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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014; FXES11130900000C2-167-FF09E32000]

RIN 1018-BA44

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

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing the Louisiana black bear (

Ursus americanus luteolus

) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List). This action is based on a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, which indicates that this subspecies has recovered and no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Our review of the status of this subspecies shows that the threats have been eliminated or reduced, adequate regulatory mechanisms exist, and populations are stable such that the species is not currently, and is not likely to again become, a threatened species within the foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of its range. This rule also removes from the List the American black bear, which is listed within the historical range of the Louisiana black bear due to similarity of appearance, and removes designated critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear. Finally, this rule also announces the availability of a final post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan for the Louisiana black bear.

DATES:

This rule is effective on April 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

This final rule and the post-delisting monitoring plan are available on the Internet at

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Service's Louisiana Ecological Services Field Office, 646 Cajundome Boulevard, Suite 400, Lafayette, LA 70506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

This document contains: (1) A final rule to remove the Louisiana black bear from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(h) due to recovery, removal of regulatory provisions for the Louisiana black bear at 50 CFR 17.40(i), and removal of designated critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear at 50 CFR 17.95(a); (2) a final rule to remove the similarity of appearance protections for the American black bear; and (3) a notice of availability of a final post-delisting monitoring plan.

Species addressed

—The Louisiana black bear (

Ursus americanus luteolus

) is one of 16 subspecies of the American black bear (

Ursus americanus

). Historically, black bears were widely distributed in the forested areas of North America, including Mexico (Pelton 2003, p. 547). Today, the status and density of American black bears varies throughout their range with some areas having large populations and others with smaller populations and restricted numbers (Pelton 2003, p. 547). Hall (1981, pp. 948-951) recognized three black bear subspecies occurring in the southeastern United States; the Louisiana black bear historically occurred from eastern Texas, throughout Louisiana, and southwestern Mississippi (Hall 1981, pp. 950-951). The Louisiana black bear was listed as a threatened subspecies primarily because of the historical modification and reduction of habitat, the reduced quality of remaining habitat due to fragmentation, and the threat of future habitat conversion and human-related mortality (57 FR 588, January 7, 1992). To address one of those threats (human-related mortality), in the 1992 final rule we also listed the American black bear in § 17.11(h) due to similarity of appearance to the Louisiana black bear. At that time, the Louisiana black bear population consisted of three breeding subpopulations, the Tensas River, Upper Atchafalaya River, and Lower Atchafalaya River Basins (TRB, UARB, and LARB, respectively (see Figure 1 in the supporting documents section, in Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014 at

http://www.regulations.gov

) in Louisiana. An indirect result of habitat fragmentation was isolation of the already small bear populations, subjecting them to threats from such factors as demographic stochasticity and inbreeding. Key demographic attributes (

e.g.,

survival, fecundity, population growth rates, home ranges) for the Louisiana black bear were not known at the time of listing.

The Louisiana black bear population now consists of four main subpopulations in Louisiana and several additional satellite subpopulations in Louisiana and Mississippi. Research has documented that the four main Louisiana subpopulations (TRB, Three Rivers Complex (TRC), UARB, and LARB (see Figure 1,

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014) are stable or increasing (Hooker 2010, O'Connell 2013, Troxler 2013, Laufenberg and Clark 2014, entire documents respectively). Furthermore, results of our analyses indicate that sufficient restoration and protection of habitat supporting breeding subpopulations is in place and is expected to continue to expand in the future, and movement of individuals between those subpopulations has been achieved.

A large proportion of habitat (an increase of over 430 percent since the time of listing) that supports breeding subpopulations and interconnects those subpopulations has been protected and restored through management on publicly owned lands, or through private landowner restoration efforts with permanent non-developmental easements. The threat of significant habitat loss and conversion that was present at listing has been significantly reduced and in many cases reversed. These habitat restoration and protection activities are expected to continue due to their value to many other species. Since the listing of the Louisiana black bear in 1992, voluntary landowner-incentive-based habitat restoration programs and environmental regulations have not only stopped the net loss of forested lands in the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley (LMRAV; a subset of the Lower Mississippi River Valley limited to Louisiana and Mississippi only), but have also resulted in significant habitat gains within both the LMRAV and the Louisiana black bear habitat restoration planning area (HRPA) in Louisiana. A substantial portion of those restored habitats are protected with perpetual non-development easements (through the Natural Resources Conservation

Service's [NRCS]' Wetland Reserve Program [WRP]) (see the Factor D evaluation). Public management areas such as National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs), Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), and Corps of Engineers (Corps) lands supporting Louisiana black bear subpopulations are also protected and managed in a way that benefits the Louisiana black bear. Remnant and restored forested wetlands are provided protection through applicable conservation regulations (

e.g.,

section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 [CWA]).

Taking into consideration the current long-term viability of the Louisiana black bear metapopulation (TRB, TRC, and UARB), the protection of suitable habitat, and the lack of significant threats to the Louisiana black bear or its habitat, our conclusion is that this subspecies no longer meets the definition of a threatened species under the Act.

Purpose of the Regulatory Action

—In 2015, we proposed to remove the Louisiana black bear from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (80 FR 29394, May 21, 2015), based on recovery criteria in the recovery plan and the five-factor threats analysis required under section 4(a) of the Act. Threats to this subspecies have been largely ameliorated or reduced; therefore, the purpose of this action is to remove the Louisiana black bear and the American black bear, which is listed within the historical range of the Louisiana black bear due to only similarity of appearance, from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This rule also removes the critical habitat designation for the Louisiana black bear throughout its range.

Basis for the Regulatory Action

—Under the Act, we may determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We must consider the same factors in delisting a species. Further, we may delist a species (or subspecies) if the best scientific and commercial data indicate the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer threatened or endangered; or (3) the original scientific data used at the time the species was classified were in error.

We reviewed all available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the five threat factors for the Louisiana black bear, and the results are summarized below.

• We consider the Louisiana black bear to be “recovered” because all substantial threats to this subspecies have been eliminated or reduced and adequate regulatory mechanisms exist.

• The subspecies is now viable over the next 100 years with sufficient protected habitat to support breeding and movement of individuals between subpopulations so that the subspecies is not currently, and is not likely to again become, a threatened species within the foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of its range.

Previous Federal Actions

Please refer to the proposed rule to remove the Louisiana black bear from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (80 FR 29394, May 21, 2015) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.

Background

It is our intent to discuss in this final rule only those topics directly relevant to the removal of the Louisiana black bear from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. A list of acronyms used in this rule may be found at

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014 under the Supporting Documents.

Species Information

The following section contains information updated from that presented in the proposed rule to remove Louisiana black bear from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, which published in the

Federal Register

on May 21, 2015 (80 FR 29394).

Species Description and Life History

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

Average age at first reproduction varies widely across black bear studies; however, most reports state that bears first reproduce between 3 and 5 years of age (Weaver et al. 1990a, p. 5). Weaver (1999, p. 28) reported that all adult females (greater than or equal to 4 years old) in the TRB subpopulation had evidence of previous lactation or were with cubs; however, reproduction may occur as early as 2 years of age for black bears in high-quality habitat and in poor or marginal habitat, reproduction may not occur until 7 years of age (Rogers 1987, pp. 51-52). Breeding occurs in summer and the gestation period for black bears is 7 to 8 months. Delayed implantation occurs in the black bear (blastocysts float free in the uterus and do not implant until late November or early December) (Pelton 2003, p. 547). Observations of Louisiana black bears indicate that they enter dens primarily from late November to early December and emerge in March and April (Weaver 1999, p. 125, Table 4.4). Adult Louisiana black bears generally den longer than subadults, and females longer than males (Weaver 1999, p. 123). Cubs are born in winter dens at the end of January or the beginning of February (Pelton 2003, p. 548). The normal litter sizes range from one to four cubs (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 35), and occasionally litters of five have been documented (Davidson et al. 2015, p. 11). Cubs are altricial (helpless) at birth (Weaver et al. 1990a, p. 5; Pelton 2003, p. 547) and generally exit the den site with the female in April or May. Young bears stay with the female through summer and fall, and den with her the next winter (Pelton 2003, p. 548). The young disperse in their second spring or summer, prior to the female's becoming physiologically capable of reproducing again (Pelton 2003, p. 548).

Adult females normally breed every other year (Pelton 2003, p. 548). Not all females produce cubs every other winter; reproduction is related to physiological condition (

i.e.,

female bears that do not reach an optimal weight or fat level may not reproduce in a given year) (Rogers 1987, p. 51). If a female's litter is lost prior to late summer, she may breed again, producing cubs in consecutive years (Young 2006, p. 16). An important factor affecting black bear populations appears to be variation in food supply and its

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

of bears that were confined to the BLH forests of Madison and Tensas Parishes and the LARB BLH forests in Louisiana (St. Amant 1959, pp. 32, 44); black bears in Mississippi were similarly affected (Shropshire 1996, pp. 25-33). At the time of listing, additional extensive land clearing, mainly for agricultural purposes, had further reduced its habitat by more than 80 percent (Gosselink et al. 1990, p. 592), and the remaining habitat quality had been degraded by fragmentation. That fragmentation caused isolation of the already small subpopulations, subjecting them to threats from such factors as demographic stochasticity and inbreeding. Known breeding subpopulations occurred in fragmented BLH forest communities of the TRB, LARB, and UARB of Louisiana (Weaver et al. 1990a, p. 2; Service 1992, p. 2) (Figure 1,

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014), and were believed to be demographically isolated (BBCC 1997, p. 10). No reliable estimates of population numbers were available at the time of listing, but only 80 to 120 Louisiana black bears were estimated to remain in Louisiana in the 1950s (Nowak 1986, p. 4). Bears had occasionally been reported in Louisiana outside of these areas, but it was unknown if those bears were reproducing females or only wandering subadult and adult males (Service 1992, p. 2).

Black bears were also known to exist in Mississippi along the Mississippi River and smaller areas in the Lower East Pearl River and Lower Pascagoula River Basins of southern Mississippi (Weaver et al. 1990a, p. 2). Fewer than 25 bears were estimated to reside in Mississippi at the time of listing (Shropshire 1996, p. 35 citing Jones 1984). The last known Mississippi breeding subpopulation occurred in Issaquena County in 1976 (Shropshire 1996, p. 38 citing Jones 1984). Similarly, black bears were exterminated from southeastern Texas during the period from 1900 to 1940 largely as a result of overhunting (Schmidley 1983, p. 1); and, except for wanderers, resident bear populations had not been observed in eastern Texas for many years (Nowak 1986, p. 7). Key demographic attributes (

e.g.,

survival, fecundity, population growth rates, and home ranges) for the Louisiana black bear were not known at the time of listing.

Currently, the Louisiana black bear remains in the BLH forests of the LMRAV in Louisiana and western Mississippi. However, based on the number and distribution of confirmed sighting reports by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) and Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) (Simek et al. 2012, p. 165; Davidson et al. 2015, p. 22), the geographic distribution of bears has expanded; the number and size of resident breeding subpopulations and the habitat they occupy has also increased (Table 1; Figure 1,

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014). These changes have resulted in a more scattered distribution of breeding females between the original TRB and UARB subpopulation areas.

Table 1—Estimated Area Supporting Louisiana Black Bear Breeding Subpopulations

(Shown in acres (ac) and [hectares (ha)]) in 1993 and 2014)

Breeding habitat

Tensas River

basin

1

Upper

Atchafalaya

River basin

2

Lower

Atchafalaya

River basin

3

Louisiana

total

Mississippi

total

3

Total

1993

84,402

[34,156]

111,275

[45,031]

144,803

[58,600]

340,480

[137,787]

0

340,480

[137,787]

2014

1,002,750

[405,798]

290,263

[117,465]

130,839

[52,949]

1,423,853

[576,213]

382,703

[154,875]

1,806,556

[731,087]

1

Includes the TRC subpopulation and the Louisiana black bear subpopulation in north-central Louisiana near the Arkansas State line.

2

Includes the Louisiana black bear subpopulation found in the Florida parishes of Louisiana (east of the Mississippi River).

3

Although the LARB subpopulation area appears to have decreased in acreage over time; the decrease is due to more detailed mapping in 2014 that excluded many non-habitat areas that were included in the more general 1993 boundary. In 1993, we did not have the data to support including breeding bears on Avery Island (at the western end of this area) even though we knew bears occurred there. We now have that data to support and delineate breeding habitat on Avery Island and, therefore, have included that area in the 2014 mapping updates. The actual area and spatial distribution of the LARB subpopulation has likely not changed over time.

The TRC is a new breeding subpopulation (

i.e.,

it was not present at the time of listing) located at the confluence of the Mississippi and Red Rivers in Louisiana (formed as a result of a multi-year reintroduction project (2001-2009) (Figure 1,

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014), and serves to facilitate movement of bears from the UARB to the TRB (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 85). Several additional new breeding subpopulations, indirectly resulting from those translocations (

i.e.,

female dispersal), are forming in Louisiana and three new breeding subpopulations are forming in Mississippi, partially as an indirect effect of the Louisiana translocation project and from the immigration of bears from White River Basin (WRB; Figure 1,

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014). Demographic attributes including subpopulation abundance estimates, growth rates, and adult survival rates have been obtained for the three original Louisiana breeding subpopulations (TRB, UARB, LARB) (Hooker 2010, pp. 26-27; Lowe 2011, pp. 28-30; Troxler 2013, pp. 30-37; Laufenberg and Clark 2014, pp. 76-82).

Based on the best available data, all three original breeding subpopulations appear to be stable or increasing, and emigration and immigration (

i.e.,

gene flow) has been documented among several of the Louisiana and Mississippi subpopulations (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, pp. 91-94). The areas supporting Louisiana black bear breeding subpopulations have increased over 430 percent from an estimated 340,000 acres [ac] (138,000 hectares [ha]) in Louisiana in 1993, to the present estimated 1,424,000 ac (576,000 ha) and 382,703 ac (154,875 ha), in Louisiana and Mississippi, respectively, for a total of 1,806,556 ac (731,087 ha) (Table 1). In addition, approximately 148,400 ac (60,055 ha) of private lands have been restored and permanently protected in the Louisiana black bear HRPA since it was listed (Table 2, Figure 2,

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014; and see Factor A discussion).

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

])

Tensas River

basin

1

Upper

Atchafalaya River basin

Lower

Atchafalaya River basin

Total

Breeding Habitat

2

90,198

[36,502]

6,500

[2,630]

0

0

96,698

[39,132]

HRPA

136,870

[55,389]

11,530

[4,666]

0

0

148,400

[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 (N

e

) as a result of isolation due to habitat fragmentation (Boersen et al. 2003, p. 204). They documented low genetic diversity and N

e

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

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)

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

immigration potential that is restricted by the poor habitat quality found along the northern periphery of the LARB subpopulation. U.S. Highway 90 serves as an additional barrier to movement. The genetic structure analyses found evidence of historical genetic isolation associated with Highway 317 within this subpopulation (Troxler 2013, p. 33; Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 54). However, recent data indicate that this has been alleviated and movement of individuals has been occurring within the LARB on both sides of Highway 317 (Troxler 2013, p. 39). As discussed previously, based on the step selection models, the current potential for interchange between this and other subpopulations is low (nonexistent for female bears), and immigration into this subpopulation has not been documented (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 85).

Currently, bears have been observed on the higher portions (levees and ridges) of the Atchafalaya Basin (Figure 1 in Davidson et al. 2015, p. 23), between the UARB and LARB subpopulations, but the Basin is believed to be too wet to support breeding females. However, LeBlanc et al. (1981, p. 65) projected that by 2030, over 35,000 ac (14,000 ha) of lakes and cypress-tupelo (

Taxodium distichum

-Nyssa aquatic) swamps would be converted to cypress swamp and early successional hardwood; habitat types more suitable for black bear use. Studies by Hupp et al. (2008, p. 139) confirm the continued sedimentation (filling in) of wet areas within the Atchafalaya Basin. Such changes could ultimately expand the acreage of suitable habitat for the LARB and UARB subpopulations, and improve habitat linkages and genetic exchange between those groups.

Habitat:

We were not able to estimate the amount of forested Louisiana black bear habitat in the LARB at the time of listing based on internal maps and reports, nor were we able to determine it from the above-mentioned studies. Nyland (1995, p. 58), based on his trapping data, estimated that bears occupied approximately 140,000 ac (56,656 ha) in Iberia and St. Mary Parishes. This is probably a slight underestimate of forested and occupied habitat at that time because it was based primarily on trapping data and did not include Avery Island to the west, a forested salt dome known to be used by bears (Service 2014, p. 34). Comparing NLCD estimates of habitat for 2001 and 2011, there has been an increase of 3,685 ac (1,491 ha) in the LARB HRPA (see Table 8). We estimated that there were approximately 9,921 ac (4,015 ha) of conservation lands (permanently protected) in the LARB HRPA at the time of listing (Service 2014, p. 73, Table 4). Currently, based on ownership boundaries, there are an estimated 11,573 ac (4,683 ha) of conservation lands in the LARB HRPA (Table 3).

In 1993, we estimated approximately 144,803 ac (58,600 ha) supported the LARB breeding population (see Table 1). Today, we estimate 130,839 ac (52,949 ha) are occupied by the LARB breeding subpopulation (see Table 1). The LARB breeding area appears to have decreased in acreage over time; however, the apparent decrease is due to more detailed mapping in 2014 that excluded many non-habitat areas that were included in the more general 1993 boundary. In fact, spatially, there is an apparent increase in distribution over time (see Figure 1,

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014)) because we did not have the data in 1993 to support the inclusion of breeding bears at the western edge on Avery Island, even though we knew bears were present. We now have the data and, therefore, included those bears in the 2014 mapping. Based on the inclusion of the Avery island area and exclusion of non-habitat, the actual area and spatial distribution of this breeding population has likely not changed significantly over time.

Table 3—Total Area (NWRs, WMAs, WRPs, Corps Lands, Farmers Home Administration [FmHA] Easement Tracts, and Wetland Mitigation Banks) Within Louisiana Black Bear Breeding Habitat and the Louisiana Black Bear HRPA in Louisiana (

ac

[

ha

])

Tensas River Basin

1

Upper Atchafalaya River Basin

3

Lower Atchafalaya River Basin

3

Total

3

Louisiana black bear breeding habitat

1,002,750

[405,799]

290,263

[117,465]

130,839

[52,949]

1,423,853

[576,213]

Permanently protected Louisiana black bear breeding habitat

2

493,639

[199,769]

91,880

[37,182]

7,614

[3,081]

593,133

[240,032]

Percent of Louisiana black bear breeding habitat that is permanently protected

2

49.2

31.7

5.8

41.7

Louisiana black bear HRPA

2,054,811

[831,553]

1,200,844

[485,964]

366,001

[148,115]

3,621,656

[1,465,632]

Permanently protected habitat within the Louisiana black bear HRPA

408,400

[165,274]

217,936

[88,195]

11,573

[4,683]

637,909

[258,152]

Percent of the Louisiana black bear HRPA that is permanently protected

19.9

18.1

3.2

17.6

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

interchange of individuals between the subpopulations currently existing within the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins. This area of east-central Louisiana is within the historical range of the Louisiana black bear, but was not known to be occupied by reproducing females when this effort began.

Range expansion of breeding females is a slow process even when bear habitat is in large contiguous blocks because females typically disperse only very short distances. In 1995, when the recovery plan was written, translocations (

i.e.,

capture and release) of adult bears, termed a “hard” release, were not deemed to be effective, as evidenced with the wide dispersals of the Minnesota reintroductions (Taylor 1971, p. 79). The method of winter translocations of adult females and their young (termed “soft” release), however, proved to be successful in Arkansas and was recommended as the preferred method for translocations (Eastridge 2000, p. 100). The site chosen for the Louisiana releases was at the Richard K. Yancy WMA (formerly known as the Red River and Three Rivers WMAs), located about 80 miles south of the TRB and 30 to 40 miles north of the UARB. In addition to the geographic location, the amount of publicly owned land and potential habitat in that area (179,604 ac (72,714 ha)) encompassing several NWRs, WMAs, and more than 12,000 ac (4,858 ha) of privately owned land in WRP made it the logical site for establishment of an additional breeding subpopulation.

The success of those translocations in the formation of the TRC breeding subpopulation represents a significant improvement in Louisiana black bear population demographic conditions since listing. Abundance estimates for the TRC subpopulation are currently unknown. The mean annual estimated female survival rate (2002-2012) for the TRC subpopulation ranged from 0.93 (95 percent CI = 0.85-0.97) to 0.97 (95 percent CI = 0.91-0.99) (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 31). Mean cub and yearling litter size for the same time period were 2.15 and 1.84 in the TRC subpopulation, respectively (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 35). Fecundity and yearling recruitment for the TRC subpopulation were 0.37 and 0.18 (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 31), low compared to the TRB subpopulation, but possibly an artifact of small sample size. The estimated asymptotic growth rates (growth rate estimates calculated from population matrix models) for the TRC ranged from 0.99 to 1.02, for Model 1 and Model 2 respectively (Laufenberg and Clark 204, p. 45). As male cubs born at TRC reach maturity and more males emigrate from the UARB, growth rates of this subpopulation may increase (Laufenberg ad Clark 2014, pp. 70-80). TRC persistence probabilities ranged from 0.295 to 0.999 depending on estimated carrying capacity, the strength of the density dependence, level of uncertainty, and the treatment of unresolved fates (

i.e.,

deaths or lost collars) (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 47). Using the telemetry and reproductive data from the TRC, probabilities of persistence were greater than or equal to 0.95 only for projections based on the most optimistic set of assumptions (

i.e.,

Models 1 and 2, process only) and under the most conservative model (

i.e.,

unresolved fates were assumed dead and more uncertainty was included in model variable estimates), probabilities ranged from 0.34 to 0.90 (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, pp. 48-49, Tables 5 and 6).

Based on step selection function modeling, the least potential for interchange was between the TRB and TRC subpopulations, and the greatest proportion of successful projections was between the UARB and the TRC (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 74). As discussed previously, the TRC has experienced and possibly facilitated gene flow with other subpopulations (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 84). Three males were captured in the TRB that had dispersed from the TRC, and 20 of 35 cubs sampled in the TRC showed evidence of having been sired by UARB males (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 67). One TRC female dispersed to a location southwest of the TRB subpopulation and apparently bred with an Arkansas bear (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 63). Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 83) detected direct evidence of interchange by bears from the UARB to the TRB subpopulation via the TRC subpopulation; however, they did not have any direct evidence of reverse movements. A male bear with UARB ancestry (possibly a second generation migrant) was captured within the TRB, indicating gene flow likely facilitated by the presence of the TRC subpopulation (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 84). Recent LDWF capture records verify the presence of at least one WRB migrant in the TRC subpopulation (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 83).

Habitat:

The TRC contains some of the largest contiguous blocks of publicly owned land in Louisiana. It encompasses approximately 179,600 ac (72,700 ha) of potential bear habitat and roughly 100,000 ac (40,500 ha) of publicly owned, forested land (Richard K. Yancey, Grassy Lake, Pomme de Terre and Spring Bayou WMAs, and Lake Ophelia NWR). The location of this population and its surrounding patchwork of habitat are essential in maintaining connectivity and movement of individuals between the existing TRB and UARB populations.

Mississippi Subpopulations

Demographics:

Black bear numbers are increasing in Mississippi (Simek et al. 2012, p. 165). Shropshire indicated that the most reliable bear sighting reports occurred in nine Mississippi counties (Bolivar, Coahoma, Issaquena, Warren, Adams, Wilkinson, Hancock, Stone, and Jackson (Shropshire 1996, page 55, Table 4.1; see Figure 2,

http://

www.regulations.gov

at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014)), and bear sightings are concentrated in three physiographic regions of Mississippi: Southern Mississippi Valley Alluvium [Delta], the Lower Coastal Plain, and the Coastal Flatwoods (Shropshire 1996, p. 57, Table 4.2). The Mississippi population is currently estimated to be about 120 bears, with approximately 75 percent occurring within Louisiana black bear range (Young 2013, personal communication). Most of the sightings occur along the Mississippi River and in the lower East Pearl River and lower Pascagoula River basins (Simek et al. 2012). Three new resident breeding populations have formed (first documented in 2005) in north west-central (Sharkey-Issaquena Counties), west-central (Warren County) and south west-central (Wilkinson County) Mississippi (Figure 1,

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014)). Genetic studies and LDWF CMR studies have documented bear immigration from the WRB and TRB to the northern Mississippi breeding subpopulation and from TRC to the southern Mississippi breeding subpopulation (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 67). Six bears from northwestern Mississippi (sampled east of the TRB and across the Mississippi River) had mixed ancestry between WRB and TRB (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 63). Genetic studies and LDWF CMR studies have documented bear emigration from the WRB and TRB to the Sharkey-Issaquena and Warren County, Mississippi, subpopulations and from TRC to the Wilkinson County, Mississippi, subpopulation (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, pp. 63-67).

Habitat:

Shropshire (1996, p. 64) found that Adams County contained the most suitable habitat in Mississippi and that Delta National Forest was comparable in habitat quality to Tensas River NWR. Habitat suitability models based on landscape characteristics, human attitudes, and habitat quality

found the highest habitat suitability was in southern Mississippi and the lowest was in the Delta region (Bowman 1999, p. 180).

Similar to the trend for the TRB area, in the Lower Mississippi River Valley of Mississippi, the total forested area increased by 11 percent between 1987 and 1994, and reforestation of former agricultural lands accounted for nearly 40 percent of that increase (King and Keeland 1999, p. 350). Approximately 110,000 ac (41,000 ha) of private land in Mississippi counties adjacent to the Mississippi River have been enrolled in WRP 99-year and permanent easements within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley Black Bear Priority Units (MAVU). Combining WRP permanent easement lands with the habitat protected on Federal and State NWRs or WMAs, other Federal- and State-protected lands, and privately owned protected lands, approximately 868,000 ac (440,000 ha) have been permanently protected and/or restored within the MAVU in Mississippi. Although not permanently protected, approximately 328,000 ac (132,737 ha) were enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) within the MAVU. Approximately 68 percent of breeding habitat in the MAVU is under permanent protection.

East Texas

Demographics:

At the time the bear was listed, populations had not been reported in east Texas for many years, with the exception of the occasional wandering animal (Nowak 1986, p. 7). Keul (2007, p. 1) reviewed historical literature on the black bear in East Texas and concluded that while habitat loss did occur, the primary reason for loss of bears was due to aggressive and uncontrolled sport hunting. The last known areas supporting bears in east Texas was the Big Thicket area of Hardin County and forested areas in Matagorda County, which may have supported a few individuals up to the mid-1940s (Barker et al. 2005, p. 6; Schmidley 1983. p. 1). There were black bear sightings in east Texas in the 1960s following the reintroduction of Minnesota bears into Louisiana, but by 1983 Schmidley (1983, p. 1) stated there were no resident bears remaining in east Texas. Sightings of bears in east Texas have gradually increased since 1977, when the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) started collecting data (Chappell 2011, p. 11). Most of those sightings were believed to be juvenile or sub-adult males that had wandered into the northeastern part of the listed range from expanding populations in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana (Barker et al. 2005, p. 7). Observations in the 1990s indicate the return of a few black bears to the remote forests of east Texas, primarily transient, solitary males that are believed to be dispersing from Arkansas and Oklahoma (Holdermann 2014, personal communication). There is currently no evidence of a resident breeding population of black bears in east Texas. Kaminski (2011, entire document) conducted a region-wide hair snare survey in east and southeast Texas in areas assumed to have the highest likelihood of bear occurrence and where sightings had been reported. According to the genetic analysis and based on the estimated effectiveness of their sampling method, it was determined it was highly unlikely there were established black bear populations in the region (Kaminski 2011, p. 34). Since 1990, there have been 37 verified black bear sightings in 13 east Texas counties, and preliminary examination of these data suggest that some observations may represent duplicate sightings of individual bears (Holdermann 2014, personal communication).

Habitat:

The TPWD field analyses of remaining potential black bear habitats within east Texas (using habitat suitability models) found that the Sulphur River Bottom, Middle and Lower Neches River Corridors, and Big Thicket National Preserve areas in east Texas were all suitable for black bears and that the Middle Neches River Corridor provided the most suitable location for any bear restoration or management efforts in east Texas (Garner and Willis 1998, p. 5). Kaminski (2011, p. 50) used Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI) for black bears in east and southeast Texas to identify 4 recovery units (ranging in size from 74,043 to 183,562 ac (31,583 to 74,285 ha)) capable of sustaining viable back bear populations. Estimated HSI scores for each were comparable to other estimates for the occupied range of black bears in the southeast, and the estimated acreage of suitable habitat for all units exceeded those estimated to support existing Louisiana black bear populations (Kaminski 2011). Approximately 11.8 million ac (477,530 ha) of the Pineywoods area of east Texas is classified as forest, of which approximately 61 percent is non-industrial private timberland (Barker et al. 2005, pp. 25-26). Recent studies by Kaminski and Comer (2013, p. 4), Kaminski et al. (2013, p. 10), and Siegmund (2104, pp. 1-2) have documented large, contiguous forested areas in East Texas capable of supporting viable black bear populations. Currently there are approximately 1,115,443 ac (451,404 ha) of Federal and State lands (NWRs, U.S. Forest Service and WMAs) within the historical range of the Louisiana black bear in east-central Texas. Black bear recovery and range expansion in bordering Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma may increase bear occurrence and activity in east Texas in future years.

Louisiana Black Bear Population Summary

Recent population studies for the Louisiana black bear have focused on vital statistics for individual subpopulations such as abundance, reproduction, and survival (

e.g.,

Hooker 2010; Lowe 2011, O'Connell 2013, Troxler 2013). Laufenberg and Clark (2014, entire document) expanded the results of those studies and also conducted genetic structure connectivity studies to examine the viability and connectivity of the Louisiana black bear.

In summary, considering Laufenberg and Clark's recent work (2014, entire document) and prior research, the following conditions exist for the Louisiana black bear population:

(1) The population sizes of the TRB, UARB, and LARB subpopulations have increased since listing, their average population growth rates are stable to increasing, and the probability of long-term persistence for the TRB and UARB subpopulations (except for one UARB modeling scenario) is greater than 95 percent. The probability of long-term persistence for the LARB is unknown.

(2) The habitat occupied by the TRB, UARB, and LARB breeding subpopulations has increased; there is a more scattered distribution of breeding females between the original TRB and UARB subpopulation areas; and new satellite breeding populations are forming in Louisiana (see Figure 1 in the supporting documents section,

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014)).

(3) A new breeding subpopulation, the TRC, that was not present at listing, now exists between the TRB and UARB subpopulations and facilitates interchange between those subpopulations.

(4) There is evidence that TRB and UARB bears have emigrated to Mississippi and have contributed to the formation of three resident breeding subpopulations that were not present at listing.

(5) There is evidence of interchange of bears between the TRB, UARB, TRC, WRB, and Mississippi subpopulations; however, the current potential for

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

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;

however, the presence of the relatively large LARB subpopulation and projections for improving habitat conditions (refer to Factor A and D discussions) between it and the more northerly UARB subpopulation contributes to the persistence of the Louisiana black bear population as a whole.

This recovery criterion, as described in the recovery plan, calls for two viable subpopulations, one each in the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins. The overall goal of the recovery plan was to protect the Louisiana black bear metapopulation and the habitat that supports it so that the protection afforded by the Act is no longer warranted. Based on the above analysis, we believe the Tensas subpopulation is viable and we believe the UARB subpopulation is viable based on three model scenarios. We have high confidence in these three model scenarios. The long-term persistence of the Louisiana black bear metapopulation (TRB, TRC, and UARB) is estimated to be at least 0.996 under the most conservative (

i.e.,

using the lowest estimates of viability) model assumptions; therefore, we believe this criterion to be met. We believe that these conservative assumptions identified in these scenarios will likely be present post-delisting as the Louisiana black bear PDM plan is implemented. Additionally, we will pay close attention to UARB and LARB subpopulation parameters as post-delisting monitoring progresses. The TRC subpopulation located between TRB and UARB provides a mechanism for exchange between the TRB and UARB subpopulations. In addition, this recovery plan criterion did not include the possibility of other populations forming on the landscape because female range expansion is very slow and there was no acceptable methodology at the time to expedite that expansion (

e.g.,

soft release translocations). However, this assumption was proven wrong. In addition to the populations described above, we have documented new breeding populations established in Louisiana and Mississippi (Figure 1,

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014).

Recovery Criterion 2: Immigration and emigration corridors between the two viable subpopulations.

This criterion has been met. To reach an accurate conclusion regarding the achievement of this criterion, it is essential to fully understand the term “corridor” in light of the advances in Louisiana black bear research methodology (and the knowledge gained regarding Louisiana black bear dispersal and interchange) that has occurred since the listing of the Louisiana black bear more than 20 years ago. Although the Louisiana black bear Recovery Plan does not specifically define the term “corridor,” it does present the future objective of developing corridor requirements and guidelines from available research studies and incorporating pertinent findings and knowledge into practical management guidelines (Service 1995, p. 18).

The BBCC Black Bear Restoration Plan states that little was known about Louisiana black bear corridor use and requirements at that time (BBCC 1997, p. 58). Research studies conducted near the time of the Louisiana black bear listing were primarily inconclusive regarding the identification and function of corridors. Weaver et al. (1990b, p. 347) determined that the Louisiana black bear will use tree-lined drainages in agricultural areas to travel between larger forested tracts. They also stated, however, that “research is needed to document the characteristics a corridor must possess to make it suitable for use by bears as a habitat link.” Marchinton (1995, pp. 53, 64) speculated that male Louisiana black bear movements, though influenced by habitat fragmentation patterns, were not inhibited by the level of fragmentation within his study area (which was typical of the landscape throughout the range of the Louisiana black bear). He also discussed anecdotal evidence which suggested that “adult male bears would cross open fields” (Marchinton 1995, p. 59). We believe those early studies not only challenged the continuous-habitat-linkage perception of a corridor, but also described the need for additional research to clearly characterize the qualities and functions of such corridors.

The Black Bear Restoration Plan states that “the criteria for measuring corridor effectiveness should also consider corridor function” and “research is urgently needed to determine the corridor functions, their size and shape, and their actual effectiveness” (BBCC 1997, p. 58). To assess the function and role of corridors in Louisiana black bear dispersal and genetic exchange, Laufenberg and Clark (2014, pp. 24-31) conducted a movement, or step selection, study throughout a large portion of the range of the Louisiana black bear. Their findings indicated that, while contiguous forested habitat linkages can be beneficial to bears moving through a fragmented landscape, hypothetical forested corridors “were not more effective than the broken habitat matrix that surrounded many of the subpopulations” (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 85). Their study also documented interchange occurring “from the UARB to the TRB by way of the TRC” (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, pp. 2, 84). Such interchange supports the assertion by Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 90) that the presence of multiple satellite populations of breeding bears on the landscape may be more effective in establishing and/or maintaining connectivity between the larger subpopulations than the presence of contiguous forested linkages. Based on their results and that of other pertinent studies (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 90; Hilty et al. 2006, p. 192-193; Stratman et al. 2001, p. 57; Hellgren and Vaughn 1994, p. 279; Maehr et al. 1988, p. 4), we define “Louisiana black bear corridor” as a landscape that consists of “stepping stones” of habitat such as large forested tracts that support reproducing subpopulations, smaller forested blocks that support one or more reproductive-aged females, and the matrix of riparian corridors, agricultural fields, and other undeveloped lands that are sufficiently permeable to allow interchange between the existing subpopulations.

Most satellite populations exist today as a result of the multi-agency project undertaken specifically to reduce demographic isolation of the existing TRB and UARB subpopulations (see discussion under TRC). That translocation project, initiated in 2001, was based on the assumptions that relocated females with cubs would remain at a new location (not currently supporting a Louisiana black bear subpopulation) and that adult females would be discovered by males traveling through the area. From 2001 through 2009, 48 females and 104 cubs were moved (primarily from the TRB) to a complex of public lands located between the TRB and the UARB subpopulations. Though most relocated females and their offspring remained within the vicinity of their release site (creating a new subpopulation that reduced the distance between existing subpopulations), a few dispersed to various habitat patches creating the satellite populations that now facilitate interchange between the larger subpopulations.

As part of the recovery process, HRPA maps were developed by a collaborative multi-agency and organization group (Federal, State, local government partners, and nonprofit organizations including but not limited to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), LDWF, BBCC, Louisiana State University, the Louisiana Nature Conservancy, and the Service) to design

and create landscape features to support the habitat-block/satellite-population corridor concept that facilitates such interchange. The Louisiana black bear HRPA maps are regularly updated; the most recent update was in the spring of 2011. Those maps are designed for use with conservation programs administered by NRCS (

e.g.,

WRP) and the Service (

e.g.,

Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW)), which primarily encourage reforestation of marginal and nonproductive cropland in Louisiana. The maps, using a 3-tiered point system, establish higher point zones (indicating higher importance for bear recovery and thus providing landowners competing for this conservation funding with a higher ranking) around breeding bear habitat, large forested areas, and various habitat patches that may facilitate interchange between Louisiana black bear subpopulations. Areas that would benefit breeding subpopulations and corridors thus receive the highest priority, and landowners competing for WRP enrollment would receive higher rankings in those areas. Most WRP tracts are encumbered by permanent easements that protect the land from future conversion or development (refer to discussion in Factor D).

Similar conservation priority maps have been developed and are currently in use in Mississippi (Ginger et al. 2007). The TPWD and its partners have developed Land Conservation Priority Maps for East Texas and a Hardwood Habitat Cooperative that offers a cost-share program to landowners seeking to restore or enhance hardwood habitat on their lands. In East Texas, more than 500 ac (200 ha) have been restored and 1,550 ac (630 ha) were enhanced via the Hardwood Habitat Cooperative program between 2008 and 2011.

The Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan states that corridors providing cover may facilitate the movement of bears between highly fragmented forest tracts. It also states, however, that the Louisiana black bear has been known to cross open agricultural fields even when forested corridors were available, and that “habitat blocks (large blocks of land) may provide more effective corridors” (Service 1995, p. 6). This type of habitat-block/satellite-population corridor occurs throughout the range of the Louisiana black bear in the form of remnant forested patches and tracts of restored habitat (on private and public lands), and has been augmented by the relocation of bears into east-central Louisiana. Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 90) concluded, based on the result of their work, that a patchwork of natural land cover between Louisiana black bear breeding subpopulations may be sufficient for movement of individuals between subpopulations (at least for males).

Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 85) postulated that, while such corridors may be important, they were not more effective than the presence of a broken-habitat matrix such as what is surrounding current Louisiana black bear subpopulations. As described above, research supports this corridor concept and the documented evidence of interchange between the UARB and the TRB subpopulations (and additional interchange with subpopulations in Arkansas and Mississippi) provides further validation. The Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan indicates “key corridors or habitat blocks need to be identified and will be required to ease fragmentation within and between occupied habitat for the Louisiana black bear.” We have clearly documented evidence of interchange between the TRB and UARB subpopulations by way of the TRC, and, therefore, we have met this criterion.

Recovery Criterion 3: Long-term protection of the habitat and interconnecting corridors that support each of the two viable subpopulations used as justification for delisting.

The recovery plan states that long-term protection is defined as having sufficient voluntary conservation agreements with private landowners and public land managers in the Tensas and Atchafalaya River Basins so that habitat degradation is unlikely to occur over 100 years (Service 1995, p. 14). Additionally, the Black Bear Restoration Plan states that criteria for determining whether long-term habitat and corridor protection has been achieved could include “data projecting future habitat trend according to historical trend in acreage and habitat type/quality” (BBCC 1997, p. 58). It further states that other metrics to consider may include the extent of cooperating private landowners and the nature of their respective conservation agreements, as well as “federal legislation restricting agricultural conversion of wetlands, and the nature of conservation easements such as those being obtained from private landowners by the Corps in the Atchafalaya Floodway” (BBCC 1997, p. 58). Employing those criteria, and based on the genetic and connectivity studies by Laufenberg and Clark (2014), it is evident that not only are corridors between the UARB and the TRB subpopulations present and functional, they are afforded long-term protection through a combination of conservation easements and environmental regulations.

Habitat Protection Through Ownership or Permanent Easements:

An estimated 450,000 to 550,000 ac (182,000 to 222,000 ha) of BLH forest habitat were restored in the LMRAV within 12 years of the Louisiana black bear being listed as a threatened species (Haynes 2004, p. 173). Since 1992, more than 148,000 ac (60,000 ha) of land has been permanently protected and/or restored in the HRPA via the WRP program (mostly in the TRB and UARB areas) (Table 2). It should also be noted that, in Louisiana, there are approximately 480,000 ac (195,000 ha) of public lands within the HRPA that are managed or maintained in a manner that provides benefits to bears (Table 5). Approximately 460,000 ac (186,000 ha) of public lands in Louisiana and Mississippi directly support Louisiana black bear breeding populations (see Table 6, and Figure 2,

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014)).

Habitat Protection Through Regulations and Mitigation:

A large proportion of the remaining forested habitat that is not encumbered by perpetual conservation servitudes or public ownership and management are occasionally to frequently flooded and would not be suitable for conversion to agriculture or development without the construction of significant flood control features. The construction of such features or similar activities that would eliminate or reduce existing wetland habitat (including forested wetlands) would be regulated via the Food Security Act of 1985 and/or section 404 of the CWA. Although the CWA was initially considered insufficient to ensure the long-term protection of Louisiana black bear corridors, significant changes have occurred in the legal interpretation and authoritative limits of the CWA (Houck 2012, pp. 1473-1525). As the result of multiple court cases and revised legal interpretations, the regulatory scope and enforcement authority of the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the CWA was substantially broadened (see Factor D for additional information). With the institution of those regulatory changes, BLH forest loss in the LMRAV has reversed. This trend reversal is heavily supported by published accounts (Haynes 2004, p. 173), natural resource management agency records (Table 2), and our analysis of classified imagery within the Louisiana black bear HRPA (Tables 7 and 8). The habitat loss trend reversal is further supported by an analysis of data obtained from the Corps' wetland regulatory program, which demonstrates

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

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 (N

e

) 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 N

e

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).

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

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

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

Act. The Act specifically requires that the status of a species is determined based the five factors described in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section.

After delisting, the LDWF will continue to monitor and actively manage the Louisiana black bear. The LDWF Plan has the stated objective of maintaining a sustainable black bear population in suitable habitat even after the bear is delisted. Additionally, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas have developed and are distributing public education and bear safety informational material. LDWF regularly sponsors and will continue to provide public education and outreach as described in the Plan.

Comment (21):

One commenter questioned whether the genetic analyses presented by Laufenberg and Clark (2014) require the Service to revisit the current Louisiana black bear taxonomy.

Our response:

Laufenberg and Clark (2014, p. 85), in discussing the results of the population structure and migrant analyses and affinities of Louisiana bears to Minnesota and WRB bears, stated that they did not believe that the level of genetic affinity or differentiation they detected between populations was sufficient to determine taxonomic status. Numerous other studies of both morphometric and genetic characters have also found evidence of affinities among bears in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Minnesota producing differing interpretations of the taxonomy and distribution of bears in Louisiana with no definitive determination or conclusion that has been widely accepted. Therefore, although we recognize that there are still questions around the taxonomy, we still consider the Louisiana black bear to be a distinct subspecies described by Hall (1981, pp. 948-951).

Comment (22):

One commenter questioned the process by which the Service evaluates the validity of the scientific research used in the rule. One commenter wanted to know if the peer reviewers would receive copies of public comments to consider prior to submission of their comments and whether the names of peer reviewers would be made available to the public.

Our response:

The research presented by Laufenberg and Clark (2014) was peer reviewed before the final publication was released to the Service in 2014. Additionally, in accordance with our 1994 peer review policy, we solicited independent scientific peer review of our delisting proposal, which included a review of the data we used and our interpretation and use of that data. Peer review was conducted by recognized experts in black bear biology. All peer reviewers indicated that we had correctly interpreted the results (see Peer Review Comments). All public comments and peer review comments (including commenter names for both public comments and peer reviewers) were made available for public review in the docket (

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2015-0014). Although peer reviewers were able to look at comments on the docket, the Service did not provide them with copies prior to completion of their peer review.

Comment (23):

One commenter questioned whether our reliance on the research by Laufenberg and Clark (2014) set a precedent for a methodology to be used under the Act regarding continued viability analyses.

Our response:

There are several approaches that can be used to assess a population's viability, and the availability of the best available data and subsequent analyses will vary by species. In the case of the Louisiana black bear, the demographic, viability, and connectivity analyses conducted by Laufenberg and Clark (2014) represent the best available science (based on extensive data) and, as noted by a peer reviewer, are the currently most advanced or sophisticated analyses for the Louisiana black bear. We do not view use of this methodology as precedent setting for viability analyses in general, but consider our approach to satisfy section 4(b) of the Act, which requires that the determination to add or remove a species from the list be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” This determination is made on a species-by-species basis.

Comment (24):

One group suggested we should structure our delisting decision and the post-delisting monitoring plan on the basis of Louisiana black bear subpopulations and not on a “one size fits all” metapopulation approach.

Our response:

We do not believe that our approach to this rule is “one size fits all.” As described in the Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation section of the proposed rule, the metapopulation analysis was only one aspect of our assessment of Louisiana black bear recovery. We began by looking at individual subpopulation numbers and habitat conditions, and then we examined recovery criteria for TRB and UARB subpopulation viabilities. Finally, based on the overall objective of the recovery plan (

i.e.,

“sufficiently alleviate threats to the metapopulation”), we assessed metapopulation viability. Although the recovery plan addresses metapopulations, the decision to revise the status of or remove a species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is ultimately based on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data that are available to determine whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species based on the evaluation of the five factors in section 4 of the Act.

The purpose of the PDM plan is to detect any declines in Louisiana black bear populations (at extremely early stages) upon delisting, and the PDM plan includes threshold triggers that would allow for corrective actions to be taken before the species would require protection of the Act. The PDM plan focuses on the subpopulations and habitat features that we relied on to demonstrate the black bear's recovery. Only in Category III of the PDM plan's “Definition of Response Triggers for Potential Monitoring Outcomes” (Service 2016c, p. 33) is metapopulation reassessed, in the event of individual subpopulation declines or habitat loss, as part of a decision to reassess the bear's status.

Comment (25):

Several commenters stated that they did not believe the data we presented indicated that the species had recovered, and requested we ensure that all delisting criteria had been met and that a long-range conservation plan had been established. Other commenters claimed that the Service had not followed the recovery plan, and requested that protection be maintained for American black bears (due to similarity of appearance) within the range of

U. a. luteolus

because the Louisiana black bear was not recovered.

Our response:

Recovery plans include criteria to assist in evaluating the status of a listed species; recovery plans are not regulatory documents. Species recovery may be accomplished via multiple avenues and may be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For the Louisiana black bear, however, the Service has determined that all recovery criteria have been met (see the discussion for Recovery Criteria). Additionally, our analysis of pertinent data and best available science confirms that the Louisiana black bear is fully recovered based on the absence of threats that were present at listing and the lack of new threats. Providing protection of the Act for this subspecies or other American black bear subspecies within its range based on similarity of appearance is, therefore, no longer warranted. The Service is not required under the Act to establish a long-range conservation plan. However, as we have

discussed in our rule, all three States within Louisiana black bear range have management plans that we have evaluated and have determined provide for the long-term conservation of this species (see the discussion in Factor D). Additionally, we did get valuable comments on our post-delisting monitoring plan to ensure it is protective of the Louisiana black bear.

Comment (26):

Numerous commenters asserted that there are still active threats to the Louisiana black bear population, such as habitat loss, pollution, and human-induced mortality, and cited a lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms to prevent such occurrences. Numerous commenters identified vehicular collisions as an important source of mortality that should be addressed before delisting.

Our response:

The Service reviews the best scientific and commercial information available when conducting a threats analysis. In considering what factors might constitute a threat, we must look beyond the mere exposure of individuals of the species to the factor to determine whether the exposure causes actual impacts to the entire species. The mere identification of factors that could negatively impact a species is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing (or maintaining a currently listed species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants) is appropriate. We require evidence that these factors are operative threats currently acting on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of endangered or of threatened under the Act. In this case, we reviewed all known activities that could potentially threaten the Louisiana black bear (see Factors A-E discussion). While many of the anthropogenic sources of mortality (

e.g.,

poaching, vehicle strikes, and nuisance bear management) have impacted individual animals, we determined that, based on the analyses of population viabilities and the level of occurrences, they do not represent significant threats to the Louisiana black bear population (see Summary of Factor E).

Comment (27):

One commenter suggested that the evaluation of future trends in human population growth should not be compared to data from 2015. Rather, data from 1900 should be considered baseline.

Our response:

While historical population trends may provide an opportunity to track the effect of human population growth on Louisiana black bear habitat and demographics throughout history, we question the relevance of such data for assessing future threats to that species. Nonetheless, to ensure that we have fully considered potential threats associated with future human population growth, we evaluated the data referenced by the commenter. We found that, from 1900 to 2010 (using known population figures rather than projections), only 4 of the 17 parishes evaluated (which are those included within the Louisiana black bear HRPA) had their peak human population at the end of that evaluation period (

i.e.,

2010). In contrast, the 13 remaining parishes experienced their highest populations prior to 2010, including 9 that peaked prior to 1950, and 4 that experienced a peak population in 1900 (

http://louisiana.gov/Explore/Historical_Census/

; downloaded on December 3, 2015). Such figures are not unexpected as population-influencing factors of the early 1900s may no longer exist, or may have changed dramatically over the last century (

e.g.,

educational opportunities, employment prospects, and discovery/utilization of natural resources such as hydrocarbons or agricultural crops). Accordingly, we defer to expert analysts at the Louisiana State Census Data Center to properly account for historical and current trends (and associated influences) in developing human population projections for the State. Therefore, we anticipate minimal threats to the Louisiana black bear from future population growth based on projections provided by that agency (using the longest-range population forecast data currently available, which predict population declines from current levels in 15 of the 17 parishes within the Louisiana black bear HRPA).

Comment (28):

One commenter mentioned recent bear mortalities resulting from incidental capture in snares and asserted that this new source of mortality constituted a demonstrable threat.

Our response:

Available data demonstrate that the extent of Louisiana black bear mortality attributable to incidental capture in snares (intended for such species as feral hogs or coyotes) is minimal. In their comprehensive review of mortality data collected over the 23-year period since the bear was listed, Davidson and Murphy (2015, p. 9) found that a total of four bears have been killed in Louisiana from incidental capture in snares. This equates to approximately one percent of all known bear mortalities in the State. To our knowledge, the most comprehensive snaring effort within the range of the Louisiana black bear is associated with the feral swine damage management program administered by USDA-Wildlife Services. According to their data (USDA 2013, p. B-1), in approximately 6,000 snare days spanning over 8 years, no Louisiana black bears have been caught by their personnel. Accordingly, based on the best available scientific data, we do not believe that the incidental snaring of Louisiana black bears constitutes a threat to the subspecies.

Comment (29):

Several public commenters asserted that the effects of climate change and the potential reduction in habitat resulting from changes in sea level posed a threat to the LARB subpopulation.

Our response:

As stated in our response to Comment 26, simply identifying factors that could negatively impact a species is not sufficient to compel a finding that protection under the Act is necessary; we require evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act. In the case of the effects of climate change, we reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information available that examined its potential effects (

e.g.,

tropical storms, sea level rise, increased flooding) on black bear habitat, including research on the habitat needs of Louisiana black bears and their ability to adapt to potential habitat changes. Regarding sea level rise threats, more than 90 percent of Louisiana black bear breeding habitat and 70 percent of the Louisiana black bear population occur outside of the Louisiana Coastal Zone. Furthermore, the Louisiana black bear is extremely adaptable, highly mobile, and has the ability to successfully traverse large expanses of terrain that may include unsuitable or hostile landscape features. A recent study of the effects of the 2011 emergency opening of the Morganza Flood Control Structure verified the resiliency of the Louisiana black bear when faced with extreme environmental challenges, and concluded that adult Louisiana black bears experienced no negative biological effects from the extensive flooding that occurred during the operation of that structure (O'Connell-Goode et al. 2014, p. 483). Therefore, we continue to believe that it is highly unlikely that currently projected effects of climate change would impact Louisiana black bear habitat to the extent that it would represent a substantial threat to this species. A more detailed discussion of the ability of the Louisiana black bear (including the LARB subpopulation) to survive the effects of global climate change and sea level rise is presented under Factor E.

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 th

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.