``stepping-stone connectivity might be better than
continuous corridors given the life history of some species.''
Additional discussion of corridors is provided in the section entitled
Delisting Criterion 2.
Comment (42): Several commenters provided recent reports on black
bear habitat studies in East Texas (which we had not included in our
proposed rule or draft post-delisting monitoring plan) and requested we
acknowledge that East Texas currently has enough forested bear habitat
to support a viable black bear population in the future.
Our response: We have reviewed the information provided by the
commenters and have included it in this rule along with a brief
discussion of bear habitat in East Texas. We agree with the commenters
that there appears to be sufficient habitat in East Texas to support a
Louisiana black bear population as this population continues to grow
and disperse.
Comment (43): Several commenters questioned whether there is enough
habitat to support delisting the Louisiana black bear, including one
group that stated that the Louisiana black bear continues to be
threatened by habitat loss. One commenter questioned the information we
presented on the threat of future habitat loss in light of continuing
development, suggesting that more protection is needed for den sites,
and that reproduction monitoring and viability analyses are needed to
ensure that the Louisiana black bear subpopulations are self-
sustaining.
Our response: Louisiana black bear breeding range in Louisiana and
Mississippi has increased by over 500 percent since the time of listing
(see Table 1 and Figure 1, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014), as described in the section Habitat Protection
Through Ownership or Permanent Easements. Within the last 15 years, the
extent of forested habitat coverage has increased within the Louisiana
black bear HRPA by 7.5 to 11.4 percent depending on geographic region
(see Table 7), and within that HRPA there are currently more than a
half-million acres of permanently protected lands. Nearly 90 percent of
the parishes included within our Louisiana black bear HRPA were
projected to experience human population declines, including several
that may experience substantial reductions (population declines of 10-
23 percent). These data support our finding that habitat loss threats
that were present at the time of listing for the Louisiana black bear
no longer exist, and habitat loss trends that contributed to that
listing have been reversed. Therefore, the legal protection to
candidate and actual den trees in breeding habitat provided in the
final Louisiana black bear listing rule (57 FR 588, January 7, 1992)
are no longer necessary.
With respect to the second issue, 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). There is
evidence of interchange of bears between the TRB, UARB, TRC, WRB, and
Mississippi subpopulations including documented interchange occurring
``from the UARB to the TRB by way of the TRC'' (Laufenberg and Clark
2014, pp. 2, 84). The stability of the Louisiana black bear
metapopulation coupled with recent and significant habitat gains since
the time of listing indicates that the Louisiana black bear has
recovered and is no longer threatened by habitat loss (from any source
including development and conversion to agriculture). Furthermore, we
will be monitoring these subpopulations closely as described in our PDM
plan. A more detailed discussion of Louisiana black bear population
dynamics and habitat trends is presented in this rule (see Factors A
and D).
Comment (44): Several commenters expressed concerns about the
apparent lack of sufficient habitat, corridor, and den tree
protections, and they cited actions (such as clearcuts in the
Atchafalaya Basin, residential and commercial development, and the lack
of enforcement of Corps easements and Clean Water Act regulations) as
evidence for concerns. One commenter suggested that new threats to the
Louisiana black bear such as wood pellet mills could result in habitat
destruction from forest clear-cutting and a resultant expansion of
feral hog populations.
Our response: Although one group submitted select photographs to
better demonstrate their concerns, they did not provide specific data
regarding the effect of various timber management practices on
bottomland hardwood habitats in Louisiana or their associated long-term
effects on forest health. We acknowledge that forestry management
within the range of the Louisiana black bear has occasionally included
clear-cutting on particular tracts. However, during field studies and
management activities within known bear habitat, we have rarely, if
ever, encountered large-scale clearing-cutting of BLH forest habitat in
a manner that would have long-term detrimental impacts to the Louisiana
black bear. Rather, our field experiences suggest that a relatively
minimal amount of BLH forests within the range of the Louisiana black
bear have undergone such treatment. In any case, Louisiana black bears
are habitat generalists that benefit from sustainable timber management
and the habitat features of early successional forests (BBCC 2015, p.
28). For that reason, a forestry exemption was included in the 1992
final rule listing the Louisiana
[[Page 13150]]
black bear as a threatened subspecies (57 FR 588, January 7, 1992). In
our 2009 final rule that designated critical habitat for the Louisiana
black bear, we specifically stated that research supports our
conclusion that normal silviculture is compatible with Louisiana black
bear management and we upheld that special forestry exemption.
Moreover, because normal silvicultural activities conducted as part of
``established, ongoing'' silvicultural operations are exempt from Corps
of Engineers permit requirements under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (LDAF et al. 1998, p. 31), we would lack a Federal nexus for
consulting on virtually all silvicultural activity regardless of
whether or not the Louisiana black bear remains listed. Also, we are
not aware of any data that demonstrate that clear-cutting specific
forested tracts would constitute a threat to bears by enhancing feral
hog habitat.
Although no specific data were provided regarding the extent of
bald cypress removal within portions of the Atchafalaya Basin that have
been designated as Louisiana black bear critical habitat, we
acknowledge that timber is routinely harvested from its swamps and BLH
forests. We also recognize that large trees with cavities often provide
high-quality den sites for bears (particularly females with young-of-
the-year cubs). In fact, to afford additional protection to denning
bears, the Service through the final Louisiana black bear listing rule
had extended legal protection to candidate and actual den trees in
breeding habitat (57 FR 588, January 7, 1992). Because of generally low
elevations and frequent riverine flooding, there is no breeding habitat
(i.e., habitat that has been conclusively determined to support
resident reproductive-aged female Louisiana black bears) within the
Atchafalaya Basin between U.S. Interstate 10 and U.S. Highway 90.
Therefore, the harvesting of large-diameter trees in that area would
not constitute a violation of the Act.
Regarding the loss and/or conversion of habitat within the
Atchafalaya Basin, it has been documented that there has been increased
and substantial sedimentation within the Atchafalaya Basin with certain
areas exhibiting ``the highest documented sedimentation rates in
forested wetlands of the United States'' (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. LeBlanc et al. (1981, p. 65) estimate
that more than 35,000 ac (14,000 ha) of lakes and cypress may convert
to higher elevation forests within the Basin by the year 2030. For
these reasons, we believe that the extent of higher quality forested
land within the Atchafalaya Basin will continue to increase over time.
In the more than two decades since the bear was listed, we have not
seen any scientific evidence demonstrating the need to regulate timber
harvests for Louisiana black bear conservation purposes. In fact,
timber management often provides or enhances black bear habitat by
leaving downed tree tops and creating openings that provide cover and
foraging opportunities (Weaver 1999, pp. 126-128; Hightower et al.
2002, p. 14; Weaver et al. 1990b, p. 344; Lindzey and Meslow 1977, p.
424).
We acknowledge that relatively small-scale developments have
impacted forests within the range of the Louisiana black bear. However,
there are multiple legal mechanisms currently in place to protect much
of the habitat that currently supports the Louisiana black bear
breeding subpopulations or that serves as corridors between those
subpopulations. All available data suggest that those mechanisms (such
as the Food Security Act of 1985 and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 [a.k.a, the Clean Water Act]) have
afforded sufficient protections to Louisiana black bear habitat. In
fact, an analysis of data obtained from the Corps' wetland regulatory
program demonstrates that substantially more forested habitat is
restored through compensatory wetland mitigation than is eliminated via
permitted wetland development projects (Table 10). While we acknowledge
that consultation under section 7 of the Act will no longer be required
for the Louisiana black bear, the Service will continue to provide
comments to the Corps on proposed Clean Water Act permit authorizations
throughout the range of the Louisiana black bear through our
authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661
et seq.). The Service reviews all individual permit applications
advertised by the Corps, and we will continue to provide specific
comments and recommendations to reduce negative effects to fish and
wildlife, including species that are not protected by the Act. Finally,
it should be noted that there are over 637,000 ac (257,784 ha) of
permanently protected lands within the Louisiana black bear HRPA. Those
lands are protected via ownership by a State or Federal government
agency or by a permanent easement. All such voluntary permanent
easements will be maintained regardless of whether the bear is
delisted. A more detailed discussion and associated data regarding
Louisiana black bear habitat protection is presented in the sections
entitled Recovery Criteria: Criterion (3), and Factors A and D
(including Figure 2, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-
R4-ES-2015-0014) and Tables 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10).
Comment (45): One commenter mentioned that there is no discussion
of the effects of removal of protection afforded by critical habitat
after the species is delisted and asked for a further assessment and
explanation of why such protection is no longer needed.
Our response: Our analysis of Louisiana black bear habitat clearly
demonstrates a reversal in historical habitat loss since the time of
listing, with habitat gains being realized throughout our analysis area
(i.e., the Louisiana black bear HRPA) (see Comment 44). Louisiana black
bear critical habitat is completely contained by, and includes a
substantial proportion of the forested land within, that HRPA. The
habitat gain trend confirmed by our analysis would, therefore, apply
not only to the HRPA, but also to Louisiana black bear critical
habitat. A detailed discussion of those analyses and results are
presented in the section entitled Recovery Criteria and in the section
entitled Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification,
or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range. We have also documented that
the management efforts of governmental agencies and nongovernmental
groups, as well as existing regulatory mechanisms, currently and will
continue to provide long-term and adequate protection to Louisiana
black bear habitat (see Recovery Criteria section and Factor D: The
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms for additional
discussion). Furthermore, available scientific data confirm that the
Louisiana black bear has reached recovery in part due to the lack of
significant threats to that subspecies and its habitat. Because the
Louisiana black bear is recovered and no longer listed under the Act,
due in large part to the fact that suitable habitat is adequately
protected and increasing in geographic extent, designation of any bear
habitat as ``critical'' is no longer warranted.
Comment (46): One commenter stated that the Service failed to
follow through on its commitments to establish a black bear preserve
and restore 5,000 ac (2,000 ha) of agricultural land that is currently
in sugarcane production. The commenter also stated that the Service
[[Page 13151]]
rejected an occupied bear habitat donation offer.
Our response: We were unable to verify whether the Service ever
made any official commitment to establish a black bear preserve or to
revert 5,000 ac (2,000 ha) of sugarcane-producing agricultural land to
forested habitat. It should be noted, however, that the Service and its
partners have expended a substantial amount of effort and funding for,
and have been highly successful in, the restoration and protection of
Louisiana black bear habitat as described in the section entitled:
Habitat Protection Through Ownership or Permanent Easements. Through
our partnering with NRCS in the implementation of the WRP program, over
148,000 ac (60,000 ha) of habitat have been permanently protected
within the Louisiana black bear HRPA since 1992 (see Table 2).
Additionally, the Service established the 9,028-ac (3653-ha) Bayou
Teche National Wildlife Refuge in St. Mary Parish in 2001 for the
primary purpose of preserving and managing habitat for the Louisiana
black bear. There are also over 450,000 ac (180,000 ha) of Federal and
State Natural Resource Management Areas (``preserves'') that support
Louisiana black bear breeding subpopulations (see Table 6).
We could find no records documenting the Service's rejection of any
formal land donation offers of occupied Louisiana black bear habitat.
We do acknowledge, however, that the Service does not accept all land
donation offers. We evaluate numerous factors, in addition to
suitability of the habitat for listed species, in deciding whether to
accept a land donation (e.g., management challenges associated with the
site's proximity to other Service facilities; the presence of
contaminants on the site; operation and maintenance costs; and benefit
to Federal trust resources).
Comment (47): Several commenters asserted that the Service and LDWF
had failed to protect the Lower Atchafalaya subpopulation by not
creating crossings and corridors across U.S. Highway 90 (Hwy. 90), and
noted that installing wildlife crossings there and along U.S.
Interstate 20 (I-20) in Madison Parish would help to mitigate road
mortalities.
Our response: We agree that Hwy. 90 through St. Mary Parish, LA,
has been a source of mortality for the Lower Atchafalaya River Basin
subpopulation of the Louisiana black bear and is likely a partial
obstacle to intra- and inter-subpopulation movement. The Service has
organized numerous site inspections and meetings involving biologists
from both the Refuge and Ecological Services programs of the Service,
LDWF, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD),
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), private environmental and
engineering firms, and the BBCC to address issues with highway-
associated impacts to bears in this region. We have completed a
biological opinion on the effects of a proposed upgrade of Hwy. 90 on
the Louisiana black bear, which included a conservation recommendation
that FHWA ``install large mammal/bear crossings at suitable locations
along the subject reach of Hwy. 90.'' We have worked collaboratively
with a diverse group of environmental interests (e.g., the BBCC, LDWF,
nongovernmental environmental organizations, and major local
landowners) that assembled for the purpose of developing and
implementing a large-scale habitat restoration and protection plan to
address both habitat issues and highway-associated limitations on bear
conservation in this region of the State. Based on the interest level
of the other involved parties, we strongly anticipate that this
initiative will move forward regardless of Service involvement or the
listing status of the Louisiana black bear.
Similarly, we acknowledge that I-20 through Madison Parish has also
been both a source of mortality and a partial obstacle to Louisiana
black bear movement in northeast Louisiana. To improve the ability of
bears to cross and transverse that roadway and the surrounding
landscape, we developed and successfully implemented a large-scale
habitat restoration project, which was accomplished through a
cooperative effort with the NRCS and resulted in the designation of a
WRP Special Project Area for this region. Although that area of I-20
has numerous large bridges over river and stream crossings that provide
safe passage opportunities for bears, we have also developed plans in
coordination with several partners (e.g., the BBCC, LDWF, FHWA, and the
LDOTD) to improve the functionality of those crossings by instituting a
modified mowing/maintenance regime (in which the area beneath those
bridge crossings would be mowed less frequently). Again, based on the
interest level of our partners, we anticipate a continuation of this
effort regardless of Service involvement or the listing status of the
Louisiana black bear. Furthermore, the tracts restored via the WRP
Special Project will remain as functional Louisiana black bear habitat
in perpetuity as legally required by the respective WRP easements.
That said, we do not believe any road mortalities in either of
these areas would be at a level that would cause this animal to be
threatened in the foreseeable future (see Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species).
Comment (48): One commenter stated that the Service should work to
provide ``refugia'' to protect breeding females and provided references
suggesting that a bear reserve should protect, at a minimum, 12 percent
of the population, or 5 percent of the total land mass for that
population.
Our response: We agree that providing habitat protection for
breeding female Louisiana black bears is important to ensure long-term
population viability. To that end, the Service and its partners
(various State and Federal agencies, nongovernmental environmental
organizations, and private landowners) developed a strategy to position
and implement habitat restoration and protection projects in a manner
that maximizes benefits to this subspecies (additional discussion in
Recovery Criteria--Criterion (1) regarding that strategy). We address
this in the section entitled: Habitat Protection Through Ownership or
Permanent Easements. Since 1992 through the WRP program, over 148,000
ac (60,000 ha) of habitat has been permanently protected within the
Louisiana black bear HRPA, including almost 100,000 ac (40,000 ha) of
breeding habitat (i.e., habitat that supports breeding females).
Currently, more than 5 percent of the breeding habitat within each of
the three Louisiana river basins that supports bears (TRB, UARB, and
LARB), including a total of 40 percent of all Louisiana black bear
breeding habitat within those basins, is permanently protected (see
Table 3).
Comment (49): One commenter requested that we consider bear habitat
that would be provided by the additional mitigation banks planned in
the Lower Atchafalaya River Basin, and the many landowners who receive
revenue from hunting leases, particularly in bottomland hardwood
forests, which would help ensure retention of those lands as working
forests.
Our response: We are encouraged that additional planning for
habitat restoration and protection is occurring within the Lower
Atchafalaya River Basin. We are also aware of the importance of hunting
leases in maintaining forested habitat for many landowners within
Louisiana black bear range and believe such areas have likely
contributed to the bear's recovery. We have made note of both of these
facts in our final rule; however, in making our
[[Page 13152]]
determination regarding whether Louisiana black bears require
protection under the Act, we relied on habitat currently known to be
under permanent protection.
Comment (50): Multiple bear management organizations, though they
stated their support for delisting the Louisiana black bear due to
recovery criteria being met, expressed concern over the amount of
suitable but unoccupied bear habitat in Louisiana (e.g., Kisatchie
National Forest). Other groups and individual commenters stated similar
concerns, specifically that:
(1) We should not delist the Louisiana black bear because of the
failure of the Service and LDWF to relocate bear populations to areas
that could support them (specifically Kisatchie National Forest, the
Pearl River Swamp, the Big Thicket area of Texas, and forests in
western Mississippi);
(2) We consider establishing an east-west corridor (perhaps in the
vicinity of the coast) to complement the current north-south
distribution of bears and habitat;
(3) Bears in the TRC and north-central Louisiana [should] be
considered separately from the TRB subpopulation, and should have their
status maintained as listed regardless of whether the TRB subpopulation
is delisted;
(4) The Louisiana black bear has not recovered within a significant
portion of its range and the status of subpopulations in Arkansas and
Mississippi should be considered in our decision to delist this
subspecies.
Our response: The recovery status of the Louisiana black bear is
not contingent upon it occupying a particular portion of suitable
habitat within its historical range, nor is it dependent upon the
status of subpopulations in Arkansas and Mississippi. Documented
interchange is occurring among most satellite populations and
subpopulations throughout the Louisiana black bear's range, and we
consider all such bears U.a. luteolus (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p.
93). This subspecies, as a whole, has reached recovery because its
metapopulation (including the TRB, TRC, and UARB subpopulations) has
long-term viability, there is adequate long-term protection of its
habitat, and there are no longer significant threats to the Louisiana
black bear or its habitat. Recent field data demonstrate a significant
range expansion by the Louisiana black bear into areas that were
unoccupied at the time of listing. It is true that, as data suggest,
minimal expansion is occurring within coastal Louisiana for several
reasons including: (1) Much of the area has poor-quality bear habitat
(e.g., open water, marsh, and heavily inundated swamps); (2) bear
dispersal is restricted by development (particularly along existing
highways); and (3) minimal habitat restoration has occurred due to a
lack of landowner interest in incentive-based programs (presumably due
to the high productivity and associated value of agricultural land in
this region). However, significant range expansion is occurring
westward of the current breeding subpopulations in the UARB and TRB,
toward Kisatchie National Forest and other large forested tracts that
are currently unoccupied. Most of these areas are remote and expansive,
and they are well positioned to accommodate the growing Louisiana black
bear population.
Comment (51): Numerous commenters expressed opposition to delisting
the Louisiana black bear because they were opposed to potential hunting
of the bear after delisting (viewing it as inhumane and contrary to a
perceived public opposition of hunting) or believed that
overutilization due to recreation posed a threat to this species.
Others stated there were insufficient data to set a hunting quota at
this time, that more data are needed on mortality, and that all sources
of mortality should be considered with annual thresholds established to
determine the hunting quota. Another commenter suggested there should
be a period of time specified in the PDM in which it is determined that
the bear is doing well before hunting is allowed.
Our response: Some commenters assumed that because the LDWF Plan
included hunting as a management option, hunting would commence
immediately post-delisting and pose a threat to the long-term survival
of the Louisiana black bear; however, that LDWF Plan did not state when
hunting would commence. The LDWF Plan describes the multiple factors
that would be considered (e.g., demographics, reproductive vital rates,
genetic characteristics, magnitude of anthropogenic mortalities) as
well as the modeling techniques and types of data to be collected on
subpopulations (Davidson et al. 2015, pp. 55-56). The demographic
analyses conducted by Laufenberg and Clark (2014) are the data that
would be used to establish baseline subpopulation information, and
additional data would be collected to monitor those subpopulations.
Specifically regarding any future harvest of the Louisiana black
bear, the LDWF Plan stated that ``at no time would harvest be allowed
if existing data and simulated population dynamics models indicate
harvest could potentially compromise Louisiana black bear
sustainability'' (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 55). Additionally, the Black
Bear management plans for Mississippi and Texas (see Factor D below)
are protective of bear populations. Regarding the comment to modify the
PDM plan to specify a specific time period before hunting would be
allowed, we prefer to rely on scientific data to make such decisions.
Post-delisting monitoring is designed to ensure Louisiana black bear
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 reproposing
the species as threatened or endangered is not needed. Monitoring
activities are focused on trends and populations' vital statistics
(e.g., recruitment, survival, genetic exchange, and cause-specific
mortality). Therefore, we have determined that there are adequate
safeguards in place to maintain Louisiana black bear populations into
the future should the LDWF decide to conduct a regulated harvest.
Comment (52): One group, referencing the LDWF Plan, stated that
proven standards are needed by which all proposed hunting programs
should be measured in relation to wildlife sustainability should
hunting be implemented.
Our response: We believe the methods described in the LDWF Plan are
based on sound scientific data. Before harvest would occur, multiple
factors that may affect population sustainability would be considered
such as: subpopulation demographics, reproductive vital rates, genetic
characteristics, and the magnitude of anthropogenic causes of mortality
(Davidson et al. 2015, p. 55). Baseline demographic data would be
established from mortality and survival data, and previous demographic
research including Laufenberg and Clark (2014) (see Peer Review
section). Many states in the southeastern United States conduct
regulated harvest of their black bear populations and continue to
maintain stable populations.
Comment (53): One commenter stated that the Service should have
management agreements with the state agencies before the bear is
delisted.
Our response: We reviewed Louisiana black bear management plans for
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas for the protection offered to the
species and its habitat (see Factor D). We have determined that these
and other existing regulatory mechanisms are, and will continue to be,
adequate to protect
[[Page 13153]]
Louisiana black bears from taking, possession, and trade by State laws
throughout their historical range. Similarly, we find the existing
regulatory mechanisms that currently protect Louisiana black bear
habitat on State-owned lands are adequate to address the threats to the
Louisiana black bear posed by the original listing factors. Therefore,
we have determined no additional management agreements are necessary.
Comment (54): Some commenters may have confused the LDWF Plan with
the PDM plan. They offered comments regarding public involvement and
private landowner involvement, the lack of transparency, and the
Service's apparent granting to LDWF the unsupervised development of
post-delisting management; it was difficult for us to discern to which
document the comments referred. Another commenter stated that the
Service had excluded the BBCC from the PDM and had not operated in
accordance with our guidance.
Our response: We regret that there was confusion regarding the two
plans. To clarify, the PDM plan is a Service document developed in
coordination with the LDWF as required under section 4(g)(1) of the
Act, while the LDWF Plan was developed independently by LDWF. The PDM
plan covers a period of 7 years, while the LDWF Plan is a more long-
term plan.
The LDWF Plan was developed by the LDWF under their State
management authorities, not under Federal authority; the State will
assume long-term management of Louisiana black bears upon delisting.
Upon delisting, as stated in the LDWF Plan: ``it is the responsibility
of LDWF to ensure Louisiana black bear subpopulations persist into the
future.'' The LDWF Plan details current and future courses of action
for promoting the continued persistence and long-term sustainability of
the Louisiana black bear within Louisiana. Individuals having questions
or concerns with the LDWF Plan may contact the LDWF.
Comment (55): We received several comments on the LDWF Plan. Some
commenters stated the LDWF Plan could not be reasonably expected to
maintain the Louisiana black bear from returning to a ``threatened''
status again; others expressed concern that management would be turned
over to the State agency. One believed the LDWF Plan was lacking in
protection because it did not include a good method to identify
females. Another commenter stated that the LDWF Plan is not a statewide
plan but limited to the populations monitored in the PDM and excludes
all bears except the Louisiana black bear leaving those other
subpopulations with no regulatory protection.
Our response: The LDWF Plan includes conservation and management
actions to conserve this species into the future (see our response to
Comment 51), and it applies to all bears, regardless of taxonomic
status occurring within the State of Louisiana. The LDWF submitted a
formal comment stating ``LDWF is prepared to accept full responsibility
for the management of bears in Louisiana, and regulations are in place
that protects all bears--regardless of subspecific designation--within
the state of Louisiana'' (see the State Comments section).
The LDWF Plan was available for public review (see the State
Comments section). In our proposed rule, we stated that the LDWF Plan,
and all literature referenced in our proposed rule, was available from
our office upon request. In addition, the LDWF Plan was presented to
and reviewed by the LWFC in February 2015, subsequently subjected to a
30-day public review and comment period, and published on the LDWF Web
site (www.wlf.louisiana.gov)
immediately thereafter. Finally, this is
not a Service plan, rather it is the LDWF's plan. The Service will work
with the LDWF via the PDM to monitor threats.
Comment (56): Two commenters expressed concern that the PDM plan
was limited only to Louisiana. One commenter questioned why post-
delisting monitoring was limited to only three of the Louisiana
subpopulations. One asserted that the lack of plans for future
reintroductions was a glaring deficiency in the PDM plan. Another
questioned whether the LDWF had the resources to implement their part
of the PDM plan without outside assistance. One commenter expressed
concern that the PDM plan was in draft form and believed the Service
should not go forward with delisting until the PDM plan was finalized.
One commenter stated that there was no public input or input from long-
time partners in the development of the PDM plan and the Service should
re-draft the PDM plan to include such.
Our response: The purpose of the PDM plan is to detect any declines
in Louisiana black bear populations (at extremely early stages) upon
delisting, and it includes threshold triggers that would allow for
corrective actions to be taken before the species would require
protection under the Act. It focuses on the populations and habitat
features that we relied on to demonstrate the black bear's recovery
(e.g., the three subpopulations and habitat in Louisiana). The PDM plan
is not a plan for continued restoration efforts (unless, as identified
during the post-delisting monitoring period, corrective actions are
needed); it is a plan to monitor the status of the Louisiana black bear
upon delisting to ensure the subspecies remains secure. Upon delisting,
the States will be responsible for Louisiana black bear management.
When we developed the PDM plan, implementation costs were considered to
ensure the plan could be implemented as designed. We will stay in close
contact with the LDWF as the PDM plan moves forward.
We published the draft PDM plan with the proposed rule in order to
allow for public input and scientific peer review before it is
finalized. The Service encouraged all partners to use the public
comment period to submit comments on the PDM plan. Comments addressing
the PDM plan have been addressed where appropriate, and the final PDM
plan is available with this delisting action.
Comment (57): One commenter mentioned the need for forest
management guidelines and would like to see them discussed in the PDM
plan--similar to the current ``4(d)'' rule, recognizing that habitat
management is critical for the sustainability of the bear.
Our response: In our evaluation of adequate regulatory mechanisms
for protected lands (e.g., State and Federal-owned lands, permanent
easements), we reviewed the management plans and guidelines for those
habitats to ensure those areas are managed in a way to sustain black
bears (see Factor D). We have added statements to the PDM plan
emphasizing that proper management is an important part of maintaining
a black bear population.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
This section contains updated information and associated analysis
from that presented in the proposed rule (80 FR 29394, May 21, 2015).
Updated information includes data provided as part of public comments
received, recent publications (Puckett et al. 2015), and additional
information received by peer reviewers.
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying
species, or removing species from listed status. ``Species'' is defined
by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife
or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or
wildlife that interbreeds when
[[Page 13154]]
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). We may determine that a species is an
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
We must consider these same five factors in delisting a species.
A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's
definition of endangered or threatened. Determining whether the status
of a species has improved to the point that it can be delisted or
downlisted requires consideration of whether the species is endangered
or threatened because of the five categories of threats specified in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act identified above. For species that are
already listed as endangered or threatened, this analysis of threats is
an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and the
threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the
foreseeable future following the delisting and the removal of the Act's
protections.
A species is an ``endangered species'' for purposes of the Act if
it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range and is a ``threatened species'' if it is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The word ``range'' in the significant
portion of its range phrase refers to the range in which the species
currently exists. For the purposes of this analysis, we first evaluated
whether the currently listed species, the Louisiana black bear, should
be considered endangered or threatened throughout all its range. Then
we considered whether there are any significant portions of the
Louisiana black bear's range where the species is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future.
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 reasonably anticipate events or effects, or reliably extrapolate
threat trends, such that we believe that reliable predictions can be
made concerning the future as it relates to the status of the Louisiana
black bear. In considering the foreseeable future as it relates to the
status of the Louisiana black bear, we considered the factors affecting
the Louisiana black bear, historical abundance trends, and ongoing
conservation efforts.
The following analysis examines all five factors currently
affecting, or that are likely to affect, the Louisiana black bear
within the foreseeable future.
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 stated that it ``meets the criteria for protection under the
Act on the basis of past habitat loss alone'' (57 FR 588, January 7,
1992). It also identified the threat of further 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 below 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 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 capability
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 historical 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
BLH forest 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 BBCC Black Bear Restoration Plan states that the recovery
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 indicate 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), but by 2013, the parish was approximately 18 percent forested
(Oswalt 2013, p. 4).
As stated in Table 1, occupied breeding habitat for the bear at the
time of listing was roughly 340,400 acres (138,000 ha). The current
occupied breeding habitat has grown based on implementation of recovery
actions by the Service and numerous partners to more than 1,800,000
acres (728,435 ha)--more than five times larger--by the end of 2014.
Examples of actions that have helped reduce habitat loss or improve
suitable habitat for the
[[Page 13155]]
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) (see Table 2). The entire 148,000 ac
(60,000 ha) of restored land benefits movement between bear
populations, with approximately 97,000 ac (39,000 ha) directly
benefitting breeding populations (see 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 in the Factor D section),
approximately 638,000 ac (258,000 ha) have been permanently protected
and/or restored within the HRPA in Louisiana (see Table 3) 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.
Although not permanently protected, an additional 122,000 ac
(49,000 ha) of 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 have been protected
within the Service's NWRs, in National Forests, in State WMAs, and on
USDA WRP or other conservation easement sites (King et al. 2006). The
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program provides 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.
Table 4--CRP Within the Louisiana Black Bear Breeding Habitat and
Louisiana Black Bear HRPAs, 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.
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 (see Table 5). A description of the
formal guidance and/or legal documents that direct those management
actions is provided in Factor D. 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 (see Table 6).
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
Basin \1\ \2\
River Basin River Basin Total \2\
\2\ \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 Easements ..............
126,417 .............. 126,417
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.
[[Page 13156]]
\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.
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, traversing
open areas, roads, large waterways, development, and large expanses of
agricultural land, these features 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).
Table 6--Federal and State Natural Resource Management Areas
That Support Louisiana Black Bear Breeding Subpopulations (ac [ha])
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper
Tensas River Atchafalaya Lower Louisiana
Mississippi
Basin \1\ River Basin 2 Atchafalaya total total
\4\ Total
3 River Basin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NWRs.............................................................
160,815 16,030 7,355 184,199
4,383 188,5
[65,079] [6,487] [2,976] [74,543]
[1,774] 82
[76,3
16]
WMAs.............................................................
223,926 49,042 0 272,968 0
272,9
[90,620] [19,846] [110,466]
68
[110,
466]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................
384,741 65,071 7,355 457,167
4,383 461,5
[155,699] [26,333] [2,976] [185,009]
[1,774] 50
[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.
Even bear populations in a relatively large habitat patch are not
necessarily ensured 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 (2014, p. 85) 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. 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 Recovery Criteria discussion).
Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 90) 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).
In east Texas, habitat fragmentation may become a concern 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). However, this area is not currently
supporting breeding populations, and habitat restoration activities
continue in Texas. 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.
[[Page 13157]]
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 the Louisiana black bear. Those areas
will continue to remain permanently protected following publication of
this final rule. Since listing, more than 4,000 ac (1,600 ha) of
Federal land that benefits bears has been acquired, including new NWRs
(such as Bayou Teche NWR in Louisiana in 2001) and other areas. 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 protections of
the Act are removed for the bear, 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.
Table 7--Changes in the Extent of Forested Habitat Coverage Within the
Louisiana Black Bear HRPA Between 1998
and 2013 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern
zone Central zone Southern zone
\2\
(%) \2\ ($) \2\ ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Increase in Forested Landscape \3\................... 11.4
7.6 7.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\
Data were obtained through image classification of digital orthophoto
quarter quadrangles (DOQQs; digital
orthorectified aerial photography produced at a spatial resolution of 1
meter by the U.S. Geological Survey).
Analysis sites were selected to avoid potential bias against landscape
features that could result in an
underestimation of, or failure to detect, forested habitat losses
(e.g., sites with a relatively high
proportion of open water, agricultural fields, publicly owned
properties, or perpetual conservation
easements).
\2\ These zones correspond to the general geographic location of our
habitat assessment sites within the large-
scale monitoring grid presented in the Service's Post-Delisting
Monitoring Plan for the Louisiana Black Bear
(Service 2016, p. 62, Figure 4).
\3\ Percentages rather than acreages are provided because only a portion
of the overall landscape was evaluated.
The intent of this assessment is to evaluate habitat trends and not to
calculate absolute habitat values.
Table 8--Forested Habitat Changes in Acres [and Hectares]
Between 2001 and 2011 \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001-2011 Changes in Landcover within the
Upper Lower
Louisiana Black Bear Habitat Restoration Tensas River
Atchafalaya Atchafalaya Total
planning area Basin
River Basin River Basin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crops/Open
Water/Other Non-Habitat.............. -1,833.78 -2,857.42
-4,047.68 -8,738.88
[-742.11]
[-1,156.36] [1,638.04] [-3,536.51]
Development..................................... 521.93
181.44 362.91 1,066.28
[211.22]
[73.43] [146.86] [431.51]
Potential Louisiana Black Bear Habitat.......... 1,311.85
2,675.99 3,684.77 7,672.61
[530.89
[1,082.94] [1,491.18] [3,105.00]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\
As detected through satellite-based image classification produced at a
spatial resolution of 30 meters
within the Louisiana Black Bear Habitat Restoration Planning Area
(ac[ha]). The classified image data are
formally termed NLCD and are a national land cover product created by
the Multi-Resolution Land
Characteristics Consortium.
\2\ NLCD habitat classes considered potentially suitable for the
Louisiana black bear include: Deciduous forest,
woody wetlands, mixed forest, evergreen forest, shrub/scrub, emergent
herbaceous wetlands, and grassland/
herbaceous.
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 as described in Factor D. 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. 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 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) 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.
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 Atchafalaya Basin Floodway (Corps
1982, p. 29). Partly in response to the threat of land-use conversion
and the potential to affect its potential use as a floodway, the Corps'
Atchafalaya Basin Multi-Purpose Plant 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
[[Page 13158]]
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 these lands from existing uses (e.g.,
conversion of forested lands to cropland). Hunting and fishing camp
development as well as 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. These changes could ultimately expand the amount of
suitable habitat for the UARB and LARB subpopulations, and improve the
habitat linkage and genetic exchange between those subpopulations.
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/
).
Table 9--Human Population Projections for Louisiana Parishes Within the Louisiana Black Bear Habitat Restoration
Planning Area \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Population Number
Parish projection for projection for population Percent
2015 2030 change population change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avoyelles.................................... 42,550 42,380 -170 -0.40
Catahoula.................................... 9,400 7,720 -1,680 -17.87
Concordia.................................... 17,160 13,930 -3,230 -18.82
East Carroll................................. 7,600 5,960 -1,640 -21.58
Franklin..................................... 18,450 15,460 -2,990 -16.21
Iberia....................................... 75,990 75,450 -540 -0.71
Iberville.................................... 29,350 24,640 -4,710 -16.05
Madison...................................... 10,470 8,230 -2,240 -21.39
Pointe Coupee................................ 21,560 19,380 -2,180 -10.11
Richland..................................... 19,260 17,460 -1,800 -9.35
St. Landry................................... 94,420 98,080 3,660 3.88
St. Martin................................... 54,250 57,000 2,750 5.07
St. Mary..................................... 47,410 40,390 -7,020 -14.81
Tensas....................................... 5,200 3,990 -1,210 -23.27
West Baton Rouge............................. 22,540 21,070 -1,470 -6.52
West Carroll................................. 10,750 9,190 -1,560 -14.51
West Feliciana............................... 15,250 14,260 -990 -6.49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Projected Population Change over the Next 15 Years in the 17 Parishes
Included in the Louisiana Black Bear HRPA.................-27,020...........
Average Percent Projected Population Change over the Next 15 Years in the 17
Parishes Included in the Louisiana Black Bear HRPA........-11.13%...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were considered in all projections. Data represent the ``Middle
Series'' scenario provided by the State of Louisiana, Office of Information Technology, Division of
Administration (http://louisiana.gov/Explore/Population_Projections; downloaded on December 4, 2014).
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). 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 13159]]
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 historical trends.
A substantial amount of private land that supports Louisiana black
bears 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). 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 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). Following the
listing of the Louisiana black bear, more than 460,000 ac (186,000 ha)
of available and restored habitat is now held in Federal and State
ownership, and a substantial portion of restored habitats are protected
with perpetual non-developmental easements (through the WRP or wetland
mitigation banking programs). Additionally, remnant and restored
forested wetlands are protected through applicable conservation
regulations (e.g., section 404 of the CWA). We conclude that the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range does not constitute a substantial threat to the
Louisiana black bear now and is not expected to in the foreseeable
future.
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,
endangered in Mississippi in 1984, and threatened in Texas in 1987)
(refer to the Factor D section for further discussions on regulatory
mechanisms).
Hunting in the Future: When this final rule goes into effect, the
Louisiana black bear will be delisted and the protection afforded under
the Act removed; however, the bear will remain protected under State
laws within its range, and the State penalties for poaching or harming
a bear will remain in place (see Factor D discussion) (Davidson et al.
2015, p. 57). These provisions include protections that would remain in
place for all bear species. However, the legal harvest of bears, with
approval from the LWFC, 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).
The LDWF will consider the possibility of a limited hunt only 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 if
those models that indicate a harvest would not compromise Louisiana
black bear sustainability (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
will be based on the extensive data and monitoring methods developed by
LDWF and described in the PDM plan. The LDWF 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 LWFC 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 seven documented
mortalities incidental to research activities (Davidson and Murphy
2015, pp. 1-2) and eight euthanizations due to management actions
(e.g., conditioning to anthropogenic food sources and subsequent human
habitation; Davidson and Murphy 2015, p. 1). In Mississippi, two
research-related deaths have occurred since listing (Rummel 2015,
personal communication). However, this small number of mortalities
occurring from research activities or removal due to public safety
concerns does not represent a threat to the Louisiana black bear
population.
Summary of Factor B
Recreational hunting is not a threat because there has been no
existing functional mechanism to hunt or take bears in the States in
their range since 1984 (refer to Factor E discussion for a discussion
of mortality due to poaching). Also, when this rule goes into effect as
specified above in DATES, 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).
[[Page 13160]]
Therefore, the associated protections afforded to the American black
bear due to similarity of appearance with the Louisiana black bear 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 these provisions, we do not have any
evidence to suggest that overutilization is a threat to the Louisiana
black bear.
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, January 7, 1992). 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 on population growth due to
the polygamous (having more than one mate) mating system of bears
(Rogers 1987, p. 55). O'Brien'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.
During the period extending from 1992 through 2014, researchers
documented 11 black bear mortalities as a result of sickness or injury
(Davidson and Murphy 2015, p. 1).
Summary of Factor C
We have no evidence or data indicating that disease or predation
present a threat to the Louisiana black bear population.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Overharvest was identified as one of the factors that resulted in
low Louisiana black bear numbers. When this rule goes into effect,
protections afforded by the Act will be removed; however, Louisiana
black bears will remain protected from take 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).
Louisiana: As stated above, when this rule goes into effect,
Louisiana black bears will remain 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. The LDWF will be the sole agency
responsible for Louisiana black bear management in Louisiana when the
bear is delisted with publication of this final rule. The removal of
the Louisiana black bear from protections under the Act will not alter
or negate State laws or lessen penalties protecting the bear. In
Louisiana, there are nine laws and regulations authorized under
Louisiana Title 56 and Louisiana Title 76 regulating and setting
violation classes for such actions as taking, possessing, and feeding
fish and wildlife under their protection (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 (Davidson 2015, personal communication; note--these represent
prosecutions that are a different number from enforcement actions that
they were not able to carry out to full prosecution). Operation Game
Thief (OGT) is a nonprofit 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 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 Plan (Davidson
et al. 2015, pp. 32-33, 55-56).
Mississippi: The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Parks will be the agency responsible for black bear management in
Mississippi when this rule goes into effect. 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 covers black bear habitat management and restoration needs,
[[Page 13161]]
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 when this rule goes into effect. 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). No Louisiana black bear breeding
populations are believed to currently 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 (WMAs) 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 2014b). 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 state and federally
listed 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.
National Wildlife Refuges: The NWRs shown in Table 10 occur within
the Louisiana HRPA and the Mississippi MAVU. 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 a 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 and are
listed below: 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
2008a, 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).
Table 10--Extent of NWR Lands Occurring Within the LA HRPA and the MS
MAVU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres Hectares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana NWRs
Atchafalaya NWR..................... 15,764 6,379
Bayou Cocodrie NWR.................. 15,149 6,131
Bayou Teche NWR..................... 9,004 3,644
Tensas River NWR.................... 77,956 31,548
Lake Ophelia NWR.................... 17,427 7,052
-------------------------------
Louisiana Total................. 135,300 54,754
Mississippi NWRs
Coldwater River NWR................. 283 115
Hillside NWR........................ 15,498 6,272
Matthews Brake NWR.................. 2,393 968
Morgan Brake NWR.................... 7,585 3,070
Panther Swamp NWR................... 40,859 16,535
St. Catherine Creek NWR............. 25,384 10,273
Tallahatchie NWR.................... 24 10
Theodore Roosevelt NWR.............. 6,019 2,436
Yazoo NWR........................... 13,050 5,281
-------------------------------
Mississippi Total............... 111,095 44,959
-------------------------------
TOTAL FOR BOTH STATES....... 246,395 99,713
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13162]]
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 of protecting south Louisiana from
Mississippi River floods and retaining and restoring 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 federally listed threatened and
endangered species. The WRP is administered by the 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 the 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 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 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;
(4) result in equal or greater ecological (and economic) values to
the U.S. Government;
(5) further the purposes of the program and address a compelling
public need; and
(6) 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 (PFWA) Regulations: The PFWA 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
[[Page 13163]]
provides technical and financial assistance to private landowners to
conduct 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-ac (49-ha) 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 regulated only 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 the new legal
protection of forested wetlands defined via the Avoyelles Sportsmen's
League rulings on CWA authority, the trend 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).
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 (see 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 to query such records prior to that time. Note 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 Corps' 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 13164]]
Table 11--Impacts (Positive/Negative) to Potentially Suitable Louisiana Black Bear Habitat Resulting From
Permitted Losses and Mitigation Gains Through the Corps' Wetland Regulatory Program \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Orleans Vicksburg
Impacts District District Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Permits Issued via the Corps' Wetland Regulatory Program for Projects in Potentially Suitable Bear
Habitat Within the Louisiana Black Bear Habitat Restoration Planning Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects Resulting in Permanent Impacts......................... 137 79 216
Projects Resulting in Temporary Impacts......................... 411 32 443
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 548 111 659
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres of Potentially Suitable Bear Habitat within the Louisiana Black Bear Habitat Restoration Planning Area
Impacted/Lost by Projects Permitted via the Corps' Wetland Regulatory Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent Impacts............................................... 221.8 37.8 259.6
Temporary Impacts............................................... 262.7 10.0 272.7
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 484.5 47.8 532.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation New Orleans Vicksburg Total
District
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Banks Approved by the 7 7 14
Corps within the Louisiana Black Bear Habitat Restoration
Planning Area..................................................
Acres of All Habitats Restored, Enhanced, and Preserved via 2,633.8 2,630.7 5,264.5
Wetland Mitigation Banking within the Louisiana Black Bear [1,065.86] [1,064.61] [2,130.47]
Habitat Restoration Planning Area..............................
Acres of Forested Habitat Restored via Wetland Mitigation 2,323.3 2,538.7 4,862.0
Banking within the Louisiana Black Bear Habitat Restoration [940.2] [1,027.3] [1,967.6]
Planning Area..................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Net Acres of Forested Habitat Gained........................ 1,838.8 2,490.9 4,329.7
[744.2] [1,008.0] [1752.2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Analysis conducted by the Service's Louisiana Field Office based on regulatory program data (from a 5-year
period spanning July 1, 2009 through July 31, 2014) provided by the New Orleans and Vicksburg Corps Districts.
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 (see 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 and
population viability 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. 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 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.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Hybridization: At the time the Service listed the Louisiana black
bear, we discussed what appeared to be a threat from hybridization
resulting from the introduction of bears from Minnesota (57 FR 588,
January 7, 1992). 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 probability of reproductive isolation since they were
relatively close geographically. Reproductive isolation is required for
an extended period for
[[Page 13165]]
the evolutionary process of differentiation to operate (57 FR 588,
January 7, 1992). Prior to listing, Pelton (1989, p. 5) argued there
was considerable evidence that a pure strain of U. a. luteolus
subspecies no longer existed because: (1) There was a broad continuum
of habitat between the TRB and UARB populations (based on Weaver's
[1990] maps); (2) habitat corridors still existed [1989] between those
areas allowing for continued dispersal; (3) bear releases in Arkansas
resulted in widespread dispersals; (4) the presence of narrow dispersal
corridors through Arkansas following such rivers as the Ouachita and
Saline Rivers were still being used by transplant offspring and
evidence of use had been observed all the way to the Louisiana border;
and (5) long-distance natural movements of bears had been documented.
Based on historical descriptions of the UARB release area, we believe
it is very likely there was no known breeding population in that area
at the time of the releases; however, it is not determinable whether
that area was ``bear-free'' as supposed by the commenter. Subsequent
taxonomic studies conducted since listing have revealed differing
results on the extent of hybridization.
Our knowledge of bear behavior coupled with the habitat in
existence at that time would support the presence of males in or
traveling through that area. This, in combination with the findings
presented by Laufenberg and Clark (2014, pp. 60-63), would support our
assumption that the UARB is not strictly composed of Minnesota bears
and our inclusion of that subpopulation in our recovery assessment.
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; the data do not
indicate that the UARB subpopulation is completely composed of
Minnesota bears), 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 contribution to the
Louisiana black bear (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 85) (see the
Distribution and Taxonomy section).
Human-Related Mortality: 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.
Vehicular Collisions/Deaths and Bears Taken for Management Reasons:
Since listing in 1992, at least 239 black bears have been documented as
killed in vehicular collisions in Louisiana (USGS et al. 2014) and 11
bears have been 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 food sources (Davidson et al. 2015, p.
15). Since listing, the LDWF and Service have recognized the need for
rapid response to human-bear conflicts in order to maintain social
tolerance by the communities where bears and people coexist and to
prevent habituation of nuisance behavior by bears. However, 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 bears since 1992 (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 15).
Illegal Killing: The listing rule for the Louisiana black bear (57
FR 588, January 7, 1992) identified illegal killing as a potential
threat to this species that could not be ruled out until better data
could be obtained. The majority of illegal killings have been the
result of direct poaching; however, there have been 4 documented
mortalities incidental to the use of snares in Louisiana for nuisance
animal control (Davidson and Murphy 2015, p. 1). Since 1992, there have
been 33 documented illegal bear killings in Louisiana (Davidson and
Murphy 2015, p. 1) and 9 documented in Mississippi (Rummel 2015,
personal communication). If all other documented deaths of unknown
causes (40) are assumed to be the result of illegal taking, a total of
75 bears have been documented as killed since listing (Davidson and
Murphy 2015, p. 1). Taken altogether, since Federal listing,
approximately 350 individual Louisiana black bears are known to have
been killed as a result of anthropogenic conflicts in Louisiana (USGS
et al. 2014). In Mississippi, 22 bears have been reported killed
(Rummel 2015, personal communication). In summary, an average of
approximately 15 bears per year have succumbed to anthropogenic causes
of mortality since 1992 in Louisiana (Davidson and Murphy 2015, p. 1)
and approximately 1 bear per year in Mississippi (Rummel 2015, personal
communication). The total annual documented non-road kill mortality of
black bears in Louisiana has remained at a low level from 1991 through
2014 (Davidson and Murphy 2015, p. 2). Documented annual road kill
mortalities began increasing about 2009 and have remained relatively
high, primarily along the I-20 corridor (Davidson and Murphy 2015, pp.
2-3), coinciding with the time when the TRB bear population was
increasing.
Hurricanes and Tropical Storms: 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.
These storms can also have additional negative effects to
[[Page 13166]]
the LARB subpopulation due to its proximity to the coast; however,
these effects 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 surge in the
Southeast. If hurricane events occur during the 7-year PDM period, we
will assist our State partners in monitoring the possible effects of
these hurricanes (e.g., vegetation changes from flooding).
Climate Change: 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 effects of
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 the ongoing effects of
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 the effects of climate change. Many species will
be unable to relocate rapidly enough to keep up with their climate
niche under the effects of 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 projected 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 projected 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 in Davidson et al.
2015, p. 24). In the event habitat is lost due to the effects of
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 effects of 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 was 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
[[Page 13167]]
percent of the Louisiana black bear HRPA, more than 90 percent of
Louisiana black bear breeding habitat, 85 percent of the area described
as 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 occurred only twice, in
1973 and 2011). The 2011 operation of the Morganza Flood Control
Structure coincidentally occurred during an ongoing 6-year 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-Goode 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-Goode 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-Goode 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-Goode 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 the effects of climate change are 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.
Overall Summary of Factors Affecting the Louisiana Black Bear
The primary factors that led to the Louisiana black bear's listing
under the Act were 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. An
indirect result of habitat fragmentation was isolation of the already
small bear populations, subjecting them to threats from factors such as
demographic stochasticity and inbreeding. We have carefully assessed
the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the
threats faced by the Louisiana black bear. These threats have been
removed or ameliorated by the actions of multiple conservation partners
over the last 20 years. 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) (see Table 1). We expect
conservation efforts will continue to support persistent recovered
Louisiana black bear populations post-delisting and into the future, as
described above. Based on this assessment of factors potentially
impacting the subspecies and its habitat, the current status of the
population (increasing abundance, increasing number and distribution of
subpopulations, genetic interchange between subpopulations and the
overall long-term viability of the metapopulation), 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.
Determination
An assessment of the need for a species' protection under the Act
is based on whether a species is in danger of extinction or likely to
become so because of any of five factors described in the Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species. As required by section 4(a)(1) of the
Act, we conducted a review of the status of this species and assessed
the five factors to evaluate whether the Louisiana black bear is
endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. We examined the
best scientific and commercial information available regarding the
past, present, and future threats faced by the Louisiana black bear and
its habitat. We reviewed the information available in our files and
other available published and unpublished information, and we consulted
with recognized experts and other Federal, State, and Tribal agencies.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the exposure causes actual impacts to the species. If there is
exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response,
that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to
determine how significant the threat is. If the threat is significant,
it may drive,
[[Page 13168]]
or contribute to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are
defined by the Act. This determination does not necessarily require
empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some
corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could
suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species
negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is
appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are operative
threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the
definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the
Act.
During our analysis, we did not identify any factors that reach a
magnitude that threaten the continued existence of the species.
Significant impacts at the time of listing that could have resulted in
the extirpation of all or parts of populations have been eliminated or
reduced since listing, and we do not expect any of these conditions to
substantially change post-delisting and into the foreseeable future. We
conclude that the previously recognized impacts to the Louisiana black
bear from the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range and effects of climate change
(Factors A and E), and isolation from genetic exchange (Factor E), have
been ameliorated or reduced such that the Louisiana black bear is no
longer in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its
range. We, therefore, conclude that the Louisiana black bear is no
longer in danger of extinction throughout its range, nor is it likely
to become so in the foreseeable future.
Significant Portion of the Range Analysis
Background
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 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.
We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is
not a determination that the species is endangered or threatened
throughout a significant portion of its range--rather, it is a step in
determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required.
If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and
(2) endangered or threatened, we engage in a more detailed analysis to
determine whether these standards are indeed met. The identification of
an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other
determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is
endangered or threatened. We must go through a separate analysis to
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened in the SPR.
To determine whether a species is endangered or threatened throughout
an SPR, we will use the same standards and methodology that we use to
determine if a species is endangered or threatened throughout its
range.
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats
it faces, it may be more efficient to address the ``significant''
question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine
that a portion of the range is
[[Page 13169]]
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.''
SPR Analysis for Louisiana Black Bear
Applying the process described above for the Louisiana black bear,
we have already determined that the species is no longer endangered or
threatened throughout its range. We next identified portions of the
Louisiana black bear's range that may be significant, and examined
whether any threats are geographically concentrated in some way that
would indicate that those portions of the range may be in danger of
extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. 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 population, providing the
primary contributions to the conservation of the species, 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).
As discussed above, estimates of persistance probability over 100 years
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). While these two
subpopulations may be significant, information and analyses indicates
that the species is unlikely to be in danger of extinction or to become
so in the foreseeable future in these portions. Therefore, these
portions do not warrant further consideration to determine whether they
are a significant portion of its range.
We next examined whether any threats are geographically
concentrated in some way that would indicate the species could be in
danger of extinction, or likely to become so, in that area. 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 potential 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's 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 in 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 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 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 inundation
and more food sources).
Additionally, range expansion by bears from the northern
subpopulations would take advantage of the improved 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 would likely move into more
suitable areas. Additionally, any long-term threat of sea level rise
would likely 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. Although this
portion of the range may have a concentration of threats, the
subpopulation is currently stable or increasing. However, the lack of
data make it difficult to predict long-term viability for this portion
of the range, but if the current stability or increasing size
continues, it is unlikely that the subspecies would be in danger of
extinction (or likely to become so) in this portion of its range.
Additionally, the long-term viability estimates for the TRB and UARB
subpopulations (greater than 95 percent for over 100 years), which make
up the majority of the overall Louisiana black bear population, make is
unlikely that the loss of the LARB subpopuation would cause the
Louisiana black bear to be in danger of extinction, or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range. Because we
conclude the available information does not indicate that this portion
may be both in danger of extinction and likely to be significant, this
portion does not warrant further consideration.
We also evaluated whether the other occurrences in Mississippi and
northern Louisiana that we cannot currently consider self-sustaining,
and may therefore have a higher risk of extinction, could be considered
a significant portion of the species' range. We determined that those
subpopulations have formed as the result of emigration from nearby
subpopulations and are not genetically unique (in other words, they do
not contribute substantially to the genetic diversity or representation
of the species). These subpopulations indicate the health of their
parent subpopulations, but are not so large themselves that their loss
would affect the health or conservation status of the other
subpopulations. These areas, individually or collectively, are
therefore unlikely to constitute a significant portion of the species'
range.
Surveys indicate that Louisiana black bear subpopulations have been
maintained and are well-established and that remaining factors that may
affect the Louisiana black bear occur at
[[Page 13170]]
similarly low levels throughout its range. Some factors may continue to
affect Louisiana black bear, but would do so at uniformly low levels
across the subspecies' range such that they are unlikely to result in
adverse effects to subpopulations of the subspecies and do not
represent a concentration of threats that may indicate the species
could be threatened or endangered in a particular area. Therefore,
based on the best scientific and commercial data available, no portion
warrants further consideration to determine whether the subspecies may
be endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range.
Summary
In conclusion, we find that the Louisiana black bear is no longer
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, nor is it likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, at this time, the Louisiana black bear no longer meets the
definitions of endangered or threatened under the Act, and we are
removing the Louisiana black bear from the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife.
Conservation Measures
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for
all species that have been delisted due to recovery. 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 under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. 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.
Post-Delisting Monitoring (PDM) Plan Overview
The purpose of this post-delisting monitoring is to verify that a
species remains secure from risk of extinction after it has been
removed from the protections of the Act. The monitoring is designed to
detect the failure of any delisted species to sustain itself without
the protective measures provided by the Act. Section 4(g) of the Act
explicitly requires us to cooperate with the States in development and
implementation of post-delisting monitoring programs, but we remain
responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and, therefore, must
remain actively engaged in all phases of post-delisting monitoring. We
also seek active participation of other entities that are expected to
assume responsibilities for the species' conservation post-delisting.
The Service developed a final PDM plan in cooperation with the LDWF
(Service 2016). The PDM plan is designed to verify that the Louisiana
black bear remains secure from the risk of extinction after removal
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by
detecting changes in its status and habitat throughout its known range.
The PDM plan consists of: (1) A summary of the species' status at the
time of delisting; (2) an outline of the roles of PDM cooperators; (3)
a description of monitoring methods; (4) an outline of the frequency
and duration of monitoring; (5) an outline of data compilation and
reporting procedures; and (6) a definition of thresholds or triggers
for potential monitoring outcomes and conclusions of the PDM effort.
The PDM plan provides for monitoring Louisiana black bear
populations following the same sampling protocol used by the LDWF and
USGS prior to delisting. Monitoring will consist of two components: (1)
Population demographics and vital statistics monitoring consisting of:
regular live-capture (including collection of genetic material), radio-
collaring, winter den checks, and radio-telemetry monitoring to
estimate recruitment, survival, genetic exchange, and cause-specific
mortality in a timely manner; and non-invasive mark-recapture methods
to estimate change in population size, apparent survival, per-capita
recruitment, and genetic exchange for future viability analyses, and if
needed, maintaining a database of reliable public sightings to track
geographic distribution; and (2) a habitat-based component consisting
of periodic assessments of habitat abundance, persistence, and any
changes in protection using interpretation of remotely sensed data and
updated GIS information (e.g., conservation easements) range-wide
within the HRPA and in specific geographic areas supporting and
surrounding the TRB, TRC, UARB, and LARB subpopulations of the
Louisiana black bear. The methods described below were developed based
on the best known methods currently available. Should newer methods for
population monitoring or habitat trend assessment become available
during the post-deleting monitoring period that may improve our ability
to better evaluate trends, those methods would be explored. 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.
Multiple monitoring strategies will be used for the individual
subpopulations in order to ensure that demographics and habitat status
will be captured at differing time periods and scale, respectively.
Because the TRB and UARB subpopulations were identified as necessary
for recovery and delisting (Service 1995, p. 14) of the subspecies,
intensive monitoring will occur annually for 7 years within each of
these subpopulations following the delisting of the subspecies to
monitor Louisiana black bear population vital rates. Although
monitoring of the TRC and LARB subpopulations will occur during the 7-
year period, it will be less intensive than that of the monitoring for
TRB and UARB.
The final PDM plan identifies measurable management thresholds and
responses for detecting and reacting to significant changes in
Louisiana black bear protected habitat, distribution, and persistence.
If monitoring detects declines equaling or exceeding these thresholds,
the Service in combination with the LDWF and other partners will
investigate causes of these declines, including considerations of
habitat changes, substantial human persecution, stochastic events, or
any other significant evidence. Such investigation will determine if
the Louisiana black bear warrants expanded monitoring, additional
research, additional habitat protection, or relisting as an endangered
or a threatened species under the Act.
We will post the final PDM plan and any future revisions on our
national Web site (http://endangered.fws.gov) and on the Louisiana Fish
and Wildlife Office's Web site (http://www.fws.gov/lafayette).
[[Page 13171]]
Effects of the Rule
This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing the Louisiana
black bear from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
In addition, the rule revises 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 final delisting of the Louisiana black bear,
such a designation would no longer be necessary. Therefore, as of the
effective date of this rule (see DATES), the prohibitions and
conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through
sections 7 and 9, no longer apply to either the American black bear or
the Louisiana black bear. Removal of the Louisiana black bear from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife relieves Federal
agencies from the need to consult with us under section 7 of the Act.
This final rule also revises 50 CFR 17.40(i) by removing regulatory
provisions specific to the Louisiana black bear and Sec. 17.95(a) by
removing the designated critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear.
Required Determinations
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This rule will
not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local
governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency 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 environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the
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 rule.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is
available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-
0014, or upon request from the Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are staff members of the Service's
Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Service Office (see ADDRESSES and FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
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; 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: March 2, 2016.
James W. Kurth,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-05206 Filed 3-10-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P