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, 13123-13171 [2016-05206]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[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 https://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 https://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, https://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 https://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, 
https://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, https://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, https://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, https://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, https://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, https://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, https://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, https://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, https://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, https://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, https://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 (https://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 
(https://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, https://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, https://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, https://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 (https://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 (https://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, https://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 (https://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 (https://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 (https://endangered.fws.gov) and on the Louisiana Fish 
and Wildlife Office's Web site (https://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 https://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