Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus), 25354-25395 [E8-9635]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 6, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25354-25395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9635]



[[Page 25353]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Services



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for the Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus); 
Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 6, 2008 / Proposed 
Rules

[[Page 25354]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R4-ES-2008-0047; 92210-1117-0000-FY08-B4]
RIN 1018-AV52


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus 
luteolus)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Concurrently, we 
withdraw our December 2, 1993, proposal for Louisiana black bear 
critical habitat (58 FR 63560). In total, approximately 1,330,000 acres 
(538,894 hectares (ha)) fall within the boundaries of this proposed 
critical habitat designation. The proposed critical habitat is located 
in Avoyelles, East Carroll, Catahoula, Concordia, Franklin, Iberia, 
Iberville, Madison, Pointe Coupee, Richland, St. Martin, St. Mary, 
Tensas, West Carroll, and West Feliciana Parishes, Louisiana.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before July 
7, 2008. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at 
the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by June 20, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2008-0047; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section 
below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Boggs, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Office, 646 
Cajundome Boulevard, Suite 400, Lafayette, LA 70506; telephone 337-291-
3100; facsimile [337-291-3139]. If you use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) 
at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or suggestions on this proposed rule. We particularly seek 
comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether the benefit of designation would outweigh 
threats to the species caused by the designation, such that the 
designation of critical habitat is prudent.
    (2) Specific information on:
     The amount and distribution of Louisiana black bear 
habitat,
     What areas occupied at the time of listing that contain 
features essential for the conservation of the species we should 
include in the designation and why,
     What areas not occupied at the time of listing are 
essential to the conservation of the species and why, and
     Data or comments to assist us in more clearly defining and 
delineating critical habitat boundaries.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts resulting from the proposed designation, and, in particular, 
any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or 
excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
    (5) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    (6) Whether the benefits of exclusion of any particular area from 
critical habitat would outweigh the benefits of inclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and more specifically, whether U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) Wetland Reserve Program permanent easements on 
privately owned lands provide sufficient protection and management to 
satisfy the criteria necessary for exclusion from critical habitat 
(i.e., the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion).
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in 
the ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted 
on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes 
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this information from public review. However, 
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all 
hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Louisiana Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For more 
information on the threatened Louisiana black bear or its habitat, 
refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on 
January 7, 1992 (57 FR 588), and to our 1995 final recovery plan, which 
is available online at https://www.regulations.gov or from the Louisiana 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    This proposal replaces our original critical habitat proposal for 
the Louisiana black bear published on December 2, 1993 (58 FR 63560). 
In that rule, we proposed three critical habitat units encompassing 
most of the Lower Mississippi River Valley in Louisiana: (1) Tensas 
River Basin (1,671,782 ac (676,546 ha)), a small portion of which was 
located in the State of Mississippi lying west of the Mississippi River 
Main channel; (2) Atchafalaya Floodway (978,279 ac (395,895 ha)); and 
(3) Lower Iberia-St. Mary Parish (364,770 ac (147,617 ha)). The total 
area within the proposed boundary was approximately 3 million acres 
(1,220,058 ha), of which approximately 1.25 million acres (505,857 ha) 
were estimated to contain the essential physical and biological 
features. There has been a significant amount of new information 
gathered

[[Page 25355]]

about this subspecies and its habitat since 1993. We are therefore 
withdrawing our original December 2, 1993, proposal to consider that 
new information and to comply with a September 5, 2007, order from the 
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (see Previous 
Federal Actions section).
    The Louisiana black bear is one of 16 subspecies of the American 
black bear (Ursus americanus). The black bear is a large, bulky mammal 
with long black hair and a short, well-haired tail. The facial profile 
is blunt, the eyes small, and the nose pad broad with large nostrils. 
There are five toes with short, curved claws on the front and hind 
feet. Although weight varies considerably throughout their range, adult 
male black bears can weigh more than 600 pounds (lbs) (272 kilograms 
(kg)); adult females generally weigh less than 300 lbs (136 kg) (Pelton 
1982, p. 504). The median estimated weights for male and female 
Louisiana black bears in north Louisiana were 292 lbs (133 kg) and 147 
lbs (67 kg) respectively (Weaver 1999, p. 26).
    Bear activity revolves primarily around the search for food, water, 
cover, and mates during the breeding season. Bears are best described 
as opportunistic feeders, as they eat almost anything that is 
available; thus, they are typically omnivorous (Pelton 1982, p. 504). 
Their diet varies seasonally and includes primarily succulent 
vegetation during spring, fruits and grains in summer, and hard mast 
(such as acorns and pecans) during fall (Weaver 1999, pp. 149, 157). 
Black bears utilize all levels of the forest for feeding; they can 
gather foods from tree tops and vines, but also grub in fallen logs for 
insects. The growth rate, maximum size, breeding age, litter size, and 
cub survival of black bears are all correlated with nutrition (Black 
Bear Conservation Committee (BBCC) 1997, p. 17).
    Home range sizes vary annually and seasonally (BBCC 2005, p. 11) 
and home range configuration appears to be influenced by available 
forest cover (Marchinton 1995, p. 48). Black bears do not truly 
hibernate, but go through a dormancy period termed ``carnivoran 
lethargy,'' which is a period of torpor which helps them survive food 
shortages and severe weather during the winter. In warmer climates, 
such as in Louisiana, bears can remain active all winter (Wagner 1995, 
pp. 24-25). Bears den in heavy cover or tree cavities during the winter 
months (Weaver 1999, p. 118) and den type may vary depending on the 
habitat. Cubs are born in winter dens at the end of January or the 
beginning of February (Weaver 1990, p. 5). Bears may enter dens between 
November and early January depending on latitude, available food, sex, 
age, and local weather conditions (Weaver 1990, p. 6). Adult females 
generally enter the den first, followed by subadults and adult males. 
At the end of the dormancy period, females with cubs are usually the 
last to leave the den. Adult male bears generally have home ranges 3 to 
8 times larger than adult females (Pelton 1982, p. 507) and have been 
observed to travel up to 35 miles (mi) (56 kilometers (km)) from their 
capture site (BBCC 2005, p. 11). Changes in food resources can provide 
the stimulus for extensive movements (Pelton 1982, p. 507). 
Additionally, older adult males exert social pressure on younger bears, 
especially during the spring and summer breeding season, forcing them 
to disperse to other areas (Pelton 1982, p. 507).
    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 (BBCC 
2005, p. 21). We use the term BLH forest community with no particular 
inference to hydrologic influence; we use this term to mean forests 
within southeastern United States floodplains which can consist of a 
number of woody species occupying positions of dominance and co-
dominance (BBCC 1997, p. 15). Other habitat types may be utilized, 
including marsh; upland forested areas; forested spoil areas along 
bayous, brackish marsh, and freshwater marsh; salt domes; and 
agricultural fields (Nyland 1995, p. 48; Weaver 1999, p. 157). Large 
cavity trees (especially cypress or tupelo gum) that are commonly found 
along water courses are important for denning.
    The Louisiana black bear was once a common inhabitant of forested 
areas in east Texas, Louisiana, and southern Mississippi (BBCC 1997, p. 
10). Bear densities were likely highest within BLH and oak-hickory 
forest communities where hard mast production was greater than in other 
habitats (BBCC 1997, p. 12). While Hall included the southernmost 
counties in Arkansas as part of the historic range (1981, p. 950), 
there were no data to support doing so at the time of listing; 
accordingly, Arkansas is not considered part of the listed range 
(January 7, 1992; 57 FR 588).
    The Louisiana black bear was listed as threatened under the Act on 
January 7, 1992 (57 FR 588), due to extensive habitat loss and 
modification, as well as the ongoing threats of continued habitat 
modification and human-related mortality. More than 80 percent of 
suitable Louisiana black bear habitat had been lost by the time of 
listing (1992) primarily due to clearing land for agriculture (Weaver 
1990, p. 1); the remaining habitat quality had been reduced by 
fragmentation and human activities. At that time, Louisiana black bears 
were generally known to occur in the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial 
Valley BLH forest communities of the Tensas River Basin of northeastern 
Louisiana and the Atchafalaya River Basin in central and southern 
Louisiana (Weaver 1990, p. 2; BBCC, 1997, p. 12); however, occupied 
habitat had not been definitively delineated. Those forest communities 
were likely sites for population persistence due to their remoteness 
and habitat productivity (BBCC 1997, p. 13). All known breeding 
populations were believed to be demographically isolated at the time of 
listing (BBCC 1997, p. 10). Bears had been occasionally reported in 
Louisiana outside of these areas, but it was unknown if those bears 
were reproducing females or only wandering subadults and adult males. 
Black bears were also known to exist in Mississippi along the 
Mississippi River (Weaver 1990, p. 2) and smaller areas in the lower 
East Pearl River and lower Pascagoula River basins of southern 
Mississippi (Weaver 1990, p. 2). The last native breeding group in 
Mississippi was last documented about 1980 (Nowak 1986, p. 7). Except 
for wanderers, the bear has not appeared in eastern Texas for many 
years (Nowak 1986, p. 7).
    We use the term ``breeding habitat'' for the Louisiana black bear 
to indicate areas with physical evidence of reproduction (young, 
females with young, or lactating females). Louisiana black bear 
resource managers and biologists commonly refer to such areas as 
occupied habitat (USFWS 1995, p. 2; BBCC 1997, p. 72); however, we will 
use the term ``occupied habitat'' to indicate the subspecies' presence 
in an area at the time of listing. In contrast to sightings of adults 
without reproductive information, reproduction is considered evidence 
of a resident bear population. Dispersal by female black bears is 
uncommon and typically is of a short distance (Rogers 1987, p. 43). 
Male black bear home ranges usually encompass several female home 
ranges (Rogers 1987, p. 19). For instance, in the Tensas population, 
most male Louisiana black bear home ranges (95 percent minimum convex 
polygon (MCP)) were observed to include numerous female

[[Page 25356]]

home ranges (Weaver 1999, p. 74 and p. 308, Figure E-5). Therefore, 
while breeding habitat does not necessarily include all areas where 
individual bears may occur, it does encompass the areas known to 
support resident, reproducing populations. Clark et al. (2005, p. 246) 
used a similar method to update black bear distribution maps for the 
southeastern United States. Clark (1999, p. 105) states researchers and 
managers should focus on the population parameters of greatest 
consequence to population growth. Adult female survival is the most 
influential factor affecting black bear population growth (Clark 1999, 
pp. 103-105). Hellgren and Vaughan (1994, p. 283) conclude that managed 
female survival is a critical conservation need. The Black Bear 
Conservation Committee's (BBCC) restoration plan identified breeding 
habitats (as defined above) as those areas where essential management 
and restoration activities for the Louisiana black bear must be focused 
(BBCC 1997, p. 4).
    Currently, Louisiana black bear breeding populations are 
predominantly restricted to three disjunct core (concentrated) 
populations, the Tensas, and the Upper Atchafalaya, and the Lower 
Atchafalaya River Basins, Louisiana. A fourth additional, newly 
forming, repatriation core population occurs in east-central Louisiana, 
in the vicinity of the Red River and Three Rivers Wildlife Management 
Areas (WMA), and Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The 
Tensas River Basin (Tensas) breeding population occurs on a complex of 
BLH forests comprised of Tensas River NWR, adjacent Big Lake WMA, and 
four nearby small, relatively isolated, forested tracts formerly owned 
by Deltic Timber Corporation (now owned by Epps Plantation) in Tensas, 
Madison, Franklin, East Carroll, and Richland Parishes in Louisiana. 
The Deltic tracts support one of the highest densities of black bears 
reported for the southeastern coastal plain (Beausoleil 1999, p. 80). 
The Deltic tracts are approximately 14 mi (23.5 km) north of the Tensas 
River NWR; their closest areas are separated by only 2.5 mi (4 km) and 
by U.S. Interstate 20 (I-20). Historically, Louisiana black bears 
inhabiting the Tensas River NWR group have generally been considered a 
separate group of bears from those inhabiting the Deltic tracts. Only 
one instance of a bear moving between these two areas has been 
documented (Anderson 1997, p. 70). Though the two subgroups are 
separated by I-20 and U.S. Highway 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). The 6 bear mortalities documented on I-20 in 2004 and the 
continuing regular occurrence of mortalities, versus the total of 5 
mortalities in the previous 10 years indicate that bears are moving 
between these previously isolated populations (LDWF 2007, p. 20) and 
that the two subgroups have likely begun to function as one population.
    Two Louisiana black bear populations are located in the Atchafalaya 
River Basin (BBCC 1997, p. 10). The Upper Atchafalaya River Basin 
population (Upper Atchafalaya) is located primarily within the Morganza 
Floodway and the forested areas between that Floodway and False River 
in Pointe Coupee Parish in Louisiana, and is approximately 110 mi (177 
km) south of the Tensas population. Much of the land between these two 
populations has been cleared for agricultural use. The Lower 
Atchafalaya River Basin population (Lower Atchafalaya) is found 
primarily south of U.S. Highway 90 (Hwy. 90) and west of the lower 
Atchafalaya River and Delta, in the coastal area of St. Mary and Iberia 
Parishes. It is located approximately 70 mi (113 km) south of the Upper 
Atchafalaya population and is separated from that population by U.S. 
Interstate 10, Hwy. 90, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Teche, 
agricultural lands, developed areas, and permanently and seasonally 
inundated portions of the Atchafalaya River Basin, which is not 
currently believed to contain breeding bears due to the flooding 
regime. Population expansion in the coastal area is limited by 
development along Hwy. 90 to the north, and by the surrounding coastal 
marsh, which is believed to be unsuitable for sustaining bear 
populations.
    A fourth breeding population has been recently established in 
Avoyelles and Concordia Parishes, Louisiana, near the confluence of the 
Mississippi and Red Rivers, an area containing approximately 100,000 ac 
(40,469 ha) of publicly owned, forested land. This area is separated 
from the Tensas and the Upper Atchafalaya populations primarily by 
agricultural lands. As the result of a multi-agency repatriation 
project, 36 adult females and 82 cubs have been relocated to public 
lands in this area between 2001 and 2007, to reduce demographic 
isolation of existing populations (LDWF 2007, p. 15). This project was 
developed on the assumption that relocated females would remain at the 
new location and would be discovered by males traveling through the 
area. Natural reproduction of those bears was first documented in 2005, 
and reproduction has since been documented in 5 litters (LDWF 2006, p. 
1), resulting in an additional breeding population in Louisiana.
    Louisiana black bear reproduction was speculated to occur in 
Mississippi at the time of listing (1992) (Stinson 1996, p. 15), but 
was not confirmed until 2005 when a radio-collared female, moved as 
part of a reintroduction project in Louisiana, crossed into Mississippi 
and had cubs (Telesco 2006, p. 12). Breeding has been subsequently 
documented for several additional individuals, but to date no core 
breeding populations are known to exist, and it is generally believed 
that the majority of bears in Mississippi are males that have dispersed 
from populations in other States (Young 2006, p. 14). The Texas Parks 
and Wildlife Department has also documented black bear sightings in 
eastern Texas in the last 7 years, though there are currently no known 
Louisiana black bear breeding populations in eastern Texas (TPWD 2005, 
p. 3). It is probable that most of those bears are juvenile or subadult 
males that have roamed into the area from expanding bear populations in 
Arkansas and Oklahoma (TPWD 2005, p. 7). Clark et al. (2005, p. 250, 
Figure 1) indicated the presence of a small breeding population with a 
few individuals crossing between Louisiana and Arkansas. This is likely 
the result of a black bear reintroduction project in Arkansas where 
female bears, reintroduced onto Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge in 
Arkansas, have moved south into Louisiana (LDWF 2007, p. 1).
    In 1997, the Statewide Louisiana black bear population was 
estimated to range from 200 to 400 bears (Pelton and Van Manen 1997, p. 
38). No reliable overall Louisiana black bear population estimate 
currently exists; however, estimates have been developed for specific 
geographic areas. Estimates for the Tensas River NWR population range 
from 119 to 131 bears (Boerson et al. 2003, p. 203) and, for the nearby 
Deltic tracts, from 34 to 47 bears (Beausoleil 1999, p. 51). The Upper 
Atchafalaya population was estimated to range from 68 to 86 bears and, 
for the Lower Atchafalaya, from 28 to 47 bears (Triant et al. 2004, p. 
653), but these may be underestimates of the actual population numbers 
(Triant et al. 2004, p. 655). There are no population estimates for the 
repatriation population; however, a total of 36 females and 82 cubs 
have been moved to this area. Most studies of the Louisiana black bear 
have been

[[Page 25357]]

conducted in these core breeding habitat areas and therefore probably 
small, but unknown, numbers of bears occurring outside those areas are 
not included in population estimates. Population estimates for 
Louisiana black bears at the time of listing appear to be lower than 
what recent research would indicate, and there is circumstantial 
evidence that the population is growing (LDWF 2007, p. 22).

Previous Federal Actions

    We listed the Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) as 
threatened under the Act on January 7, 1992 (57 FR 588). Other free-
living bears of the species U. americanus within the same range 
specified in that rule were designated as threatened by similarity of 
appearance. In our final rule listing this subspecies, we determined 
that normal forest management activities supporting a sustained yield 
of timber products and wildlife habitats were compatible with Louisiana 
black bear's needs. Accordingly, we promulgated a special rule at 50 
CFR 17.40(i) exempting the effects incidental to normal forest 
management activities within the subspecies' historic range, except for 
activities causing damage to or loss of den trees, den tree sites, or 
candidate den trees (57 FR 588). For the purposes of that exemption, 
normal forest management activities were those activities that support 
a sustained yield of timber products and wildlife habitats, thereby 
maintaining forestland conditions in occupied (i.e., breeding) habitat. 
Research has supported this decision. In fact, in some cases, such as 
leaving downed tree tops and creating openings, timber management can 
provide or enhance black bear habitat (Weaver 1999, pp. 126-128; 
Hightower et al. 2002, p. 14; Weaver et al. 1990, p. 344; Lindsey and 
Meslow 1977, p. 424). Therefore, we do not propose changing the special 
rule at 50 CFR 17.40(i) as part of the critical habitat designation.
    Designation of critical habitat was found to be not determinable at 
the time of listing. We proposed critical habitat for the Louisiana 
black bear on December 2, 1993 (58 FR 63560). That proposal had a 90-
day comment period, ending March 2, 1994. We then reopened the public 
comment period from March 7, 1994 (59 FR 10607) through April 4, 1994. 
During that reopened comment period, we held a public hearing in New 
Iberia, Louisiana, on March 23, 1994. On April 1, 1994, we extended the 
reopened comment period through May 25, 1994, and announced two more 
public hearings (May 10, 1994, in West Monroe, Louisiana, and May 11, 
1994, New Iberia, Louisiana) (59 FR 15366). We never published a final 
rule designating critical habitat. On September 6, 2005, Mr. Harold 
Schoeffler and Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association--West filed 
suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana 
(Civil Action No. CV05-1573 (W.D. La.)) regarding the Service's failure 
to designate critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear.
    On June 25, 2007, the District Court ordered the Service to 
withdraw the December 2, 1993, proposed critical habitat rule and 
create a new proposed critical habitat designation by no later than 4 
months from the date of the judgment and to publish a final designation 
by no later than 8 months from the date of the proposed or new rule. On 
September 5, 2007, following a settlement agreement, the Court revised 
its order to require the Service to: (1) Withdraw the December 2, 1993, 
proposed rule and submit a prudency determination and, if prudent, a 
new proposed critical habitat designation to the Federal Register by 
April 26, 2008; and (2) submit a final critical habitat determination, 
if applicable, to the Federal Register by February 26, 2009. This 
publication is: (1) Our withdrawal of the 1993 proposal; (2) our new 
prudency determination; and (3) our proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat for the Louisiana black bear in accordance with section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning 
the Louisiana black bear, refer to the proposed critical habitat rule 
published on December 2, 1993 (58 FR 63560).

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use 
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any 
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the 
measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding, 
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. Section 7 of the Act requires consultation on Federal actions 
that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat 
does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, 
reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does 
not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such 
designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, 
or enhancement measures by the landowner. Where the landowner seeks or 
requests Federal agency funding or authorization that may affect a 
listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of 
section 7 of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a 
destruction or adverse modification finding, the landowner's obligation 
is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable 
and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed 
must contain features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species. Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known 
using the best scientific data available, habitat areas that provide 
essential life cycle needs of the species (areas on which are found the 
primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
    Occupied habitat that contains the features essential to the 
conservation of the species meets the definition of critical habitat 
only if those features may require special management considerations or 
protection.
    Under the Act, we can designate unoccupied areas as critical 
habitat only when we determine that the best available scientific data 
demonstrate that the designation of that area is essential to the 
conservation needs of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines 
provide criteria,

[[Page 25358]]

establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
represent the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be proposed as critical 
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information 
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional 
information sources may include the recovery plan for the species, 
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by 
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological 
assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or 
personal knowledge.
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of 
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that we may 
eventually determine, based on scientific data not now available to the 
Service, are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these 
reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat 
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for 
recovery of the species.
    Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation 
actions we implement under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and our other 
wildlife authorities. They are also subject to the regulatory 
protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 
determined on the basis of the best available scientific information at 
the time of the agency action. Federally funded or permitted projects 
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat 
areas may result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, 
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans 
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new 
information available to these planning efforts calls for a different 
outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 
424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
we designate critical habitat at the time a species is listed as 
endangered or threatened. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state 
that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or 
both of the following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened 
by taking or other activity and the identification of critical habitat 
can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species; or (2) 
the designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the 
species. In our January 7, 1992, final rule (57 FR 588) we determined 
that designating critical habitat may be prudent, but was not 
determinable at that time. We subsequently proposed critical habitat 
for the Louisiana black bear on December 2, 1993 (58 FR 63560); 
however, we did not explicitly state in our proposed rule that such 
designation was prudent.
    The Louisiana black bear was listed as threatened under the Act on 
January 7, 1992 (57 FR 588), due to extensive habitat loss and 
modification, and the ongoing threats of continued habitat modification 
and human-related mortality. The majority of area lands within the 
Louisiana black bear's historic range are privately owned. Some of 
those lands remain forested; however, most have been cleared for other 
uses such as agriculture. Conservation of the Louisiana black bear will 
require habitat protection and restoration and, therefore, is dependent 
upon the voluntary protection and restoration of privately owned lands.
    Significant progress has been made in habitat restoration for the 
Louisiana black bear. Habitat and management actions voluntarily taken 
by private landowners are one important component of those restoration 
activities. Over 55,000 ac (22,250 ha) of private lands have been 
enrolled in the Natural Resource Conservation Service's Wetland Reserve 
Program (WRP) which has benefited Louisiana black bear conservation 
since 1992. WRP provides an incentive for private landowners to convert 
non-productive farmland back to bottomland hardwoods, and many of these 
lands received higher rankings (when evaluated for enrollment) because 
of their benefit to Louisiana black bear conservation. Landowners 
enrolling in the WRP sign permanent easements protecting the restored 
land from future conversion or development. Designation of critical 
habitat on private lands may significantly reduce the likelihood that 
landowners will support and carry out conservation actions. Many 
landowners fear a decline in their property value due to real or 
perceived restrictions on land-use options where threatened or 
endangered species are found. Consequently, harboring endangered 
species is viewed by many landowners as a liability. This perception 
results in anti-conservation incentives, because maintaining habitats 
that harbor endangered species represents a risk to future economic 
opportunities. This response was observed during the 1993-1994 
Louisiana black bear critical habitat proposal process, when the 
majority of comments received were in opposition to designation, and 
several landowners who had previously allowed black bear research 
activities on their lands subsequently denied access to researchers and 
agency personnel.
    Thus, there is potential, as a result of critical habitat 
designation, for a decline in WRP enrollment within Louisiana black 
bear habitat and restricted access to private lands for research; 
however, we will continue to work with Federal and State agencies, 
private organizations, and individuals in carrying out conservation 
activities for the Louisiana black bear, including habitat restoration, 
population surveys, and population restoration. Furthermore, the 
identification of areas that are necessary to ensure the conservation 
of the species is beneficial and critical habitat designation may 
provide additional information to individuals, local and State 
governments, and other entities engaged in long-range planning, since 
areas with features essential to the conservation of the species are 
clearly delineated and, to the extent currently feasible, the physical 
and biological features of the habitat necessary to the survival of 
this subspecies are specifically identified. This process is valuable 
to land owners and managers in developing conservation management plans 
for identified areas, as well as any other occupied habitat or suitable 
habitat that may not have been included in the Service's designation of 
critical habitat.
    The additional threat, identified in the final rule listing the 
subspecies (57 FR 588), of illegal killing of Louisiana black bears 
remains an ongoing threat; however, such takings are believed to be 
opportunistic or in response to black bear nuisance activities. In the 
case of large mammals, such as the Louisiana black bear, population 
locations are already generally known and we do not expect 
identification of critical habitat to increase the degree of this 
threat.
    Accordingly, we determine that designation of critical habitat will 
not increase the degree of threat to the species and will be beneficial 
for the Louisiana black bear; therefore, we determine that designation 
of critical habitat is prudent for this subspecies. At

[[Page 25359]]

this time, we have sufficient information necessary to identify 
specific areas that meet the definition of critical habitat and as 
such, believe the critical habitat is also determinable. Therefore, we 
are proposing critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific 
data available in determining areas occupied at the time of listing 
that contain features essential to the conservation of the Louisiana 
black bear, and areas unoccupied at the time of listing that are 
essential for the conservation of the Louisiana black bear, or both. We 
are not currently proposing any areas outside the geographical area 
presently occupied by the subspecies because the occupied areas being 
proposed are sufficient for the conservation of the subspecies.
    We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the 
habitat requirements of this subspecies. After reviewing pertinent 
material, we consider it likely that the Louisiana subspecies is not 
significantly different from other black bears, because it is a habitat 
generalist. Material reviewed for the development of this critical 
habitat proposal included information from the January 7, 1992 (57 FR 
588), final rule listing the Louisiana black bear as threatened; the 
December 2, 1993 (58 FR 63560) proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat; information and survey observations published in peer-reviewed 
literature, academic theses, and agency reports; location data and 
survey information provided in agency reports and maps; habitat 
analyses and other information provided in the 1995 Louisiana Black 
Bear Recovery Plan and the complementary BBCC Black Bear Restoration 
Plan (1997); and material submitted during consultations under section 
7 of the Act.
    The following geospatial and tabular data sets were used in 
preparing this proposed critical habitat: Occurrence data for the 
Louisiana black bear (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana State University, and the 
University of Tennessee); 1998, 2004, and 2005 that is 1:24,000 digital 
raster and digital orthophoto quarter-quadrangles (DOQQ); and 1:24,000 
scale digital raster graphics (DRG) of the U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS) topographic quadrangles. Habitat data was determined from the 
2001 grid (raster) National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) developed by The 
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC is a 
group of Federal agencies who develop datasets used to track regional 
and global changes in land cover and land use, including such essential 
categories as forest and grassland cover. The MRLC consortium is 
specifically designed to meet the current needs of Federal agencies for 
nationally consistent satellite remote sensing and land-cover data. We 
transformed the digital raster data to a vector format in order to 
obtain the most accurate area estimates of critical habitat when 
overlaid onto the critical habitat boundaries of lands containing 
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Land 
ownership was determined from geospatial data sets developed by the 
Service's Southeast Region Realty Division and the Louisiana State 
Lands Office.
    We obtained additional information through personal communications 
with biologists, scientists, and land managers familiar with the 
Louisiana black bear and its habitat, including individuals affiliated 
with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), the 
Service, the BBCC, Louisiana State University, and the University of 
Tennessee. Specific information from these sources included estimates 
of historic and current distribution, abundance, and home range sizes, 
as well as data on resources and habitat requirements.
    To delineate areas currently used by breeding populations, we 
acquired all available raw telemetry data (i.e., telemetry points) from 
those above-referenced sources (recognizing the geographic limits of 
existing data in that they were collected from areas within known 
Louisiana black bear populations). Those telemetry points were buffered 
with average adult female home range sizes (as determined from 
published research) and were coalesced into polygons for each Louisiana 
black bear population. Those polygons were further refined based on 
habitat presence (as determined from DOQQs), contiguity of suitable 
habitat, proximity to non-contiguous suitable habitat, direct evidence 
of bear use, habitat patch size, and significant landscape features. We 
determined proposed critical habitat to be all areas within those 
polygons, except for those tracts that do not contain the physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies. We 
used telemetry data (where available), and DOQQs and DRGs to delineate 
habitat corridors. Areas proposed as critical habitat include areas 
that contain the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the subspecies and either: (1) Currently support a 
breeding population of Louisiana black bears; or (2) function as 
corridors to maintain movement between core populations.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and the 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas occupied at 
the time of listing to propose as critical habitat, we consider the 
physical and biological features (PBFs) that are essential to the 
conservation of the species to be the specific primary constituent 
elements (PCEs) laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial 
arrangement for the conservation of the species. These include, but are 
not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific primary constituent elements (PCEs) for the 
Louisiana black bear from its biological needs.

Space for Individual and Population Growth and Normal Behavior

    Louisiana black bear populations are currently found in the BLH 
forest communities and associated habitat of the Lower Mississippi 
River Alluvial Valley. Prime black bear habitat is characterized by 
relatively inaccessible terrain, thick understory vegetation, and 
abundant food sources in the forms of shrubs or tree-borne soft or hard 
mast (Pelton 1982, p. 507). BLH forest community types in the range of 
the Louisiana black bear, expressed in terms of dominance-codominance, 
include Taxodium distichum (bald cypress); T. distichum-Nyssa aquatica 
(bald cypress-water tupelo); Betula nigra-Platanus occidentalis (river 
birch-American sycamore); Populus deltoides (cottonwood); Celtis 
laevigata-Ulmus americana-Fraxinus pennsylvanica (sugarberry-American 
elm-green ash); Quercus nuttallii-U. americana-F. pennsylvanica 
(Nuttall oak-American elm-green ash); Q.lyrata-Carya aquatica (overcup 
oak-water hickory) Liquidambar styraciflua-Q. nigra (sweetgum-water 
oak); and Q. michauxii-Q. falcata (swamp chestnut oak-cherrybark oak) 
(BBCC 1997, p. 15).

[[Page 25360]]

Benson (2005, p. 56, Table 4.1) described habitat types in terms of 
species, flooding regime, and age as: (1) Upland forests--BLH forests 
in relatively high elevation sites not subject to frequent flooding; 
and (2) lowland forest--BLH forests in relatively low elevations 
subject to seasonal or annual flooding. Louisiana black bear habitat in 
the Lower Atchafalaya population differs from the Tensas and Upper 
Atchafalaya areas in that it includes, in addition to forested wetlands 
(e.g., deciduous forests, cypress forests, deciduous and bald cypress 
forests, shrub-scrub marshes), open marshes, deciduous forest spoil 
banks, and upland hardwood forest (Nyland 1995, p. 58). The 
interspersion of these communities may be important in meeting the 
seasonal needs of the Lower Atchafalaya Louisiana black bear population 
(Nyland 1995, p. 58). The coastal (or wetland) habitats may provide 
escape cover, food sources, and secure travel corridors between other 
habitat types (Jones and Pelton 2003, p. 193).
    The minimum size of an area necessary for black bears may differ 
depending on density, habitat quality, conservation goals, and 
assumptions regarding minimum viable populations (Rudis and Tansey 
1995, p. 172). For example, Rudis and Tansey (1995, p. 172), citing 
personal communications, reported estimates of minimal areas needed to 
support a black bear population ranging from 79,000 ac (32,000 ha) in 
forested wetlands to 80,000 ac (197,700 ha) in upland forests. Cox et 
al. (1994, p. 50) estimated that a population of 200 or more bears 
could require a habitat base of approximately 490,000 to 980,000 ac 
(198,000 to 397,000 ha). 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.
    One approach to assess Louisiana black bear habitat needs is to 
look at existing densities; however, density estimates should be used 
with caution as they can be influenced by population estimation 
methodology and study area delineation. No single area-density 
relationship has been developed for Louisiana black bears; however, 
density estimates have been developed for Louisiana black bears in two 
locations. Bear density for the Tensas River NWR subgroup was estimated 
to be 1 bear per 686 ac (0.36 per km\2\). This is low compared to other 
southeastern populations and to the adjacent Deltic subgroup with a 
density of 1 bear per 173 ac (1.43 per km\2\) (Boersen et al. 2003, p. 
204). The unusually high densities observed on the Deltic tracts may be 
the result of the small size of the habitat fragments and accessibility 
to adjacent desirable agricultural crops (Boersen et al. 2003, p. 204).
    Another approach to assess Louisiana black bear habitat 
requirements is to examine bear movements and home ranges. The home 
ranges of Louisiana black bears appear to be closely linked to forest 
cover (Marchinton 1995, p. 48). 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 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 adult females (Pelton 
1982, p. 507) and that may encompass several female home ranges (Rogers 
1987, p. 19). Dispersal by female black bears is uncommon and typically 
is a short distance (Rogers 1987, p. 43). 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 124 
mi (200 km) (BBCC 1997, p. 22).
    Home range estimates vary for the Louisiana black bear. Mean median 
MCP home range estimates for the Tensas River NWR population 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 Upper 
Atchafalaya 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). Lower Atchafalaya 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). The smaller home ranges of Lower 
Atchafalaya bears when compared to Upper Atchafalaya bears may be due 
to superior habitat quality in the coastal area (Wagner 1995, p. 25). 
Louisiana black bears located on the Deltic lands in the Tensas River 
population have very small home ranges compared to other black bear 
populations with an estimated average home range (MCP) for males of 
1,729 ac (700 ha) and for females 1,038 ac (420 ha) (Beausoleil 1999, 
p. 57). The smaller home ranges for this population are believed to be 
a result of the bears' reliance on the surrounding agricultural crops 
for forage (Benson 2005, p. 95) and the overall higher quality of the 
forested habitat (Weaver 1999, pp. 90-91). Based on observations of the 
Deltic populations, Benson (2005, p. 95) suggested that it may be 
possible for a relatively large number of bears to require less space 
and persist in limited forest habitat if food is sufficiently abundant 
and diverse.
    Habitat loss, besides reducing the overall area, can result in 
fragmentation or isolation of habitat, as is evident for the Louisiana 
black bear (Clark 1999, p. 107). Habitat fragmentation can restrict 
bear movements both within and between populations (BBCC 1997, p. 23). 
This can result in increased mortality as bears are forced to forage on 
less protected sites, travel farther to forage, or cross barriers such 
as roads (Pelton 1982, p. 507; Hellgren and Maehr 1992, pp. 154, 155, 
156). Open areas, roads, large waterways, development, and large 
expanses of agricultural land may affect habitat contiguity. Such 
features tend to impede the movement of bears (Clark 1999, p. 107). 
Habitat fragmentation also limits the potential for the present 
Louisiana black bear population to expand its current breeding range 
(USFWS 1995, p. 8). Habitat fragmentation can create barriers to 
immigration and emigration that can affect population demographics and 
genetic integrity (Clark et al. 2006, p. 12). Bear populations in a 
relatively large habitat patch are not ensured of long-term survival 
without recolonization by bears from adjacent patches (Clark 1999, p. 
111). The long term protection of habitat and interconnecting corridors 
or habitat linkages between viable breeding populations is one of the 
recovery

[[Page 25361]]

criteria for the Louisiana black bear (USFWS 1995, p. 14).
    Habitat linkages or corridors providing vegetative cover can 
facilitate the movement of bears through agricultural (or other open) 
lands, particularly when bears reside in fragmented tracts of forest, 
as is the case for the Louisiana black bear (Weaver et al. 1990b, p. 
347). Based on telemetry locations and visual observations, Marchinton 
(1995, p. 53) determined that wooded drainages were important travel 
corridors for movement between forested tracts. He noted that those 
drainages may facilitate movements across agricultural lands and may be 
important for dispersal outside the study area. Likewise, Weaver (1999, 
p. 67) found significant use of habitat linkages between larger 
forested tracts, including forested edges associated with bayous, their 
tributaries, various dry ditch bottoms, and brushy ditch and canal 
banks in various agricultural tracts. Bears were also observed to 
frequent certain areas of intact forest such as banks of rivers, 
sloughs, ditches, and bayous, and Weaver (1999, p. 82) suggested that 
the term ``habitat linkages'' may be more appropriate than travel 
corridors when referring to the remnant habitat features that link 
disjunct wooded tracts.
    Beausoleil (1999, p. 62) observed that female Louisiana black bears 
would not move between woodlots unless they were connected by a 
forested corridor or were closer than 1,640 feet (ft) (0.5 km) apart. 
Anderson (1997, p.74 via T. Edwards, USFWS pers. communication) found 
that female bears would not travel between expansive agricultural 
fields that separated forested tracts by 4,541 ft (1.3 km) and observed 
that bears traveled along tree-lined ditches that were as narrow as 16 
ft (5 m) in width (Anderson 1997, p. 74). Similarly, Van Why (2003, pp. 
30, 46) observed Louisiana black bears using narrow strips of 
vegetation (less than 33 ft (10 m)) to travel through inhospitable 
habitats such as open fields. Weaver et al. (1990b, p. 347) recommended 
a 197-ft (60-m) buffer zone along waterways as a travel corridor or 
habitat linkage. Bears will travel through open habitat (Weaver 1999, 
p. 81), but they may travel farther from the forested edge when in a 
wooded corridor versus in an open field (Anderson 1997, p. 42).
    Habitat linkages, as described in Louisiana black bear population 
studies, are generally described as narrow and linear in shape, most 
likely resulting from the fact that ditches and bayous are the only 
remaining features connecting habitat fragments within a population. 
Non-linear habitat patches located between existing populations may 
also provide areas for bear movement. Such linkages increase the amount 
of forested habitat (Beausoleil et al. 2005, p. 408) and may serve not 
only as pathways for concealed travel, but may also provide other 
functions such as escape cover, bedding and denning sites, routes for 
juvenile dispersal, and avenues for genetic exchange (Weaver 1999, pp. 
82-83). Habitat linkages ranging from 2.5 ac to 12 ac (1 ha to 5 ha) 
can provide cover for black bears (Pelton and Van Manen 1997, p. 33). 
Smaller areas (i.e., 2.5 ac (1 ha)) may provide suitable movement paths 
for shorter, within-population movements but may not be sufficient for 
establishing larger movement paths between populations. Beausoleil et 
al. (2005, pp. 409-410) recommended the establishment of habitat 
corridors to reduce the isolation of forested habitats for black bears 
and suggested that corridor width should vary with length and increase 
with distance. Similarly, Cox et al. (1994, p. 35) suggested that black 
bears likely require broader habitat areas rather than thin corridors 
when connecting distant populations.
    While there is scientific discussion regarding the relative 
importance of wildlife corridors in general, they have been shown to be 
important for black bears (Cox et al. 1994, p. 34). Furthermore, in 
modeling spatial landscape structure and species dispersal, King and 
With (2002, p. 33) found that habitat clumping may help mitigate the 
negative effect that habitat loss has on dispersal success. Habitat 
linkages (or corridors) are needed to facilitate bear movement between 
habitat patches within and between black bear populations (BBCC 1997, 
p. 54). Telemetry data on Louisiana black bear movements in the Tensas 
River Basin demonstrate that habitat linkages should be considered in 
management plans intended to ensure Louisiana black bear population 
viability in fragmented habitats and to provide for the large home 
ranges (particularly of males) needed for unimpeded breeding and 
dispersal (Weaver 1999, p. 106).

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements

    The Louisiana black bear's diet is dominated by plant material 
throughout the year (Pelton 1982, p. 508; Anderson 1997, p. 77; Benson 
2005, p. 20). A portion of the diet is made up of animal matter, 
primarily beetles and other insects (which are consumed year-round 
(Anderson 1997, p. 79)), and occasionally carrion (Pelton 1982, pp. 
508-509; Benson 2005, p. 27). Diets vary seasonally in relation to food 
availability as does habitat use (Nyland 1995, p. 53). After den 
emergence in the spring, bears utilize remaining fat reserves (Pelton 
1982, p. 509). As this is generally a time of lower food abundance, 
bears may lose weight but will soon take advantage of any available 
protein-rich foods (Pelton 1982, p. 509). On the Deltic tracts, such 
items include grasses, sedges, oats, wheat, and beetles (Anderson 1997, 
p. 49; Benson 2005, p. 26). During the summer, food abundance and 
diversity increases, and soft mast, found primarily in forest openings, 
becomes a major food source. Soft mast may include such items as 
blackberry, grape, mulberry, sassafras, and paw paw (Weaver et al. 
1990b, p. 344; Anderson 1997, p. 78; BBCC 1997, p. 18; Benson 2005, p. 
26). Recently timbered areas can provide foraging opportunities for 
bears as they allow light penetration through canopy openings and 
provide rotting wood that harbors beetles and grubs (Weaver et al. 
1990b, p. 344). Louisiana black bears were also observed using early 
successional areas (e.g., planted with trees or regenerating naturally) 
planted with trees (0 to 12 years) or by an open canopy and dense 
understory of shrubs, vines, and saplings (Benson 2005, p. 56, Table 
4.1). Such areas provide food and cover similar to natural openings in 
forests.
    Food availability during the late summer and fall is critical as 
bears need to increase their fat stores in preparation for winter 
dormancy and denning (Pelton 1982, p. 509; BBCC 1997, p. 18). Acorns 
and other hard mast are important food items during this period (Pelton 
1986, p. 51; Benson 2005, p. 27). Extensive foraging may occur and 
bears may travel great distances in search of food (Pelton 1982, p. 
509). It is not uncommon for a bear to gain one to two pounds of fat 
daily (Pelton 1986, p. 51). Bears will forage on agricultural crops, 
which may dominate the diet depending on availability (Nyland 1995, p. 
59; Anderson 1997, p. 78; Benson 2005, p. 20).
    An important factor affecting black bear populations appears to be 
variation in food supply and its effect on physiological status and 
reproduction (Rogers 1976, pp. 436-437). Black bear cub survival and 
development are closely associated with the physical condition of the 
mother (Rogers 1976, p. 434). Cub mortality rates and female 
infertility are typically greater in single or successive years of poor 
mast production or failure (Rogers 1987, p. 53; Eiler et al. 1989, p. 
357; Elowe and Dodge 1989, p. 964). Nutrition may affect the age of 
female reproductive maturity and subsequent fecundity

[[Page 25362]]

(Pelton 1982, p. 504). Reproduction may occur as early as 2 years of 
age for black bears in high quality habitat; in poor or marginal 
habitat, reproduction may not occur until 7 years of age (Rogers 1987, 
pp. 51-52, Table 8). Litter size may be affected by food availability 
prior to denning (Rogers 1987, p. 53, Table 10). During periods of food 
shortages, bears range farther in search of food. This increased 
movement substantially increases their chances for human encounters and 
human-related mortality (Rogers 1976, p. 436; Pelton 1982, p. 509). 
These high 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.

Cover or Shelter

    Black bears undergo a period of winter dormancy that allows them to 
circumvent food shortages and severe weather (Pelton 1982, p. 508). 
Louisiana black bears generally enter dens in early December and emerge 
in mid-April (Weaver 1999, p. 116, Table 4.1). They may remain somewhat 
active during this period and have been observed changing den sites and 
foraging, although their home range sizes are reduced (Weaver 1999, p. 
115; Hightower et al. 2002, p. 16). Louisiana black bears use trees, 
brush piles, and ground nests for denning (Weaver 1999, p. 118; 
Hightower et al. 2002, p. 14). An individual bear may use one or more 
different den types, often within the same season (Weaver 1999, p. 
118). Weaver (1999, p. 120) noted that most den trees were bald 
cypress, but also observed bear use of other species such as overcup 
oak and American sycamore. Den tree cavities appeared to result from 
broken tops or limbs and averaged approximately 49 ft (15 m) in height 
(Weaver 1999, p. 121). Den trees primarily occur along permanently 
flooded sloughs, seasonally flooded flats, lakes, bayous, and rivers 
(Weaver 1999, p. 130). Ground nests were located in wooded habitat and 
constructed from stacked palmetto and vegetation arranged in a wreath-
like manner. Many of the wreath-like nests included excavated 
depressions, but those created from stacked palmetto did not (Weaver 
1999, pp. 121-122). Nests were observed in forested habitat and 
constructed against a backdrop such as a felled log, a tree top, or the 
base of a tree (Weaver 1999, p. 122). In the Tensas population, 
thirteen of 17 nests were located in forested stands that were at least 
partially timbered within the last 5 years (Weaver 1999, p. 122). Brush 
pile dens were observed in residual tree tops that were felled during 
recent timber harvests (Weaver 1999, pp. 122; Hightower et al. 2002, p. 
14). Trees large enough and sufficiently mature to contain useable 
cavities are almost always found in places inaccessible to logging 
(Marchinton 1995, p. 55), or are left standing due to their low 
economic value.
    The importance of high-quality cover for bedding, denning, and 
escape cover increases as forests become smaller and more fragmented, 
and as human encroachment and disturbance in bear habitat increases 
(Pelton 1986, p. 52). The thick understory found in some BLH forests 
and adjacent areas provides high-quality escape cover, which is 
considered especially important where fragmented habitats put bear 
populations in clo