[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 15, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31668-31692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12460]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0076; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
RIN 1018-BE71


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species 
Status for Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan With a Section 4(d) 
Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list the Mount Rainier white-tailed

[[Page 31669]]

ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura rainierensis), a bird subspecies in 
Washington, as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act). After a review of the best available scientific 
and commercial information, we find that listing the subspecies is 
warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan as a threatened species with a rule issued under 
section 4(d) of the Act (``4(d) rule''). If we finalize this rule as 
proposed, it would add this subspecies to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to the species. We 
have determined that designation of critical habitat for this 
subspecies is not prudent.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
August 16, 2021. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by July 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R1-ES-2020-0076, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left 
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed 
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking 
on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2020-0076, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Thompson, State Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 
Desmond Drive, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503; telephone 360-753-9440. 
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call 
the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that 
a species is an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a 
proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our 
proposal within 1 year. To the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
we must designate critical habitat for any species that we determine to 
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species 
as an endangered or threatened species and designation of critical 
habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
    What this document does. We propose the listing of the Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura rainierensis) as a 
threatened species with a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of 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 have determined that habitat degradation resulting from climate 
change will affect the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan within the 
foreseeable future. Rising temperatures associated with climate change 
are expected to have direct and rapid impacts on individual birds, 
which experience physiological stress at 21 degrees Celsius (C) (70 
degrees Fahrenheit (F)). Changing habitat conditions, such as loss of 
suitable alpine vegetation and reduced snow quality and quantity, are 
expected to cause populations to decline. These threats and responses 
are reasonably foreseeable because some are already evident in the 
range of the subspecies, and the best available information indicates 
that the effects of climate change will continue to alter the 
subspecies' habitat within the foreseeable future. Furthermore, 
connectivity between populations is low, and it is unlikely that Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan will adapt to the changing climate by 
moving northward because alpine areas north of their current range are 
expected to undergo similar impacts due to climate change.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to 
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. We find that threats to 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations on these species under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 
Therefore, we have determined that designation of critical habitat for 
this subspecies is not prudent.
    Peer review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review 
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and 
our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of 
peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert 
opinions of eight independent peer reviewers, including scientists with 
expertise in white-tailed ptarmigan as well as climate science on the 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan Species Status Assessment, Version 
1.1 (SSA report) (USFWS 2020, entire), which provided the scientific 
basis for this proposed rule; three of these experts provided review. 
The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing 
determinations, critical habitat designations, and 4(d) rules are based 
on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The Service 
also sent the SSA report to three agency partners for review; we 
received comments from one agency--the Washington Department of Fish 
and Wildlife.
    The proposed section 4(d) rule. We propose to prohibit all 
intentional take of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan and 
specifically tailor the incidental take exceptions under section 
9(a)(1) of the Act. This is to provide protective mechanisms primarily 
to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the National Park Service (NPS) 
to continue routine operations on the landscape that are not likely to 
cause adverse effects and, in some cases, have the potential to benefit 
the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan over time.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, 
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any 
other

[[Page 31670]]

interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
    We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including 
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics;
    (c) Taxonomy and the validity of the current subspecies 
classification;
    (d) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
    (e) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (f) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat or both.
    (2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, 
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, 
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, 
or other natural or manmade factors.
    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations 
that may be addressing those threats.
    (4) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, 
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
    (5) Information on regulations that are necessary and advisable to 
provide for the conservation of the Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan and that the Service can consider in developing a 4(d) rule 
for the species. In particular, information concerning the extent to 
which we should include any of the section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) 
rule or whether any other forms of take should be excepted from the 
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule.
    (6) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the 
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may 
or may not be prudent:
    (a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species;
    (b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
    (c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
    (d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a 
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    Comments and materials we receive, including all hardcopy 
submissions as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing 
this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--including any personal 
identifying information--will be posted on the website. If your 
submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying 
information, you may request at the top of your document that we 
withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot 
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Because we will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from 
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any 
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species is 
endangered instead of threatened, or we may conclude that the species 
does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a 
threatened species. In addition, we may change the parameters of the 
prohibitions or the exceptions to those prohibitions if we conclude it 
is appropriate in light of comments and new information received. For 
example, we may expand the incidental-take prohibitions to include 
prohibiting additional activities if we conclude that those additional 
activities are not compatible with conservation of the species. 
Conversely, we may establish additional exceptions to the incidental-
take prohibitions in the final rule if we conclude that the activities 
would facilitate or are compatible with the conservation and recovery 
of the species.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public 
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's 
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual 
public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 
424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

    In 2010, the Service was petitioned to list the southern white-
tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura altipetens) and the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan as threatened species under the Act. In 2012, 
the Service issued a positive 90-day finding on the petition to list 
the two subspecies, having determined that the petition presented 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
listing the southern white-tailed ptarmigan and the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan may be warranted. The Service then conducted 
separate status reviews on the two subspecies.

Supporting Documents

    A team of Service biologists, in consultation with other species 
experts, developed the SSA report for the Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan (USFWS 2020, entire). The SSA report represents a compilation 
of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the 
status of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and 
future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species. 
The Service sent the report to eight independent peer reviewers and 
received three responses. The Service also sent the SSA report to three 
agency partners for review; we received comments from one agency--the 
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. This proposed rule is based 
on

[[Page 31671]]

the scientific information compiled in the SSA report, and constitutes 
our 12-month finding on the 2010 petition to list the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan.

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is presented in the SSA report 
(USFWS 2020, entire). The Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is found 
in alpine and subalpine areas of the Cascade Mountains (Cascades) in 
Washington State and southern British Columbia, Canada. There are 
currently four other subspecies of white-tailed ptarmigan recognized, 
including the southern white-tailed ptarmigan (L. l. altipetens) 
primarily in Colorado, the Kenai white-tailed ptarmigan (L. l. 
peninsularis) in Alaska, the Vancouver Island white-tailed ptarmigan 
(L. l. saxatilis) in British Columbia, Canada, and the northern white-
tailed ptarmigan (L. l. leucura) in northern Montana and Alberta, 
Canada.

Species Description

    Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan are cryptic birds that are 
resident or short-distance elevation migrants with numerous adaptations 
for snow and extreme cold in winter, including snow roosting behavior 
and heavily feathered feet that act as snowshoes to support them as 
they walk across the snow (Braun et al. 2011, Distinguishing 
Characteristics section). The subspecies molts frequently throughout 
the year to remain cryptic, appearing entirely white in winter (except 
for black eyes, dark toenails, and a black beak), mottled with brown 
and white in spring, and brown in summer; the tail feathers remain 
white year-round and distinguish the white-tailed ptarmigan from other 
ptarmigan species (Braun et al. 2011, Distinguishing Characteristics 
section; Braun et al. 1993, Appearance section; Hoffman 2006, p. 12). 
The breeding plumage of male Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
includes dark brown and black breast feathers that resemble a necklace. 
Males and females share similar body size and shape, with adult body 
lengths up to 34 centimeters (cm) (13.4 inches (in)), and body masses 
up to approximately 378 grams (g) (0.83 pounds (lb)) (Martin et al. 
2015, Table 3).

Taxonomy and Genetics

    The white-tailed ptarmigan is in the order Galliformes, family 
Phasianidae, and the subfamily Tetraoninae, which includes multiple 
grouse species (Hoffman 2006, p. 11; NatureServe 2011, p. 1). Multiple 
taxonomic authorities for birds recognize the validity of the five 
subspecies of white-tailed ptarmigan. The American Ornithological Union 
(AOU) recognized the five subspecies in their Checklist (AOU 1957, 
entire). Since 1957, the AOU has not conducted a review of its 
subspecific distinction and stopped listing subspecies as of the 6th 
edition in 1983. However, the AOU (1998, p. xii) recommends the 
continued use of its 5th edition (AOU 1957, entire) for taxonomy at the 
subspecific level. Based on their 1957 consideration of the taxon, the 
AOU still recognizes the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan as a 
valid subspecies. Additionally, the Integrated Taxonomic Information 
System (ITIS) (2019) and Cornell Lab of Ornithology's Clements 
Checklist (Clements et al. 2019, entire) also recognize the five 
subspecies of white-tailed ptarmigan.

Life History

    Male Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan establish territories in 
early spring, extending their territories upslope as snow melts, 
exposing vegetation and potential nesting sites (Schmidt 1988, pp. 283-
284). Pairs form shortly after females arrive on breeding areas in late 
April to mid-May (Martin et al. 2015, Phenology section). White-tailed 
ptarmigan are usually monogamous, but polygyny (one male with multiple 
females) and polyandry (one female with multiple males, a.k.a. extra-
pair copulations) also occur on rare occasions (Benson 2002, p. 195; 
Braun and Rogers 1971, p. 33). Due to the short breeding season, female 
white-tailed ptarmigan usually nest only once per season. However, if 
they lose their nest during the laying period or early incubation, they 
may lay a second or, rarely, a third clutch of eggs at another site 
within their territory (Choate 1963, p. 693; Giesen and Braun 1979, p. 
217). Regardless, female white-tailed ptarmigan raise only one brood 
per year (Sandercock et al. 2005a, p. 2177).
    First clutches are typically 4-9 eggs, with smaller replacement 
clutches (2-7 eggs) (Choate 1963, p. 693; Giesen and Braun 1979, p. 
217); incubation lasts 22-25 days (Wiebe and Martin 2000, p. 467; 
Martin et al. 2015, Incubation section). Chicks are precocial, meaning 
they are relatively mature and mobile from the moment of hatching. 
Within 6-12 hours after all eggs have hatched, broods gradually move 
upslope, depending on where forage and cover for chicks are found 
(Braun 1969, p. 140; Schmidt 1988, p. 291; Giesen and Braun 1993, p. 
74; Hoffman 2006, p. 21; Martin et al. 2015, Young Birds section). 
Chicks are capable of flight at 10-12 days of age, and remain with 
females for 8-10 weeks, and sometimes through the winter (Martin et al. 
2015, Fledgling Stage section).
    Chicks less than 3 weeks old primarily eat invertebrates (May 1975, 
p. 28), but adult white-tailed ptarmigan, as well as chicks older than 
approximately 5 weeks old, are herbivorous (May 1975, pp. 28-29). 
White-tailed ptarmigan in the North Cascades were observed eating, in 
order of preference: dwarf huckleberry (Vaccinium deliciosurri), red 
mountain heather (Phyllodoce empetriformes), black-headed sedge (Carex 
nigricans), white mountain heather (Cassiope mertensiana), crowfoot 
(Leutkea pectinata), Tolmie's saxifrage (Saxifraga tolmiei), spiked 
wood rush (Luzula spicata), and mosses (Skagen 1980, p. 4). Plant items 
in bird's crops consisted of leaves, buds, and catkins of willow 
(Salix); fruit of sedges (Carex), grasses (Poa), and heather 
(Cassiope); and leaves of buttercup (Ranunculus) (Weeden 1967, entire).
    Records of longevity for wild white-tailed ptarmigan include a 12-
year-old female and a 15-year-old male (Martin et al. 2015, Life Span 
and Survivorship section). Breeding season mortality is higher for 
females than for males (Martin et al. 2015), but is assumed to be 
highest for both sexes during migration between breeding and wintering 
areas in the fall and spring (Braun and Rogers 1971). Survival rates 
change from year to year and among populations, with no consistent 
trend or pattern (Sandercock et al. 2005b, p. 16; Martin et al. 2015; 
Life Span and Survivorship section). Juvenile survival of ptarmigan 
during their first fall and winter is usually lower than adult survival 
(Choate 1963, Giesen and Braun 1993, and Hannon and Martin 2006, in 
Martin et al. 2015, Life Span and Survivorship section).
    Density estimates have been calculated for other subspecies of 
white-tailed ptarmigan, but these estimates are uneven across the range 
of the species, with most studies occurring in Colorado, Vancouver 
Island, the Yukon, and the Sierra Nevada mountains of California where 
72 white-tailed ptarmigan were translocated from Colorado in 1971 and 
1972 (Clarke and Johnston 1990, p. 649). These estimates fluctuate 
between years and locations, ranging from about less than 1 to about 14 
birds per km\2\ (2.6 to 36 birds per mi\2\). There have been no 
population-scale density estimates for populations in the range of the 
Mount Rainier subspecies; Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
populations may or may not

[[Page 31672]]

be within this wide range reported for other subspecies (USFWS 2020, p. 
24).

Habitat

    Habitat use by white-tailed ptarmigan varies by geographic region 
and by season. Our understanding of Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan habitat comes primarily from habitat studies on Vancouver 
Island white-tailed ptarmigan in British Columbia and the introduced 
population of southern white-tailed ptarmigan in the Sierra Nevada, 
because these areas have the most similar climates and vegetation to 
the Cascades in Washington and Southern British Columbia. The Rocky 
Mountains are less suitable as a habitat surrogate because they are 
geologically much older, less steep, contain a greater diversity of 
plants, and have a much different climate (colder, drier winters, and 
summers influenced by monsoonal weather from the Gulf of Mexico) 
(Zwinger and Willard 1972, pp. 119-120; Appendix C of the SSA). Of the 
surrogate regions for which we have white-tailed ptarmigan habitat 
information, the Sierra Nevada is most similar to the Cascades due to 
the deep, wet snow and fragmented alpine areas (Braun 2019, pers. 
comm). Vancouver Island shares similar vegetation with some parts of 
the range of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.
    Breeding and brood-rearing habitat of Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan is within the alpine zone, defined by treeline at its lower 
elevation limit and permanent snow or barren rock at its upper 
elevation limit. The alpine zone is a narrow band of sparsely 
distributed vegetation, including patches of sedge-turf communities, 
subshrubs, or krummholz (tree stunted by winds and frost) interspersed 
between snowfields, talus slopes, and fellfields (Douglas and Bliss 
1977, p. 115). In the Sierra Nevada, predominant characteristics of 
breeding season habitat include areas with cover of dwarf willow (e.g., 
arctic willow (Salix anglorum var. antiplasta)),)) herbs, and mosses; 
and proximity to water and willow shrubs (Frederick and Gutierrez 1992, 
p. 895). Ptarmigan habitat on Vancouver Island includes boulder cover, 
ericaceous (plants in the heather family) shrub cover with tree islands 
of spruce (Picea spp.) or subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) distributed 
throughout, graminoid (grass and sedge) cover, forb cover, and 
proximity to water (Fedy and Martin 2011, p. 311; (Martin et al. 2004, 
p. 239). White-tailed ptarmigan in the North Cascades have been found 
in moist vegetation communities of mountain heather (Phyllodoce 
empetriformis and Cassiope mertensiana), dwarf huckleberry (Vaccinium 
deliciosum), crowfoot (Leutkea pectinata), sedge (Carex nigricans, C. 
spectabilis), and Tolmie's saxifrage (Saxifraga tolmiei) (Skagen 1980, 
p. 2).
    Nest site characteristics have not been described for Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan. Other subspecies of white-tailed ptarmigan 
construct nests in rocky areas, meadows, willow thickets, and in the 
krummholz zone (Giesen et al. 1980, p. 195; Wiebe and Martin 1998, p. 
1139), usually with some lateral cover (Wilson and Martin 2008, pp. 
635-636). Females select nest locations with an abundance of insects, 
especially leafhoppers (Cicadellidae), to meet the food requirements of 
their chicks (Spear et al. 2020, p. 182). Because incubating hens are 
at higher risk of predation and concealed nests are more successful, 
most females will choose some amount of nest cover but with good escape 
routes, rather than selecting sites with more cover (Wiebe and Martin 
1998, p. 1142). Nest cover also provides protection from wind and 
mediates extreme temperature changes found in exposed nests; 
microclimate may determine nest site selection (Wiebe and Martin 1998, 
p. 1142).
    As with breeding habitat, the lower elevation limit of post-
breeding habitat is defined by treeline. In the Sierra Nevada, post-
breeding habitat is associated with cover of dwarf willow and proximity 
to water (Frederick and Gutierrez 1992, p. 895). On Vancouver Island, 
post-breeding habitat is associated with topographic depressions where 
mesic vegetation cover is greatest (Fedy and Martin 2011, p. 311).
    Post-breeding habitat in the Sierra Nevada is farther from snow 
than breeding season habitat, but snowmelt and glacial meltwater still 
provide the moisture that allows for the greater vegetation cover in 
sites selected by white-tailed ptarmigan (Frederick and Gutierrez 1992, 
p. 895). At high elevations, winter snowpack can store a significant 
portion of winter precipitation and release it to the soil during 
spring and early summer, thereby reducing the duration and magnitude of 
summer soil water de[filig]cits (Peterson et al. 2014, p. 26). At the 
basin scale, glacier melt supplies 2-14 percent of summer discharge in 
the Cascades and up to 28 percent of discharge by September (Frans et 
al. 2018, p. 11); the proportion is likely much greater in the high-
elevation subbasins occupied by Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, 
which have a smaller catchment area to supply discharge from snow or 
rain.
    A suitable microclimate is important for this cold-adapted bird. 
Because white-tailed ptarmigan have the lowest evaporative cooling 
efficiency of any bird (Johnson 1968, entire) and will pant at 
temperatures above 21 degrees C (70 degrees F), adults are likely 
limited by warm temperatures during the breeding and post-breeding 
seasons. Thermal behavioral adaptations include seeking cool microsites 
such as the edges of snowfields, near snowbanks, the shade of boulders, 
or near streams where temperatures are cool; the absence of these 
microsites may preclude presence of the species (Johnson 1968, p. 
1012). Moist alpine meadows and large rocks or boulders appear to be 
consistently important post-breeding habitat features across several 
regions occupied by white-tailed ptarmigan (Frederick and Gutierrez 
1992, p. 895; Hoffman 2006, p. 26).
    No studies of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan use of winter 
habitat have been conducted. On Vancouver Island, wintering white-
tailed ptarmigan have been found both above and below treeline in 
alpine bowls, hemlock and cedar forest on unvegetated rocky outcrops 
and cliffs, and (rarely) in clearcuts (Martin et al. 2015, Overwinter 
Habitat Section). Similarly, in southwestern Alberta, wintering white-
tailed ptarmigan were found both above and below the treeline in alpine 
cirques and downslope of the cirques in subalpine and stream courses 
(Herzog 1980, p. 160). In the Rocky Mountains, wintering ptarmigan 
congregate in sexually segregated flocks in areas with soft snow and 
willows (Hoffman and Braun 1977, p. 110). Based on limited observations 
and the information from other subspecies, we expect wintering Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan will use alpine areas, open areas in 
subalpine parklands, and openings created by stream courses, 
landslides, and avalanches within subalpine forests.
    In the mountains of the Pacific Northwest, wind is responsible for 
much of the precipitation, which falls primarily as snow in the 
Cascades during the cooler months (October through March) (Peterson et 
al. 2014, p. 26). The Cascades have some of the deepest snowpack in 
North America, and in the winter, white-tailed ptarmigan thermally 
shelter from wind and cold in snow roosts. Snow-roosting sites for 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan have deep, fluffy snow with high 
insulation value; this generally means snow that is cold, relatively 
dry, and with abundant air spaces. Movement of snow by wind provides 
areas of banked snow for roosting sites (Luce 2019, p. 1363; Braun et 
al. 1976, p. 2; Braun and Schmidt 1971, p. 245). During the day when 
ptarmigan are not

[[Page 31673]]

feeding, they seek shelter beneath or on the lee side of dwarf conifers 
growing along ridges, but snow on the ridges is often shallow and 
covered with a hard crust, making conditions unsuitable for night 
roosting. Thus, at dusk the birds move from ridges to areas of deeper 
and softer snow along treeline where they can burrow beneath the 
surface of the snow (Braun and Schmidt 1971, p. 245). When weather 
conditions are harsh, flocks will move below treeline to stream bottoms 
and avalanche paths (Braun et al. 1976, p. 4).
    Wind in alpine areas also helps to keep ptarmigan habitat open by 
limiting vegetation height and the growth and stature of krummoltz 
trees (Zwinger and Willard 1972). Furthermore, wind on ridges maintains 
the exposure of dwarf willow bushes (usually less than approximately 1 
m (3.3 ft) tall) at forage sites consistently used by ptarmigan 
throughout winter (Luce 2019, p. 1363; Braun et al. 1976, p. 2; Braun 
and Schmidt 1971, p. 245). Any larger willow stands similar to those 
relied on by southern white-tailed ptarmigan are likely buried by 
winter snows on the steep, high elevation range of Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan (Schroeder 2019, pers. comm.) where disturbance by 
avalanches is frequent.

Historical and Current Distribution and Range

    Though the AOU 1957 taxonomic classification of the subspecies 
delineated the range at the U.S.-Canada border, the best available 
information indicates that suitable habitat is contiguous across the 
border. Based on the combination of sightings, dispersal distance, and 
occurrence and distribution of suitable alpine and subalpine habitat, 
we estimate that the range of the subspecies extends into British 
Columbia, Canada, to the Fraser Valley, which comprises the northern 
limit of the Northwestern Cascade Ranges Ecosection and includes a 
portion of the Eastern Pacific Ranges Ecosection of the North Cascades 
Ecoregion (Iachetti et al. 2006, no pagination). Exactly how far north 
into British Columbia the species' range extends is unknown, but we 
assume not farther north than approximately Lytton, British Columbia, 
east of the Fraser River in the Cascade Range due to a low-elevation 
gap in habitat and gap in occurrences in the Fraser Valley.
    The historical range extended south along the Cascade Range to and 
including Mount St. Helens and Mount Adams. White-tailed ptarmigan 
regularly occurred on Mount St. Helens before the active volcano lost 
approximately 400 (m) (1,314 ft) of elevation when it erupted in 1980 
(Brantley and Myers 1997, p. 2). Subsequent to the eruption, only three 
white-tailed ptarmigan occurrences were reported from that area, and 
none have been reported since 1996. Because the small amount of 
remaining alpine habitat is likely unsuitable, and it is unlikely that 
enough habitat will develop on Mount St. Helens to support a white-
tailed ptarmigan population in the foreseeable future, the population 
is presumed extirpated. The subspecies did not historically inhabit 
mountainous areas south of Mount St. Helens and Mount Adams, primarily 
due to the lack of suitable alpine areas at those latitudes 
(approximately 46-45 degrees (Clarke and Johnston 20055, entire). 
Therefore, we consider the current range of the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan to include alpine and subalpine areas in the Cascade 
Mountains, extending from the southern edge of Mount Adams to Lytton, 
British Columbia, east of the Fraser River.

Land Ownership

    Seventy-six percent of the range of Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan is in the United States; approximately 24 percent of its 
range is in Canada. Almost all of its range in the United States is 
federally owned (Table 1). Two National Parks occur in the range of 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan: Mount Rainier and North Cascades. 
Three National Forests occur in the range of Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan--Gifford Pinchot, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, and Okanogan-
Wenatchee. The remaining nearly 6 percent of its range in the United 
States is under State, Tribal, or private ownership. Six percent of 
total suitable habitat for Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is 
located on land owned by British Columbia Provincial Parks (Chilliwack 
Lake Provincial Park, E.C. Manning Provincial Park, Cathedral 
Provincial Park, and Snowy Protected Area, Cathedral Protected Area) 
(BC-Parks 2020, entire).

                                Table 1--Land Ownership in the Range of Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan in Hectares
                                                                         [Acres]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            North         North
            Population unit               Alpine    Goat Rocks     Mount       Mount      Cascades      Cascades    William O.      Total       Percent
                                           Lakes                   Adams      Rainier       East          West        Douglas                  ownership
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal:
    USFS..............................     132,101      34,808      14,103      35,975       354,435       366,821      25,070       963,313          59
                                         (326,429)    (86,012)    (34,849)    (88,897)     (875,827)     (906,435)    (61,949)   (2,380,397)
    NPS...............................           0           0           0      55,917        18,860       139,639           0       214,417          13
                                                                             (138,174)      (46,604)     (345,056)                 (529,835)
    Other Federal.....................         275           0           0           0           402             0           0           677        0.04
                                             (680)                                             (993)                                 (1,673)
State.................................         161       8,522           0           0        24,396         2,576          29        35,682           2
                                             (398)    (21,058)                              (60,283)       (6,364)        (71)      (88,173)
Tribal................................           0      17,940       8,087           0             0             0           0        26,027           2
                                                      (44,331)    (19,983)                                                          (64,314)
Private/Other.........................         876       3,488       1,248         360           141         1,562           0         7,676         0.5
                                           (2,166)     (8,619)     (3,084)       (889)         (348)       (3,860)                  (18,969)
British Columbia:
Provincial Parks......................           0           0           0           0        60,479        39,596           0       100,076  ..........
                                                                                           (149,448)      (97,845)                 (247,292)
Private/Other.........................           0           0           0           0       188,077        95,801           0       283,878          17
                                                                                           (464,748)     (236,730)                 (701,477)
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total.........................     133,414      64,758      23,438      92,252       646,788       645,995      25,100     1,631,746  ..........
                                         (329,672)   (160,020)    (57,916)   (227,960)   (1,598,250)   (1,596,289)    (62,022)   (4,032,129)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 31674]]

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened 
species.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is 
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' because of any of the following 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.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals, as well as 
those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or 
required resources. The term ``threat'' may encompass--either together 
or separately--the source of the action or condition or the action or 
condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species, 
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and 
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, 
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected 
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of 
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative 
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that 
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing 
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines 
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' 
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative 
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in 
the foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the 
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the 
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the 
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable 
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means 
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the 
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to 
depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should 
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the 
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent a decision by 
the Service on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act. It does however, 
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, 
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and 
its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary 
of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA 
report can be found on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket FWS-R1-ES-
2020-0076.
    To assess Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan viability, we used 
the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, 
and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand 
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, 
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to 
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution 
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to 
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, 
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a 
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to 
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental 
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' 
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the 
individual, population, and species levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated individual species' life-history 
needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and 
current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory 
decision.

Analysis Units

    Occurrence data is quite limited, and we do not know if the 
abundance of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan has changed over 
time. To facilitate the assessment of the current and projected future 
status of the subspecies across the range, we used the limited 
occurrence data and expert elicitation to delineate representation 
areas and population units. We separated the range into two 
representational areas, the North Area and the South Area, to represent 
the

[[Page 31675]]

known ecological variation between the two regions. Within those two 
representational areas, we identified seven current population units 
based on observations, elevation, and vegetation types from Landfire 
vegetation maps (Table 2).
    We refined the boundaries of these units by selecting vegetation 
types on recently refined National Park Service (NPS) vegetation maps 
and Landfire vegetation maps for U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands. Our 
refined population unit maps contain nearly all observations of the 
species obtained from agency partners. One of the population units in 
the South Area, William O. Douglas, has suitable habitat but unknown 
occupancy. Another historical population in the South Area is 
considered extirpated due to the 1980 eruption of Mount Saint Helens 
volcano. We did not include the presumed extirpated Mount St. Helens 
population unit in our analysis of current or future condition because 
we conclude that it does not constitute suitable habitat now and is 
unlikely to in the foreseeable future.

 Table 2--Number of Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan Observations by
                             Population Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
      Representation area            Population unit       observations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North..........................  North Cascades-East....             484
North..........................  North Cascades-West....             315
North..........................  Alpine Lakes...........              98
South..........................  Mount Rainier..........             289
South..........................  William O. Douglas.....               0
South..........................  Goat Rocks.............               4
South..........................  Mount Adams............               2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

Factors Influencing the Status of the Species

    The petition to list the southern and Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan subspecies as threatened (CBD 2010, entire) identified the 
following influences as threats: Effects to habitat from global climate 
change, recreation, livestock grazing, and mining; hunting; predation; 
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms; population isolation or limited 
dispersal distances; and population growth rates and physiological 
response to a warming climate. Our 90-day finding on the petition (77 
FR 33143, June 5, 2012) concluded that the petition and information in 
our files do not present substantial scientific or commercial 
information to indicate that listing may be warranted due to 
recreation, livestock grazing, mining, hunting, predation, inadequacy 
of regulatory mechanisms, population isolation, or limited dispersal 
distances. The 90-day finding concluded, however, that the petition 
presented substantial information to indicate that Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan may warrant listing due to the effects of climate 
change on habitat and population growth rates, and the physiological 
response of the subspecies to a warming climate.
    As part of our analysis of the viability of the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan, we looked at the previously identified 
potential environmental and anthropogenic influences on viability, as 
well as any new ones identified since the publication of our 90-day 
finding. We analyzed population isolation and limited dispersal 
distances in the context of our resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation analysis for the subspecies. We also looked at the 
regulatory and voluntary conservation mechanisms that may reduce or 
ameliorate the effect of those stressors. To provide the necessary 
context for our discussion of the magnitude of each stressor, we first 
discuss our understanding of existing regulatory and voluntary 
conservation mechanisms.
Regulatory and Voluntary Conservation Mechanisms
    A majority of the land (69 percent) within the national parks and 
forests in the U.S. portion of the range of Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan is congressionally designated wilderness under 16 U.S.C. 551 
and 18 U.S.C. 3559 and 3571. This designation bans roads along with the 
use of motorized and nonmotorized vehicles. In North Cascades National 
Park, 94 percent of the land is designated as the Steven Mather 
Wilderness (259,943 ha (642,333 ac) of the total 275,655 ha (681,159 
ac)) (NPS 2020a, entire). There are 16 designated wilderness areas on 
U.S. Forest Service land in the range; the percentage of designated 
wilderness in each population unit is summarized below in Table 3. 
Additionally, 6 percent of the total suitable habitat for Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan is located on land owned by British Columbia 
Provincial Parks (BC-Parks 2020, entire). Provincial parks are multiuse 
areas that contain some remote wilderness and allow activities such as 
hiking, camping, and winter recreation. The wilderness designation 
areas and Provincial Park lands in the range of Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan are shown in Figure 1.

 Table 3--Percent of Area in U.S. Designated Wilderness by Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan Population Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Hectares         Percent
                        Population unit                          Total hectares     (acres) in      designated
                                                                     (acres)        wilderness      wilderness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Cascades-East (U.S. portion).............................         398,232          232,041              58
                                                                      (984,054)        (573,387)
North Cascades-West (U.S. portion).............................         510,597          395,233              77
                                                                    (1,261,715)        (976,642)
Alpine Lakes...................................................         133,414           98,104              74
                                                                      (329,672)        (242,419)

[[Page 31676]]

 
Mount Rainier..................................................          92,252           81,937              89
                                                                      (227,960)        (202,473)
William O. Douglas.............................................          25,100           19,455              78
                                                                       (62,022)         (48,075)
Goat Rocks.....................................................          64,758           25,395              39
                                                                      (160,020)         (62,752)
Mount Adams....................................................          23,438           13,265              57
                                                                       (57,916)         (32,779)
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................................       1,247,792          865,432              69
                                                                    (3,083,360)      (2,138,529)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 31677]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN21.009

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) considers the 
white-tailed ptarmigan a game bird, but does not have a hunting season 
on the species. Take or possession of the species would be a violation 
under the Revised Code of Washington, section 77.15.400 (Washington 
State Legislature 2020, entire). Hunting of ptarmigan is allowed in a 
relatively small portion of the Canadian portion of the North Cascades-
West population unit from mid-September through mid-December (BC Canada 
2020, entire).
    White-tailed ptarmigan are a ``Species of Greatest Conservation 
Need'' in the State Wildlife Action Plan (WDFW 2015, pp. 3-18). The 
WDFW is making efforts to better understand the distribution and 
abundance of the species by soliciting observations from birding 
enthusiasts, hikers, backpackers,

[[Page 31678]]

mountaineers, skiers, snowshoers, and other recreationists that visit 
ptarmigan habitat. The Transboundary Connectivity Project (Krosby et 
al. 2016, entire) included white-tailed ptarmigan as a focal species, 
and members created conceptual models of stressors to the species and 
designed strategies to abate threats.
    Critical habitat for Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) overlaps the 
range of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in almost the entire 
North Cascades-East population unit, and about half of the North 
Cascades-West population unit (79 FR 54782, September 12, 2014). One of 
the identified physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of Canada lynx is snow conditions (winter conditions that 
provide and maintain deep fluffy snow for extended periods in boreal 
forest landscapes). This critical habitat designation may provide some 
benefit to Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan by regulating 
activities that are likely to adversely affect Canada lynx critical 
habitat within these population units.
    White-tailed ptarmigan are not on the sensitive species list for 
USFS forests within the range of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. 
Further, birds in the family Phasianidae, including white-tailed 
ptarmigan, are not protected in either the United States or Canada by 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (USFWS 2020b, p. 4). In Canada, with the 
exception of the Vancouver Island subspecies, white-tailed ptarmigan 
are listed as a G5 species (least concern) by the British Columbia 
Conservation Data Center.
Stressors
    We analyzed a variety of stressors that potentially influence the 
current status of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan or may 
influence the subspecies' future status. We again looked at all of the 
factors identified in the petition, as well as any potential new 
influences in the range of the subspecies. Neither the petition nor our 
90-day finding identified disease as a threat, and we did not find 
information in our analysis to indicate that disease is currently, or 
likely to be in the future, a threat to the resiliency of any 
population unit or the overall viability of the subspecies. Our SSA 
concluded that the available information on several potential 
stressors, including mining, hunting, grazing and browsing, the 
invasive willow borer beetle (Cryptorhynchus lapathi), predation, and 
development and infrastructure indicated that these did not operate to 
a level affecting the resiliency of any population unit, or the overall 
viability of the subspecies (USFWS 2020, pp. 44-66). While the effects 
from recreation also appear to be limited to localized impacts on 
individuals, recreation is the primary human activity throughout the 
range of the subspecies and so we discuss it below in this rule along 
with the stressor of climate change. The effects of climate change are 
already evident in Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan habitat, and 
the projected future increase in those effects may decrease the 
viability of the subspecies.
    Recreation--The Cascade Mountain range in Washington is popular 
with outdoor enthusiasts, and Alpine Lakes, Goat Rocks, Mount Rainier 
National Park, Mount Adams, and North Cascades National Park are 
visited by recreationists throughout the year. For example, Alpine 
Lakes has an average of 150,000 visitors annually (USFS 2020a, entire), 
Mount Rainier National Park had approximately 1.5 million visitors in 
2019, and North Cascades National Park drew 38,208 visitors in 2019 
(NPS 2020a, entire). Recreation in alpine habitats includes activities 
associated with motorized recreation, such as the use of snowmobiles in 
the winter, and nonmotorized recreation throughout the year, such as 
hiking, backcountry camping, climbing, mountain biking, snowshoeing, 
and skiing. While recreation in the alpine areas is largely confined to 
established routes on existing highways, roads, and trails, some 
recreationists will leave established roads or trails, either to 
temporarily access other areas or to establish unauthorized social 
trails.
    In the winter, snowmobiles, snowcats, skiers (developed alpine/
cross country and back country), and to a lesser extent snowshoers, may 
have direct effects on the fitness and survival of Mount Rainer white-
tailed ptarmigan, the availability of forage plants, and the 
suitability of roosting sites (Braun et al. 1976, p. 8; Hoffman 2006, 
p. 44; Willard and Marr 1970, p. 257). These winter activities may also 
indirectly (1) induce stress and disturbance/dispersal in ptarmigan, 
(2) cause them to flush, exposing them to predation, or (3) discourage 
access to forage plants and snow roosting sites (which could impact 
subsequent fitness and reproductive success the next spring) (Braun et 
al. 1976, entire; Hoffman 2006, entire).
    Outside of designated wilderness boundaries, there are 80 snowparks 
in Washington designated for snowmobile use (Washington State Parks 
2020); a number of these occur in the range of Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan though we do not have a measure of their footprint in 
the population units at this time. Snowmobiling is allowed only in a 
relatively small area in the corner of Mount Rainier National Park but 
is likely allowed in other areas throughout the range. Six developed 
ski areas are within the range of the subspecies. While the size and 
use of the developed ski areas have grown over time, and disturbance 
from developed ski areas is documented in related species, the six ski 
areas in the range of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan have all 
been in operation for more than 50 years and their collective skiable 
area makes up only 0.2 percent of the range of the species (Stevens 
Pass 2020, entire; Summit 2020, entire; Crystal Mountain 2020, entire; 
Manning 2020, entire; On the Snow 2020, entire; Heller 1980, entire; 
Meyers 2018, entire). Disturbance to individual Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan in the vicinity of these ski areas may occur; however, 
it is unclear if any population units of ptarmigan rely on these ski 
areas for winter habitat as they have been in operation for many 
decades. In general, the uncertainty surrounding the locations of Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan winter-use areas limits our 
understanding of the scope and intensity of winter recreation 
activities on the subspecies.
    Recreation on Federal lands as a whole has increased over time and 
is projected to continue to increase with future changes in human 
population and income (White et al. 2016, entire; Bowker and Askew 
2012, entire). For recreation in the United States, developed skiing is 
projected to have the highest percentage potential national increase in 
total days of participation, with moderate increases in snowshoeing and 
cross-country skiing, and the least growth expected in motorized snow 
activities (White et al. 2016, entire; Bowker and Askew 2012, pp. 111-
120). However, the best available information does not indicate that 
activities associated with winter recreation affect the resiliency of 
any population in the range of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
either currently or in the future.
    In the spring, summer, and fall, day hikers, backpackers and 
backcountry campers and climbers, as well as mountain bikers in some 
areas, may recreate in areas suitable as breeding and postbreeding 
habitat for Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. Direct effects on 
ptarmigan from these activities may include mortality, temporary 
disturbance, temporary dispersal or permanent displacement from forage 
and shelter areas, as well as the destruction of individual nests 
(Braun et al. 1976, entire; Hoffman 2006, entire). Indirect effects may 
include

[[Page 31679]]

trampling of habitat (therefore, reducing the quality or quantity of 
the habitat factors needed for feeding, breeding, and sheltering) as 
well as increased predation on ptarmigan due to an increase in predator 
levels from recreation-related food litter (see Predation, above) 
(Price 1985, p. 266; Crisfield et al. 2012, p. 279; Marion et al. 2016, 
p. 354; Martin and Butler 2017, p. 360; Hammett 1980, pp. 22-24).
    Sensitive alpine soils may also erode or dry out following 
trampling and compaction from recreation, especially where it occurs 
away from roads and trails (Willard and Marr 1970, p. 257; Ebersole et 
al. 2004, p. 101). A plant's resistance to trampling varies with 
vegetation stature, growth form, and flexibility (Cole and Trull 1992, 
pp. 231-235). Some of the community types we expect ptarmigan to use 
are relatively resistant to trampling (e.g., Carex), while others are 
sensitive (e.g., Phyllodoce) (Cole and Trull 1992, pp. 231-235). In 
1992, social trails resulted in significant damage in Paradise Park, an 
area of exceptionally high recreation use in Mount Rainier National 
Park (Rochefort and Gibbons 1992, p. 122). However, the area disturbed 
by trampling, social trails, and illegal campsites across the Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan population analysis units has not been 
surveyed.
    The temporary disturbance to wildlife from the presence of humans 
(and sometimes pet dogs and pack animals) may be reflected in 
behavioral reactions (i.e., fleeing or flushing), direct energetic 
costs, and elevated stress levels. Individual ptarmigan may return to 
an area after a temporary disturbance subsides; however, if enough 
individual Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan experience temporary 
disturbance in an area, reductions in population vital rates, including 
survival and reproduction, would result. Repeated, prolonged, or 
concentrated disturbance of ptarmigan, or trampling or modification of 
areas they use, may permanently displace individuals; this would 
effectively result in habitat loss for the individual and, if 
experienced by enough individuals over a large enough area, for the 
population (Taylor and Knight 2003, p. 961; Ciuti et al. 2012, p. 9; 
Immitzer et al. 2014, pp. 177, 179; Tablado and Jenni 2017, p. 92; 
Seglund et al. 2018, pp. 90-91).
    Reported disturbance and avoidance effects appear related to the 
type of activity on the trail. Unmanaged dogs may disturb, chase, and/
or kill ptarmigan, as evidenced by an unleashed dog killing a southern 
white-tailed ptarmigan chick in Colorado (Seglund et al. 2018, p. 91). 
Only leashed service dogs are allowed on trails in National Parks and 
some permit areas in National Forests like Enchantment Permit Area and 
Ingalls Lake area of Alpine Lakes Wilderness (NPS 2020b, entire; USFS 
2020a, entire). Dogs on most National Forest lands including designated 
wilderness are only required to be leashed when in developed areas and 
on interpretive trails; on most USFS land, dogs are required to be 
under voice control or on a leash, but there is no explicit leash 
requirement for most of the lands in the USFS system (USFS 2020a, 
entire; USFS 2020b, entire). Studies of western capercaillie (Coppes et 
al. 2017, pp. 1589, 1592; Moss et al. 2014, p. 12) have shown higher 
levels of disturbance and avoidance of habitat in areas with sudden or 
unpredictable recreation, like mountain biking and horseback riding. 
They have also shown higher levels of disturbance and avoidance of 
habitat in areas with larger groups of people gathered, like areas 
close to restaurants, parking areas, and forest entrances. In contrast, 
in areas near hiking and walking trails, western capercaillie seemed to 
express a higher level of habituation to the presence of humans, even 
when people are accompanied by leashed dogs (Moss et al. 2014, p. 12).
    One measure of the rate of summer recreation in alpine areas is the 
number of permitted backcountry campers (counting every person and 
night of each camping permit). The total number of backcountry campers 
in the four areas managed by the NPS in the range of the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan (Mount Rainier National Park, North Cascades 
National Park, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, and Ross Lake 
National Recreation Area) has increased over time (Figure 2), but there 
is variability from year to year that is likely influenced by a variety 
of factors including population growth, the economy, and weather 
events, among others. Climbing is also a popular activity, particularly 
at Mount Rainier National Park. Mount Rainier summit attempts averaged 
10,691 per year during the period 2008-2018, with 10,762 climbers in 
2018 (NPS 2020c, entire). Nearly all climbing is conducted between mid-
April and mid-September (Lofgren and Ellis 2017, p. 8). A number of 
climbers camp overnight in the backcountry as part of their summit 
attempt, and we do not know whether the number of climbers are 
reflected in the number of backcountry campers reported for the Park.

[[Page 31680]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN21.010

    There are approximately 4,387 km (2,726.48 mi) of trails, 
unauthorized ``social trails,'' and climbing routes that have developed 
over time throughout the 1,631,746-ha (4,032,129-ac) range of Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. After dividing the area of trails in 
each population unit by the total hectares (acres) in the unit, we 
found the density of trails per unit ranges from a low of 0.01 percent 
in the North Cascades-East populations unit to a high of 0.07 percent 
in the Mount Adams population unit, with a total density of trails in 
the range of 0.02 percent. Reported disturbance and avoidance effects 
for similar species appear related to the type of activity on the 
trail, and most of the trail recreation in Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan habitat is related to hiking, backpacking, and climbing 
rather than more disturbing sudden or unpredictable activities, like 
mountain biking or horseback riding. We do not know if individual 
ptarmigan in the range are disturbed by hikers to the point of 
abandoning habitat, or if they habituate to the presence of hikers 
(Moss et al. 2014, p. 12) and remain somewhere in the vicinity. Though 
the density of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in proximity to any 
trail in any unit is not available, the risk of potential exposure to 
hikers and the risk of trampling of habitat is likely concentrated in 
areas near specific high-use trails in the range.
    Future recreation levels are projected to continue to increase with 
changes in human population and income, with moderate increases in day 
hiking and climbing, and the least growth expected in backpacking 
(White et al. 2016, entire; Bowker and Askew 2012, pp. 111-120), 
although it is difficult to predict to what extent any potential 
increase in recreation will impact the survival and reproduction of 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan populations. Furthermore, many 
areas within the range are remote and difficult to access, so the 
distribution of current recreational use skews towards areas that are 
more accessible. We expect this tendency of recreationists to 
disproportionately use more accessible areas to continue in the future.
    In summary, a wide array of recreation regularly occurs year-round 
within all Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan population units. 
Although no published studies exist that directly link recreation to 
individual-level, population-level, or subspecies-level effects to the 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, effects to individual Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan have been observed and studies have 
shown effects of higher intensity recreation on closely related 
species. However, the lack of information on historical abundance and 
distribution of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan made it difficult 
to assess the magnitude of impact that recreation has had to date on 
the subspecies. Further, the history of established recreation to date, 
the low density of trails, and the large percentage of protected 
wilderness in the range (69 percent of the range in the United States) 
all likely reduce the risk of exposure of this stressor to the 
subspecies. Based on the available information, recreation of any type 
or timing does not appear to currently affect any more than individual 
ptarmigan in localized areas. Although both established recreation in 
designated areas as well as recreation away from established roads and 
trails will likely increase in the future, available information does 
not indicate that future increases in recreation would rise beyond 
individual-level impacts such that it is likely to affect subspecies 
redundancy or representation.
    Climate change--The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) (2019, pp. 2-9) projects with very high confidence that surface 
air temperatures in high mountain areas will rise by 0.54 degrees F 
(0.3 degrees C) per decade, generally outpacing global warming rates 
regardless of future emission scenario. As temperatures increase, 
glaciers initially melt quickly and contribute an increased volume of 
water to the system, but as glacial mass is lost, their contribution of 
meltwater to the system decreases over time. Global climate models 
project declines in current glacier area throughout the Washington and 
northern Oregon Cascades (Frans et al. 2018, p. 13) that will result in 
a corresponding decline in associated snowpack and glacial melt 
contribution to summer discharge. Scenario RCP (Representation 
Concentration Pathway) 4.5 is a moderate emissions scenario, and RCP 
8.5 is a high emissions scenario (Alder and Hostetler 2016, entire). In 
the North Cascades, glaciers are projected to retreat 92 percent 
between 1970 and 2100 under RCP 4.5, and 96 percent between 1970 and 
2100 under RCP 8.5 (Gray 2019, p. 34).
    The effects of climate change have already led to some glacial 
recession in Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan habitat (Snover et 
al. 2013, pp. 2-3). Geologic mapping data, old maps and aerial photos, 
and recent inventories indicate that glacier area declined 56 percent 
in the North Cascades between

[[Page 31681]]

1900 and 2009 (Dick 2013, p. 59). On Mount Adams, total glacier area 
decreased by 49 percent from 1904 to 2006, at about 0.15 km\2\ (0.06 
mi\2\) per year (Sitts 2010, p. 384). Other individual glaciers in 
Washington have receded from 12 percent (Thunder Creek; 1950-2010) to 
31 percent (Nisqually River; 1915-2009) (Frans et al. 2018, p. 10), and 
throughout the Cascades, glaciers continue to recede in both area and 
volume (Snover et al. 2013, pp. 2-3; Dick 2013, p. 59).
    Glacier melt in many of the watersheds of the eastern Cascade Range 
and low-moderate elevation watersheds of the western Cascades has 
already peaked, or will peak in the current decade (Frans et al. 2018, 
p. 20). The variation in the timing of peak discharge from glacier to 
glacier will initially lead to decreases in available moisture to some 
alpine meadows, but increases in others. Later in the century, we 
expect all areas to suffer significant losses of glacier melt (Frans et 
al. 2018, p. 20). Total discharge in August and September from 
snowmelt, rain, and glacial melt in a sample of Cascades watersheds is 
already below the 1960-2010 mean and is expected to continue to drop 
through 2080 (Frans et al. 2018, p. 15). Glaciers on the east side of 
the Cascade crest, where the precipitation regime is drier, show the 
strongest response to climate in both historical and future time 
periods, and will be the most sensitive to a changing climate (Frans et 
al. 2018, p. 17).
    Spring snowpack fluctuates substantially from year to year in 
Washington, but has declined overall by 30 percent from 1955 to 2016, 
and is expected to further decline by up to 38 percent under RCP 
4RCP4.5 and up to 46 percent under RCP 8RCP8.5 by midcentury (Roop et 
al. 2019, p. 6). Changes in snowpack in the colder interior mountains 
will largely be driven by decreases in precipitation, while changes in 
snowpack in the warmer maritime mountains will be driven largely by 
increases in temperature (Hamlet et al. 2006, pp. 40-42). Although some 
high-elevation sites that maintain freezing winter temperatures may 
accumulate additional snowpack as additional winter precipitation falls 
as snow, overall, perennial snow cover is projected to decrease with 
climate change (Peterson et al. 2014, p. 25). A substantial decrease in 
perennial snow cover is projected for the North Cascades, with many 
areas of current snow cover replaced by bare ground (Patil et al. 2017, 
pp. 5600-5601).
    Projected increases in air temperatures will also lead to changes 
in the quality of available snow through increases in rain on snow 
events and the refreezing of the surface of snowpack that melted in the 
heat of the day. The refreezing of snow creates a hard surface crust 
(Peterson et al. 2014) that may make burrowing for roosting sites 
difficult for ptarmigan. Furthermore, warm winter temperatures create 
wet, heavy snow (Peterson et al. 2014), which is denser with less air 
space and therefore less suitable for snow roosts.
    Reduced snowpack, earlier snowmelt, elimination of permanent 
snowfields, and higher evapotranspiration rates are likely to enhance 
summer soil drying and reduce soil water availability to alpine 
vegetation communities in the Cascades (Elsner et al. 2010, p. 245). As 
the climate becomes warmer, vegetation communities are also expected to 
shift their distributions to higher elevations. Globally, treelines 
have either risen or remained stable, with responses to recent warming 
varying among regions (Harsch et al. 2009, entire). Strong treeline 
advances have already been found in some areas of Washington, such as 
Mount Rainier National Park (Stueve et al. 2009, entire). As treeline 
rises at the lower limit of the alpine zone, upward expansion of the 
alpine zone will be constrained by cliffs, parent rock material, ice, 
remaining glaciers, permanent snow, and the top of mountain ranges. 
Where glaciers and permanent snow recede, primary succession will need 
to occur before the underlying parent material can support alpine 
meadows. Succession of the Lyman glacial forefront (the newly exposed 
area under a receding glacier) in the North Cascades took 20-50 years 
to develop early successional plant species.
    Decreased winter wind associated with climate change may be 
contributing to observed declines in snowpack and stream flows (Luce et 
al. 2013, p. 1361). Continued decreases in wind are expected throughout 
the Cascades (Luce 2019, p. 1363), potentially decreasing the 
availability of forage for Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, as 
well as allowing some krummholz to grow taller into tree form, which 
can reduce the suitability of habitat. Decreased wind may reduce 
snowbanks and thereby limit the availability of snow rooting sites for 
the subspecies, increasing the exposure of Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan to temperatures below their tolerance in the winter. Delayed 
snowfall could also create plumage mismatch leading to increased 
predation. White-tailed ptarmigan are adapted to be cryptic through all 
seasons by changing plumages frequently to match the substrate as snow 
cover changes. A change in timing of molt, or timing of snow cover, 
could limit the effectiveness of this strategy (Riedell 2019, pers. 
comm.), leading to higher predation risk to individuals.
    Climate change may affect Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
through direct physiological effects on the birds such as increased 
exposure to heat in the summer. Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
experience physiological stress when ambient temperatures exceed 21 
degrees C (70 degrees F; Johnson 1968, p. 1012), so their survival 
during warmer months depends on access to cool microrefugia in their 
habitat; these cooler areas are created by boulders and meltwater near 
glaciers, permanent snowfields, snowbanks, and other areas of snow in 
alpine areas. The projected increases in temperature and related 
decreases in snowpack and meltwater will reduce the availability of 
these microrefugia in the foreseeable future to populations of Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.
    The timing of peak plant growth influences the availability of 
appropriate seasonal forage to ptarmigan, as well as the availability 
of insects. When the peak of plant abundance falls outside a crucial 
post-hatch period, the resulting phenological mismatch affects chick 
survival (Wann et al. 2019, entire). Projected effects of climate 
change could alter the growing season and abundance of the ptarmigan's 
preferred vegetation and the timing of the emergence and abundance of 
the insects necessary for foraging. If these changes result in 
significant asynchrony, populations of Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan may not have adequate forage availability.
    Where upslope migration of plant communities is able to occur in 
the face of climate change, habitat for white-tailed ptarmigan will 
still not be available unless or until primary succession proceeds to 
the stage where dwarf willows, sedges, and other ptarmigan forage 
species are present in sufficient abundance and composition to support 
foraging ptarmigan and insect populations for chicks. If it takes at 
least 20 years to develop limited white-tailed ptarmigan forage plants 
(Saxifrage species), and 70-100 years to mature to full habitat with 
lush meadows and ericaceous subshrubs, this would represent a gap in 
breeding and post-breeding habitat for 5 to 24 generations (assuming a 
generation length of 4.1 years) (Bird et al. 2020, supplement Table 4). 
Thus, we do not expect new habitat for the subspecies to be created at 
the same rate at which it is lost. Climate change will also convert

[[Page 31682]]

subalpine forest openings (e.g., meadows) to subalpine forests, which 
are not suitable winter habitat for white-tailed ptarmigan. Infill of 
subalpine openings with trees has already occurred at Mount Rainier 
National Park (Stueve et al. 2009, entire). Subalpine tree species have 
increasingly filled in subalpine meadows throughout Northwestern North 
America (Fagre et al. 2003, p. 267).
    In summary, the future condition of Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan habitat will likely be affected by several factors associated 
with climate change including the following: Exposure to heat stress 
(caused by increasing ambient temperatures coupled with decreasing 
availability of the cool summer refugia supplied by snow and glaciers); 
loss of winter snow roosts that protect ptarmigan from winter storms; 
changes in snow deposition patterns that may affect both snow roosts 
and forage availability; loss of alpine vegetation due to both 
hydrologic changes caused by decreases in meltwater from snowpack and 
glaciers as well as rising treelines; and phenological mismatch between 
ptarmigan hatch and forage availability. These changes are likely to 
impact the habitat at levels that measurably affect the resiliency of 
all populations. Although a reasonable projection of future population 
trend is limited by the lack of demographic data, the projected 
degradation and loss of habitat, as well as likelihood of increased 
physiological stress of individuals across the range, would most 
certainly have negative effects on the future population growth rate of 
the subspecies. The scope and intensity of these combined effects is 
likely to affect the future resiliency of every extant population of 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan and the redundancy and 
representation of those units across the range. Therefore, the effects 
of climate change are likely to affect the overall viability of the 
subspecies.
Summary of Factors Influencing the Status of the Species
    We reviewed the environmental and anthropogenic factors that may 
influence the viability of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, 
including regulatory and voluntary conservation measures and potential 
stressors. The subspecies is provided some measure of protection from 
the large amount of Federal management and congressionally designated 
wilderness in its range, the management of some of its range in Canada 
by British Columbia Provincial Parks, the subspecies' designation in 
Washington, and the overlap of its range with Canada lynx critical 
habitat.
    The best available information does not indicate that disease has 
previously, is currently, or will in the future affect the resiliency 
of any Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan population units. Although 
mining, hunting, grazing and browsing, the borer beetle, predation, 
development, and recreation may have localized effects to individual 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, the best available information 
does not suggest they affect the overall viability of the subspecies, 
and none are projected to increase in the future to a level that will 
affect the viability of the subspecies. However, the effects of climate 
change are already evident in Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
habitat, and the projected future increase in those effects appears 
likely at a scope, magnitude, and intensity that will most certainly 
decrease the viability of the subspecies.

Current Condition

    Based on our assessment of the biological information on the 
species, we identified 10 key resiliency attributes for populations of 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan: (1) Connectivity among seasonal 
use areas, (2) cool ambient summer temperatures, (3) a suitable 
hydrologic regime to support alpine vegetation, (4) winter snow quality 
and quantity, (5) abundance of forage, (6) cool microsites, (7) 
suitable population structure and recruitment, (8) adequate population 
size and dynamics, (9) total area of alpine breeding and postbreeding 
habitat, and (10) total area of winter habitat. We developed tables of 
these key population needs with one or more measurable indicators of 
each population need (USFWS 2020, p. 32).
    To evaluate current condition, we took information for the current 
value of each indicator and assigned it to a condition category (USFWS 
2020, pp. 60-86). We created condition categories based on what we 
consider an acceptable range of variation for the indicator based on 
our understanding of the species' biology and the need for human 
intervention to maintain the attribute (Conservation Measures 
Partnership 2013, entire) (Table 5). Categorical rankings were defined 
as follows:
    Poor--Restoration of the population need is increasingly difficult 
(may result in loss of the local population);
    Fair--Outside acceptable range of variation, requiring human 
intervention (this level would be associated with a decreasing 
population);
    Good--Indicator within acceptable range of variation, with some 
intervention required for maintenance (this would be associated with a 
stable population);
    Very Good--Ecologically desirable status, requiring little 
intervention for maintenance (this would be associated with a growing 
population).

         Table 5--Metrics for Both Current and Future Condition Indicator Ratings for Habitat Attributes of Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Indicator ratings descriptions
         Population need                 Indicator      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Poor                  Fair                  Good                    Very Good
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool ambient temperatures in       Maximum summer        >38 [deg]C (100       21.1-38 [deg]C (70.1- 13.4-21 [deg]C (56-   7.3-13.3 [deg]C (45- 56
 summer.                            temperature.          [deg]F).              100 [deg]F).          70 [deg]F).           [deg]F).
Cool ambient temperatures in       Number of days above  >3..................  1 to 3..............  0-1.................  0.
 summer.                            30 [deg]C.
Hydrologic regime................  Glacier melt          <0.5................  0.5 to 0.75.........  >0.75 to 1..........  >1.
                                    (discharge
                                    normalized to 1960-
                                    2010 mean).
Hydrologic regime................  Snow water            >2 standard           1-2 standard          <1 standard           Pre-1970 levels.
                                    equivalent (April     deviation from        deviation from        deviation from
                                    1).                   historical mean.      historical mean.      historical mean.

[[Page 31683]]

 
Abundance of food resources......  Distance to water     >200 m..............  61-200 m............  11-60 m.............  <10 m.
                                    during breeding
                                    season.
Abundance of food resources......  Soil moisture.......  >2 from standard      1-2 standard          <1 standard           Pre-1970 levels.
                                                          deviation from        deviation from        deviation from
                                                          historical mean.      historical mean.      historical mean.
Total area of modelled summer      Area of alpine        <7 sq km (1,730 ac).  1,731-4,000 ac......  4,000-12,000 ac.....  >12,000 ac.
 habitat.                           vegetation modelled
                                    from MC2.
Total area of modelled summer      Area of alpine        <7 sq km (1,730 ac).  1,731-4,000 ac......  4,000-12,000-ac.....  >12,000 ac.
 habitat.                           vegetation modelled
                                    from Bioclimatic
                                    Niche Models.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eight additional indicators had data available for current 
condition, but we did not have models that allowed us to project them 
into the future so we did not use them to assess future condition. 
These additional indicators include connectivity between breeding, 
postbreeding, and winter habitat; area of willow, alder, or birch 
(winter forage); distance to water during breeding season; unvegetated 
area of glacial forefront (not colonized by forage plants yet, less is 
better); cover or distribution of large boulders (breeding and 
postbreeding seasons); a qualitative assessment of vegetation quality; 
mapped area of alpine vegetation from Landfire and NPS vegetation maps; 
and mapped area of subalpine vegetation from Landfire and NPS 
vegetation maps.
    Current resiliency ratings are captured in Table 6. Redundancy is 
limited to six known extant population units in good or fair condition 
across the range of the subspecies. With respect to ecological 
variation, three extant populations occur in the South representation 
area and three extant populations occur in the North area. Although 
Mount Adams has poor landscape context due to large gaps in habitat 
limiting connectivity throughout the unit, and the condition is poor 
due to low quality of vegetation, the availability of microrefugia and 
summer habitat are very good, so the overall condition score of the 
population unit was scored as fair. The historical population at Mount 
Saint Helens was extirpated as a result of the volcanic explosion in 
1980. The William O. Douglas Wilderness contains potential habitat, but 
we have no records of white-tailed ptarmigan in the area and consider 
occupancy unknown. Habitat for populations in the South Area is more 
limited and isolated than habitat for populations in the North. 
Observations on record and expert opinion indicate there are only a 
small number of birds in the Goat Rocks and Alpine Lakes population 
units in the South Area.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN21.011

Future Condition

    To better understand the projected future condition of Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, we developed four future scenarios 
based on global climate models at RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 to depict a range 
of potential outcomes for the subspecies' habitat over time. These 
models were chosen because they frame the most likely high and low 
boundaries of future greenhouse gas emissions.
    Projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary 
substantially across and within different regions of the world (IPCC 
2007, pp. 8-12). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections when they 
are available and are developed through appropriate scientific 
procedures, because such projections provide higher resolution 
information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for analyses 
of a given species (Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61). We used data 
obtained from the Northwest Climate Toolbox, developed by members of 
the Applied Climate Science Lab at the University of Idaho (Hegewisch 
and Abatzoglou 2019,

[[Page 31684]]

entire). In addition to past and current data, the Northwest Climate 
Toolbox provides modeled future projections of climate and hydrology 
based on the effects of potential degrees of greenhouse gas emissions 
reported by the IPCC (IPCC 2014, entire). We evaluated the downscaled 
climate projections out to the middle of the century (2040-2069) 
(approximately 20-50 years from the present); after this timeframe, the 
projections from these two models diverge due to uncertainty (IPCC 
2014, p. 59).
    We estimated area of alpine vegetation from vegetation models based 
on the RCP 4.5 or RCP 8.5 scenarios (MC2 models) (Bachelet et al., 
2017; Sheehan et al., 2015). We also estimated area of alpine 
vegetation from biome climatic niche models based on three earlier 
global climate projections (CGCM3 1 A2 2090, Hadley A2 2090, and 
Consensus A2 2090). These models were used to project alpine area (and 
other vegetation type areas) for the Transboundary Connectivity Project 
(Krosby et al. 2016, entire, based on the projections supplied by 
Rehfeldt et al. 2012). Alpine area from the NPS and Landfire vegetation 
maps provides the most reliable and important measure of current 
population resiliency. We reported subalpine area for each analysis 
unit but did not use it as an indicator of future resilience because 
this measure does not differentiate between subalpine forests (which 
are not suitable for Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan) and 
subalpine openings (suitable winter habitat). We also included a 
management variable in our scenarios to assess if specific management 
of recreation impacts and habitat enhancement and restoration would 
make a difference to the projected status of Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan in the future.
    The future scenarios we developed based on the climate-based 
vegetation models include:
    (1) Projected climate change effects under RCP 4.5 with no 
management for Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan populations or 
habitat;
    (2) Projected climate change effects under RCP 8.5 with no 
management for Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan populations or 
habitat;
    (3) Projected climate change effects under RCP 4.5 with management 
to maintain Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan populations and 
habitat; and
    (4) Projected climate change effects under RCP 8.5 with management 
to maintain Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan populations and 
habitat.
    The scenarios demonstrated that the projected effects of climate 
change could result in the loss of up to 95 percent of the Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's currently available alpine tundra 
habitat (USFWS 2020, pp. 111-117, Appendix A), and lead to a related 
decrease in the availability of thermal microrefugia for the 
subspecies. Although vegetation models yield different acreage 
projections, trajectories of both vegetation models and all scenarios 
are similar in indicating only one or two populations are likely to 
have any breeding season habitat remaining by 2069. Mount Rainier is 
consistently projected to be one of the remaining populations in all 
four future scenarios. The management actions (which include both 
reduced recreational impacts and habitat enhancement and restoration) 
are not projected to affect the status of any population unit in the 
GCM 4.5 scenario, and only projected to potentially benefit the North 
Cascades-West population unit in the GCM 8.5 scenario. Table 7 
summarizes the future condition for all known currently extant 
population units.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN21.012

    Currently, population units of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
maintain fair to good resiliency across the range. Threats to white-
tailed ptarmigan from the continuing effects of climate change include 
physiological stress due to elevated temperatures, reduced availability 
of moist alpine vegetation and associated insects, and loss of snow 
cover and reduction of snow quality for climate microrefugia and 
camouflage, and most importantly, loss of breeding and postbreeding 
habitat as a result of changes in precipitation, wind, and temperature. 
After developing four future scenarios based on downscaled climate and 
vegetation models, we found that Mount Rainier is the only population 
unit in the range of the species projected to maintain good resiliency 
across all four future scenarios. Mount Adams is also projected to 
remain extant, though with less resiliency under RCP 8.5 model 
projections. Both of these units are in the South representation area; 
this area also includes Goat Rocks, but all four future scenarios 
predict poor resiliency of that population unit. The South 
representation area maintains much better future resiliency and 
redundancy than the North area. Resiliency of all three population 
units in the North area decreases to poor resiliency in all four future 
scenarios, with the exception of North Cascades-West, which will 
maintain fair resiliency in Scenario 4. Overall, the number of 
resilient population units will decrease in the future, reducing 
redundancy across the range. If population units in the North 
representation area decrease in

[[Page 31685]]

resiliency to the point of extirpation, the ecological diversity 
present in the North representation area will be lost.
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not 
only analyzed the various factors that have a population-level effect 
on the species, but we have also analyzed their potential cumulative 
effects. We incorporate the cumulative effects into our SSA analysis 
when we characterize the current and future condition of the species. 
Our assessment of the current and future conditions encompasses and 
incorporates an analysis of each threat on its own and cumulatively. 
Our current and future condition assessment is iterative because it 
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be 
influencing the resiliency of populations of the species, including 
threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers 
not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they 
collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment 
integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a 
standalone cumulative effects analysis.

Determination of Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines ``endangered species'' as a species 
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range'' and ``threatened species'' as a species ``likely to become 
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we determine 
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species'' because of any of the following 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.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    We evaluated threats to Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan and 
assessed the cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) 
factors. The habitat-based stressors of climate change, mining, 
grazing, browsing, the invasive willow borer beetle, development, and 
recreation demonstrated varying degrees of localized effects to 
individual birds, but none of these stressors demonstrated effects to 
habitat at a level that is currently impacting the viability of the 
subspecies (Factor A). The best available information does not suggest 
that hunting (Factor B) or predation or disease (Factor C) are threats 
to Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. Habitat for the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan is currently supporting populations of the 
subspecies, and approximately 54 percent of the entire range is 
protected under wilderness designation from habitat loss resulting from 
development (Factor D). We also evaluated disturbance associated with 
recreation effects, but the best available information does not 
indicate any current effect to the viability of the subspecies (Factor 
E). We further examined the current information available on 
demographics and distribution of the species as well as availability 
and quality of suitable habitat in the range. The best available 
information does not demonstrate any discernible trend for the 
condition (e.g., increasing, declining, or stable) of the known 
populations of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. Overall, the 
subspecies currently exhibits adequate resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation. Thus, after assessing the best available information, 
we determined that the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is not 
currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
    However, after assessing all the same stressors for future 
condition, we determined that habitat loss and degradation resulting 
from climate change will affect the Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan within the foreseeable future. The level of predation, 
development, and recreation may increase in the future, but the best 
available information at this time does not indicate that they are 
reasonably likely to increase to a degree that will impact the 
viability of the subspecies within the foreseeable future. The large 
percentage of federally managed land (72 percent) and land designated 
as wilderness means the majority of the range is not at risk of future 
development.
    Available information indicates that changing habitat conditions 
associated with future climate change, such as loss of alpine 
vegetation and reduced snow quality and quantity (Factor A), are 
expected to cause populations of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
to decline. Furthermore, rising temperatures associated with climate 
change are expected to have direct impacts on individual birds (Factor 
E), which experience physiological stress at temperatures above 21 
degrees C (70 degrees F). In the North Cascades, glaciers are projected 
to retreat between 92 percent and 96 percent in the future. Glacier 
melt in many of the watersheds of the eastern Cascade Range and low-
moderate elevation watersheds of the western Cascades has already 
peaked, or will peak in the current decade. Total discharge in August 
and September from snowmelt, rain, and glacial melt in Cascades 
watersheds has notably declined and is expected to continue to drop 
through 2080. Spring snowpack in Washington has already declined 
overall by 30 percent from 1955 to 2016, and is expected to further 
decline from 38 to 46 percent by midcentury. The projected decreases in 
snowpack and glaciers and their associated meltwater, as well as 
changes in snow quality, decreasing wind, and advancing treeline and 
infill, could result in the loss of up to 95 percent of the Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's currently available alpine tundra 
habitat and a related loss in the availability of thermal microrefugia 
for the subspecies.
    Within 50 years, the climate within available suitable Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan habitat is expected to change 
significantly, such that the subspecies may remain at only one or two 
of the six current known extant population units, both of which are 
located in the South representation area. These threats and responses 
are reasonably foreseeable; notable glacial retreat has already 
occurred in the range due to warming temperatures, and the best 
available information does not indicate that the rate of climate change 
will slow within the foreseeable future. The maximum two populations 
projected to remain in 50 years are insufficient to support the Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's viability. Furthermore, connectivity 
between populations is currently low, and it is unlikely that Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan will adapt to the changing climate by 
moving northward because alpine areas north of their current 
elevational range are expected to undergo similar impacts due to 
climate change. Future connectivity may be completely eliminated as the 
gaps between the populations expand, leaving the one or two extant 
populations isolated.
    Thus, after assessing the best available information, we determined 
that the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is likely to become in 
danger of extinction

[[Page 31686]]

in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 
2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020, vacated the aspect of the 2014 
Significant Portion of its Range Policy that provided that the Services 
do not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a species' 
range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout all of 
its range. Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is 
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether 
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the 
portion is significant, and (2) the species is in danger of extinction 
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for 
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question 
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of 
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with 
respect to the first question we address, we do not need to evaluate 
the other question for that portion of the species' range.
    Following the court's holding, we now consider whether there are 
any significant portions of the species' range where the species is in 
danger of extinction now (i.e., endangered). In undertaking this 
analysis for Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, we choose to address 
the status question first--we consider information pertaining to the 
geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that the 
species faces to identify any portions of the range where the species 
is endangered.
    The statutory difference between an endangered species and a 
threatened species is the time horizon in which the species becomes in 
danger of extinction; an endangered species is in danger of extinction 
now while a threatened species is not in danger of extinction now but 
is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Thus, we considered 
the time horizon for the threats that are driving the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan to warrant listing as a threatened species 
throughout all of its range. We examined the following threats: 
Predation, development, recreation, and the effects of climate change, 
including cumulative effects. While the effects of predation, 
development, and recreation on Mount Rainer white-tailed ptarmigan 
appear to be limited to localized impacts on individuals, the effects 
of climate change are already evident in Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan habitat, and the projected future increase in those effects 
throughout the range will decrease the viability of the subspecies.
    The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the 
time horizon within which the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan will 
experience the effects of climate change is within the foreseeable 
future. Even though glaciers on the eastern side of the Cascades are 
receding at a faster rate than the glaciers on the western side, the 
rate of recession for the eastern glaciers is still not at a speed that 
puts the subspecies currently in danger of extinction. In addition, the 
best scientific and commercial data available do not indicate that the 
effects of climate change and the Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan's responses to those effects are more immediate in any 
portions of the subspecies' range. Therefore, we determine that the 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is not in danger of extinction now 
in any portion of its range, but that the subspecies is likely to 
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout 
all of its range. This is consistent with the courts' holdings in 
Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 
2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for Biological 
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017).

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
meets the definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to 
list the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan as a threatened species 
in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried 
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and 
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, 
below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop 
and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery 
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making 
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies 
recovery criteria to review when a species may be ready for 
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or 
removal from protected status (``delisting'') and methods for 
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates 
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of 
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental 
organizations, and stakeholders) are sometimes established to develop 
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery 
plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website 
(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Washington Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementing recovery actions generally requires the participation 
of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, 
Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private 
landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration 
(e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive propagation 
and reintroduction, and

[[Page 31687]]

outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be 
accomplished solely on Federal lands because their range may occur 
primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. Recovery of these species 
requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal 
lands.
    If this subspecies is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Washington would be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. 
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species 
recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Although the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is only proposed 
for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are 
interested in participating in recovery efforts for this subspecies. 
Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this 
subspecies whenever it becomes available and any information you may 
have for potential recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an 
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a 
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or 
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the 
Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the USFS and NPS.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the 
species proposed for listing. The discussion below regarding protecting 
regulations under section 4(d) complies with our policy.

II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act

Background

    Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence 
states that the ``Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation'' of species 
listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory 
language like ``necessary and advisable'' demonstrates a large degree 
of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)). 
Conservation is defined in the Act to mean ``the use of all methods and 
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or 
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant 
to [the Act] are no longer necessary.'' Additionally, the second 
sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary ``may by 
regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act 
prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or 
section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants.'' Thus, the combination of the 
two sentences of section 4(d) provides the Secretary with wide latitude 
of discretion to select and promulgate appropriate regulations tailored 
to the specific conservation needs of the threatened species. The 
second sentence grants particularly broad discretion to the Service 
when adopting the prohibitions under section 9.
    The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion 
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the 
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld rules 
developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority 
where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife, or include a limited 
taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 
U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council 
v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. 
Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not address 
all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 
853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when 
the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened 
list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available 
to him with regard to the permitted activities for those species. He 
may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such species, 
or he may choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the 
transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st 
Sess. 1973).
    Exercising this authority under section 4(d), we have developed a 
proposed rule that is designed to address the specific threats to and 
conservation needs of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. Although 
the statute does not require us to make a ``necessary and advisable'' 
finding with respect to the adoption of specific prohibitions under 
section 9, we find that this rule as a whole satisfies the requirement 
in section 4(d) of the Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and 
advisable to provide for the conservation of Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan. As discussed under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, 
we have concluded that the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is 
likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future 
solely due to the projected effects of climate change, especially 
increasing temperatures and a loss of the conditions that support 
suitable alpine habitat.
    The proposed 4(d) rule was developed considering our understanding 
of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's physical and biological 
needs, which in large part relies upon information from other white-
tailed ptarmigan subspecies. Though there is some information on the 
subspecies' habitat, the majority of habitat and demographic 
information comes from other subspecies (particularly the southern 
white-tailed ptarmigan in Colorado where there is considerable habitat 
connectivity and a very different climate). Given the unique aspects of 
the landscape and climate in the Cascades, significant uncertainty 
remains regarding Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's specific needs 
and how and to what degree stressors are operating in the subspecies' 
habitat. For example, we do not specifically understand Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan's winter habitat requirements, its winter food 
resources, or its reliance on snow roosting. We do

[[Page 31688]]

not understand why some areas of apparently suitable habitat lack 
observational records of the subspecies. We also lack the demographic 
information necessary to understand to what degree the subspecies is at 
risk in the future from various forms of disturbance.
    Considering these uncertainties and our requirement to develop a 
recovery plan for the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan if the 
proposed listing rule is finalized, our proposed 4(d) rule is designed 
to promote its conservation by facilitating the viability of current 
populations, scientific study of the subspecies, and conservation and 
restoration of its habitat. Further, our proposed 4(d) rule will allow 
our Federal partners to continue routine operations on the landscape 
that are not likely to cause adverse effects and, in some cases, have 
the potential to benefit the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan over 
time. As we learn more about the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
and its habitat, we will refine our conservation recommendations for 
the subspecies. The provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule are one of 
many tools that we would use to promote the conservation of Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. This proposed 4(d) rule would apply 
only if and when we make final the listing of Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan as a threatened subspecies.

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule

    This proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan by prohibiting its take, except as 
otherwise authorized or permitted. Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
is in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future due to the 
projected effects of climate change. The prohibition of take will 
support the conservation of existing populations of the subspecies by 
facilitating their viability in the face of these projected 
environmental changes. Excepting the following specific take mechanisms 
from this prohibition under the Act will allow for the continued 
management of land in the range in a manner that does not impact the 
viability of the subspecies:
     Take that is incidental to facilitating human safety such 
as rescue and fire and other emergency response. During emergency 
events, the primary objective of the responding agency must be to 
protect human life and property and this objective takes precedence 
over considerations for minimizing adverse effects to the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan.
     Take by authorized law enforcement officers and other 
wildlife professionals in the course of their official duties that is 
incidental to aiding or euthanizing sick, injured, or orphaned Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan; disposing of dead specimens; and 
salvaging a dead specimen that may be used for scientific study. These 
activities are not likely to cause adverse effects to populations and 
have the potential to benefit the subspecies over time.
     Take that is incidental to currently (at the time this 
rule becomes effective) lawfully conducted outdoor recreational 
activities such as hiking (including associated authorized pack animals 
and domestic dogs handled in compliance with existing regulations), 
camping, backcountry skiing, mountain biking, snowmobiling, climbing, 
and hunting where these activities are permitted. Based on available 
information, these types of permitted activities have the potential to 
disturb individual ptarmigan in localized areas representing a very 
small portion of the available habitat in the subspecies' range.
     Take that is incidental to habitat restoration actions 
with the primary purpose of conserving Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan or enhancing its habitat, provided that reasonable care is 
taken to minimize such take. Activities associated with habitat 
restoration (e.g., weeding, planting native forage plants, and 
establishing watering areas) are likely to cause only short-term, 
temporary adverse effects, especially in the form of harassment or 
disturbance of individual ptarmigan. In the long term, the risk of 
these effects to both individuals and populations is expected to be 
mitigated as these types of activities will likely benefit the 
subspecies by helping to preserve and enhance the habitat of existing 
populations over time. Reasonable care for habitat management may 
include, but would not be limited to, procuring and implementing 
technical assistance from a qualified biologist on habitat management 
activities, and best efforts to minimize Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan exposure to hazards (e.g., predation, habituation to feeding, 
entanglement, etc.).
     Take that is incidental to conducting lawful control of 
predators of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. Currently, predators 
of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan are not managed within the 
range of the subspecies, and predation is not a threat to the viability 
of the subspecies. However, ptarmigan are threatened in the foreseeable 
future by climate change and the persistence of the subspecies will 
rely on the conservation of existing populations, so future predator 
control may be authorized by the Service for the purposes of 
conservation of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. Therefore, 
take of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan associated with predator 
control authorized in advance by the Service would be not be 
prohibited, as the benefit to the subspecies from this activity 
outweighs the risk to individual ptarmigan.
     Take that is incidental to lawfully conducted timber 
harvest or forest management activities. White-tailed ptarmigan are 
rarely found using forested habitat types across the entire range of 
the species, and instead prefer alpine areas, open areas in subalpine 
parklands, and openings within subalpine forests, demonstrating a 
preference for habitat with few or no trees. Forest management 
activities in proximity to ptarmigan habitat may cause short-term, 
temporary adverse effects, especially in the form of harassment or 
disturbance of individual ptarmigan using habitats adjacent to forested 
areas; however, in the long term, these activities may benefit the 
subspecies by reducing the risk of wildfire near ptarmigan habitat.
     Take that is incidental to the maintenance of any 
currently existing public or private infrastructure within or adjacent 
to Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan habitat, including existing 
trails and supporting infrastructure. Most existing development and 
infrastructure within the range of Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan, the largest of which is associated with Mount Rainier 
National Park, has been in place for decades or longer. The amount of 
land developed for existing roads, buildings, trail head facilities and 
parking lots, trails, benches, signs, safety features, designated 
camping sites, developed ski areas, and helicopter landing pads is a 
very small percentage of the subspecies' range, and available suitable 
habitat is abundant and remote. As with outdoor recreation activities, 
the maintenance of existing trails and infrastructure within the 
subspecies' range has the potential to temporarily disturb individual 
ptarmigan in localized areas. The best available information does not 
indicate that these types of routine maintenance would put the 
viability of the subspecies at risk.
    As discussed under Summary of Biological Status and Threats 
(above), increasing temperatures (Factor E) and a loss of the 
conditions that support suitable alpine habitat (Factor A) are driving 
the status of Mount Rainier

[[Page 31689]]

white-tailed ptarmigan. However, a range of current and potential 
activities could directly and indirectly impact Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan via direct take or loss of habitat. These activities 
may cause disturbance, harm, or mortality to individual ptarmigan, 
trampling of habitat, introduction of invasive species in habitat, and 
loss of habitat. These activities include but are not limited to: Trail 
construction, maintenance, and use; road maintenance and repair; ski 
area development and/or expansion; helicopter landing pad development 
and/or expansion; recreation activities in alpine areas in summer, or 
subalpine areas in winter (e.g., hiking, snowmobiling, skiing, heli-
skiing, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, climbing, etc.); presence of 
dogs associated with recreation; use of pack animals in alpine areas; 
emergency response actions; and activities that may involve soil 
disturbance or alter the pattern and depth of snow in ptarmigan winter 
use areas. The best available information does not indicate that any of 
these activities, conducted in accordance with the law, put the 
viability of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan at risk. Allowing the 
continuation of these activities while prohibiting all other forms of 
take will facilitate Federal agencies in managing their land according 
to their priorities without unnecessary regulation while still 
supporting the conservation of the subspecies.
    Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in 
regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by 
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating 
incidental and intentional take would help preserve the subspecies' 
remaining populations and encouraging habitat restoration and 
enhancement could help decrease the negative effects from climate 
change, as well as the synergistic effects from other threats to 
individuals of the subspecies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities, 
including those described above, involving threatened wildlife under 
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 
CFR 17.32. Regarding threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for 
the following purposes: scientific purposes, to enhance propagation or 
survival, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for 
educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes 
consistent with the purposes of the Act. There are also certain 
statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 
9 and 10 of the Act.
    We recognize the special and unique relationship with our State 
natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of 
listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and 
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, 
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State 
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working 
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique 
position to assist the Services in implementing all aspects of the Act. 
In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that the Services shall 
cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying 
out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee 
or agent of a State conservation agency that is a party to a 
cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c) 
of the Act, who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes, 
would be able to conduct activities designed to conserve Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan that may result in otherwise prohibited take 
without additional authorization.
    Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would change in any way the 
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the 
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of 
the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and 
protection of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. However, 
interagency cooperation may be further streamlined through planned 
programmatic consultations for the species between Federal agencies and 
the Service, where appropriate. We ask the public, particularly State 
agencies and other interested stakeholders that may be affected by the 
proposed 4(d) rule, to provide comments and suggestions regarding 
additional guidance and methods that the Service could provide or use, 
respectively, to streamline the implementation of this proposed 4(d) 
rule (see Information Requested).

III. Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Designation also does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands, nor does designation require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency 
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species 
or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult 
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the 
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity

[[Page 31690]]

would result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical 
habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required 
to abandon the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; 
instead, they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to 
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those 
physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas, 
we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the 
life-history needs of the species, including but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation, 
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat 
characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first 
evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only 
consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat 
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would 
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition, 
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must 
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will 
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area 
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the 
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the Secretary 
may, but is not required to, determine that a designation would not be 
prudent in the following circumstances:
    (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species;
    (ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
    (iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
    (iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
    (v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical 
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data 
available.
    We identified threats to Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
habitat by looking at the negative effects of an action or condition 
(stressor) in light of the exposure, timing, and scale at the 
individual, population, and species levels, as called for in the SSA 
framework (USFWS 2016, entire). We analyzed the stressors that 
demonstrate current or potential future negative effects to 
individuals, to determine which of those stressors operate, or are 
projected to operate, at a scope and intensity as to influence the 
resiliency of populations and thereby the overall viability of Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. This approach is consistent with 
direction provided in the definition of critical habitat in section 3 
of the Act which refers to ``specific areas . . . essential to the 
conservation of the species.'' Through our viability analysis, we 
determined that no stressor is currently impacting the viability of the 
subspecies. However, changing habitat conditions associated with future 
climate change, such as loss of alpine vegetation and reduced snow 
quality and quantity, are expected to cause populations of Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan to decline within the foreseeable 
future, threatening the future condition and, in turn, the overall 
viability of the subspecies.
    Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan rely heavily on thermal 
microrefugia created by boulders and meltwater near glaciers, permanent 
snowfields, snowbanks, and other areas of snow in alpine areas, to help 
maintain safe body temperature in both summer and winter. They also 
rely heavily on the availability of moist forage vegetation. In the 
North Cascades, glaciers are projected to retreat between 92 percent 
and 96 percent in the future. Glacier melt in many of the watersheds of 
the eastern Cascade Range and low-moderate elevation watersheds of the 
western Cascades has already peaked, or will peak in the current 
decade. Total discharge in August and September from snowmelt, rain, 
and glacial melt in Cascades watersheds has notably declined and is 
expected to continue to drop through 2080. Spring snowpack in 
Washington has already declined overall by 30 percent from 1955 to 
2016, and is expected to further decline midcentury from 38 to 46 
percent by midcentury. The projected decreases in snowpack and glaciers 
and their associated meltwater, as well as changes in snow quality, 
decreasing wind, and advancing treeline and infill, is likely to result 
in the loss of up to 95 percent of the Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan's currently available alpine tundra habitat and a related 
loss in the availability of thermal microrefugia for the subspecies. 
There are no management actions resulting from

[[Page 31691]]

consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act that could address the 
impacts of climate change on the habitat and microrefugia that support 
this subspecies (see the Service's May 14, 2008, Director's Memo on 
Expectations for Consultations on Actions that Would Emit Greenhouse 
Gases, which notes that section 7 consultation would not be required to 
address impacts of a facility's greenhouse gas emissions). Based on the 
best available science, we find that threats to Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan habitat stem solely from causes that cannot be 
addressed through management actions resulting from consultations on 
this subspecies under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Therefore, in 
accordance with 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1), we determine that designation of 
critical habitat is not prudent for Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

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

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. All potentially affected Tribes were 
sent a letter highlighting our assessment of this subspecies and 
requesting information about the subspecies or other feedback. We did 
not receive any replies. We will continue to work with Tribal entities 
as we develop a final rule for the listing of Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the 
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Ptarmigan, Mount 
Rainier white-tailed'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife in alphabetical order under Birds to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
           Common name               Scientific name        Where listed         Status         and applicable
                                                                                                    rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                                      Birds
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Ptarmigan, Mount Rainier white-    Lagopus leucura      Wherever found.....  T               [Federal Register
 tailed.                            rainierensis.                                             citation when
                                                                                              published as a
                                                                                              final rule]; 50
                                                                                              CFR 17.41(i);
                                                                                              \4d\.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 31692]]

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.41 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.41  Special rules--birds.

* * * * *
    (i) Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura 
rainierensis).
    (1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to 
endangered wildlife also apply to Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. 
Except as provided under paragraph (i)(2) of this section and Sec.  
17.4, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to 
commit, or cause to be committed, take of this subspecies, as set forth 
at Sec.  17.21(c)(1) for endangered wildlife.
    (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this subspecies, you 
may:
    (i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec.  17.32.
    (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(2) through (5) for 
endangered wildlife.
    (iii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.31(b).
    (iv) Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity in accordance 
with these provisions:
    (A) Human safety and emergency response. A person may incidentally 
take Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in the course of carrying out 
official emergency response activities related to human safety and the 
protection of natural resources.
    (B) Law enforcement and on-the-job wildlife professionals. When 
acting in the course of their official duties, State and local law 
enforcement officers and other wildlife professionals, working in 
conjunction with authorized wildlife biologists and wildlife 
rehabilitators in the State of Washington, may take Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan for the following purposes:
    (1) Aiding or euthanizing sick, injured, or orphaned ptarmigan;
    (2) Disposing of a dead specimen;
    (3) Salvaging a dead specimen that may be used for scientific 
study; or
    (4) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens as 
provided in Sec.  17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
    (C) Lawful outdoor recreation. A person may incidentally take Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in the course of carrying out outdoor 
recreational activities, such as hiking (including associated 
authorized pack animals and domestic dogs handled in compliance with 
existing regulations), camping, backcountry skiing, mountain biking, 
snowmobiling, climbing, and hunting, that are lawful as of [EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
    (D) Habitat restoration actions. A person may incidentally take 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in the course of carrying out 
authorized habitat restoration consistent with the conservation needs 
of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. Habitat restoration and 
enhancement activities for the conservation of Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan may include activities consistent with formal approved 
conservation plans or strategies, such as Federal or State plans and 
documents that include ptarmigan conservation prescriptions or 
compliance, which the Service has determined would be consistent with 
this rule.
    (E) Predator control. A person may incidentally take Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan in the course of carrying out predator control 
for the purpose of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan conservation if 
reasonable care is practiced to minimize effects to Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan. Predator control activities may include the use 
of fencing, trapping, shooting, and toxicants to control predators, and 
related activities such as performing efficacy surveys, trap checks, 
and maintenance duties. Any predator control conducted for the purposes 
of conservation of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan must be 
authorized in advance by the Service.
    (F) Forest management. A person may incidentally take Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan in the course of carrying out legal and 
authorized forest management activities, including but not limited to: 
Timber harvest, fire management, and thinning.
    (G) Routine maintenance to existing trails and infrastructure. A 
person may incidentally take Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in 
the course of carrying out authorized routine maintenance of currently 
existing trails, public or private infrastructure (e.g., buildings, 
roads, parking lots, viewpoints, trails, and camp sites) and supporting 
infrastructure (e.g., benches, signs, safety features) within or 
adjacent to Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan habitat.
    (H) Reporting and disposal requirements. Any injury or mortality of 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan associated with the actions 
excepted under paragraphs (i)(2)(iv)(A) through (C) of this section 
must be reported to the Service and authorized State wildlife officials 
within 72 hours, and specimens may be disposed of only in accordance 
with directions from the Service. Reports should be made to the 
Service's Office of Law Enforcement; contact info for that office is 
located at 50 CFR 10.22.

Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the 
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-12460 Filed 6-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P