[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55091-55113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14315]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0076; FXES1111090FEDR-245-FF09E21000]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
threatened species status for the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
(Lagopus leucura rainierensis), a bird subspecies in Washington, under 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This rule adds 
the subspecies to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
extends the Act's protections to the subspecies. We also finalize a 
rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act that provides 
measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.

DATES: This rule is effective August 2, 2024.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0076 and at https://www.fws.gov/office/washington-fish-and-wildlife. Comments and 
materials we received are available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0076. Supporting 
materials we used in preparing this rule, such as the species status 
assessment report, are also available at https://www.regulations.gov 
under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0076.

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. 
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants 
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or 
a threatened species (likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list 
the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan meets the Act's definition of a 
threatened species; therefore, we are listing the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan as a threatened species. Listing a species as an 
endangered species or threatened species can be completed only by 
issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking 
process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. This rule makes final the listing of the 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan as a threatened species under the 
Act and adopts a rule under section 4(d) of the Act for the subspecies.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered species 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 the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
meets the definition of a threatened species due to habitat loss and 
degradation resulting from climate change within the foreseeable 
future. Rising temperatures associated with climate change are expected 
to have direct and rapid impacts on individual birds. Changing habitat 
conditions, such as loss of suitable alpine vegetation and reduced snow 
quality and quantity, are expected to cause populations to decline. 
This threat 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, it is unlikely that the Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan will adapt to the changing climate by moving northward 
because alpine areas north of the subspecies' current range are 
expected to undergo similar impacts due to climate change and any 
potential connectivity to areas north of the current range is expected 
to decline.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed listing rule (86 FR 31668; June 15, 
2021) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning 
the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. The SSA report represents a 
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available 
concerning the status of the subspecies, including the impacts of past, 
present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting 
the subspecies. 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 solicited independent 
scientific review of the information contained in the draft SSA report. 
We sent the draft SSA report to seven independent peer reviewers 
including scientists with expertise in white-tailed ptarmigan as well 
as climate science; we received three responses. The peer reviews and 
the draft SSA report they commented on can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. We also sent the draft SSA report to three agency 
partners for review; we received comments from one agency--the 
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. We incorporated the results 
of these reviews, as appropriate, into the 2021 SSA report (version 
1.0, USFWS 2021, entire), which was the foundation for the proposed 
rule and this final rule. Additionally, new information provided to us 
during the public comment period on the proposed rule was incorporated 
into both the final rule as well as version 2.0 of the SSA report 
(USFWS 2023, entire). A summary of the peer review comments and our 
responses can

[[Page 55092]]

be found in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations below.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered 
comments and new information received from the public on the June 15, 
2021, proposed rule. This final rule does not make any substantive 
changes to the determinations made in the proposed rule. We updated the 
SSA report to version 2.0 (USFWS 2023, entire), revising it based on 
all new information and comments received. The new information received 
from our agency partners and others on genetics, diet, habitat 
characteristics, adaptive divergence, and range and distribution was 
incorporated into version 2 of the SSA but not incorporated into this 
final rule because it did not lead to substantive changes in the 
determinations made in the proposed rule. The changes we made to this 
final rule are as follows:
    (1) We shorten the Background section to a condensed discussion of 
the general information for the subspecies on taxonomy/genetics, 
species description, range/distribution, life history, and habitat (for 
the full updated discussion on these topics see version 2 the SSA 
Report (USFWS 2023));
    (2) We shorten the Summary of Biological Status and Threats section 
to include only a brief discussion of recreation and the full 
discussion of the effects of climate change (for the full updated 
discussion on factors influencing the status of the subspecies see 
version 2 the SSA Report (USFWS 2023));
    (3) We make many clarifications and minor corrections in this rule 
to ensure better consistency with the updated SSA report (USFWS 2023), 
we clarify some information, and we update or add new references.
    (4) We remove language referencing low connectivity between 
populations from this final rule.
    (5) We revise table 6 in the final rule (and table 17 the SSA 
(USFWS 2023, p. 81) by correcting the following:
     We adjust the future condition score under Scenario 4 for 
the North Cascades-West Population Unit to poor, to be consistent with 
that unit's Scenario 2 score. Under both scenarios, we predict a lack 
of future availability of breeding and post-breeding habitat (USFWS 
2023, chapter 6.0).
     We adjust the future condition scores for Mount Adams 
under Scenarios 1 and 3 from good to fair, to better reflect predicted 
future conditions for Mount Adams, as explained in the SSA report 
(version 2.0, USFWS 2023, chapter 6.0).
    (6) In light of the April 5, 2024, regulation revisions to 50 CFR 
424.12, that pertain to circumstances when a designation of critical 
habitat may be not prudent, we indicate we will reevaluate the prudency 
analysis for the ptarmigan and issue a critical habitat determination 
in a separate Federal Register document.
    (7) We make revisions to the description of the prohibitions and 
exceptions in our rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act (``4(d) 
rule'') in the preamble of this final rule to be consistent with the 
regulatory text that sets forth the 4(d) rule.
    (8) We revise the regulatory text that sets forth the 4(d) rule by 
making the following changes:
     In Sec.  17.41(i)(1), we add the full suite of section 9 
prohibitions. We want to prevent declines in the species' status, and 
section 4(d) provides that the Secretary shall promulgate regulations 
that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the 
species. Although threatened species are not currently in danger of 
extinction like endangered species, we have determined those species 
are likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable 
future, and we have an opportunity to try to prevent that from 
happening for newly listed species. Further, we often lack a complete 
understanding of the causes of a species' decline, and taking a 
precautionary approach to applying protections would proactively 
address potentially unknown threats. In addition, the initial listing 
of a species may bring new attention to the species and that attention 
may increase the risk of collection or sale. Therefore, this approach 
of applying section 9 prohibitions assists our goal of putting in place 
protections that will both prevent the species from becoming endangered 
and promote the recovery of species. As we learn more about the Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan and the reasons for its decline over 
time, we have the option to revise the 4(d) rule accordingly.
     In Sec.  17.41(i)(2)(ii), we remove reference to 
17.21(c)(5) as this was an error in the proposed rule.
     In Sec.  17.41(i)(2)(v), we remove the exception for Law 
Enforcement and On-the-job Wildlife Professionals. The intent of this 
exception is already satisfied by exceptions in Sec.  17.41(i)(2)(i)-
(iv), making this stand-alone this exception duplicative.
     In Sec.  17.41(i)(2)(iv)(F), we add developed ski areas 
and helicopter landing pads to the list of examples of infrastructure 
where incidental take of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan can occur 
during routine maintenance. This revision ensures consistency between 
our description of the exception in the preamble of this document and 
in the regulatory text that sets forth the 4(d) rule. In addition, we 
keep references to trails as part of infrastructure, but remove any 
references to trails separate from infrastructure to eliminate 
redundancy in both the preamble and promulgation.
    We conclude that the information we received during the comment 
period for the June 15, 2021, proposed rule did not change our previous 
analysis of the magnitude or severity of factors influencing the 
subspecies or our determination that the Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan meets the definition of a threatened species.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    Prior to developing the proposed rule, we solicited peer review and 
received comments on the draft SSA report (USFWS 2021) as discussed 
below. In our June 15, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 31668), we requested 
that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by 
August 16, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State 
agencies, Tribes, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule. 
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the 
Seattle Times on June 21, 22, and 23, 2021, and we did not receive any 
requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided 
during the public comment period either has been incorporated directly 
into this final rule or is addressed below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed in Peer Review, above, we received comments from three 
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we 
received from the specialists for substantive issues and new 
information regarding Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. The 
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and 
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to 
improve the SSA report and this final rule. The SSA peer review 
comments mainly fell into categories pertaining to the subspecies' life 
history, influence factors, and population needs. Revisions per peer 
reviewer comments and expert opinions are incorporated into the SSA 
report (version 1.0, USWFS 2021, entire;

[[Page 55093]]

version 2.0, USFWS 2023, entire) and this final rule as appropriate.

Public Comments

    We received 14 public comment letters in response to the June 15, 
2021, proposed rule. We reviewed all comments we received during the 
public comment period for substantive issues and new information 
regarding the proposed rule. A majority of the commenters supported the 
listing determination and one opposed the determination. Eight 
commenters provided substantive comments or new information concerning 
the proposed listing and 4(d) rule for Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan. Below, we provide a summary of the substantive issues raised 
in the public comments we received; however, comments outside the scope 
of the proposed rule, and those without supporting information, did not 
warrant an explicit response and, thus, are not presented here. 
Identical or similar comments have been consolidated. As noted below in 
Critical Habitat, any substantive comments regarding critical habitat 
received during the comment period on the 2021 proposed rule will be 
responded to in a separate determination in the future in the Federal 
Register.
Comments From Federal Agencies
    (1) Comment: The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) asked for clarification 
regarding species and habitat responses to climate change, including 
why the representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5 model predicted 
good food abundance if there is overall habitat loss and whether 
habitat loss is related to heat.
    Our Response: We determined with our expert elicitation group that 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan need both an adequate quality and 
quantity of foraging habitat in each season, but habitat quality is no 
longer relevant if habitat quantity is zero. The expert elicitation 
group included biologists from USFS, the Washington Department of Fish 
and Wildlife (WDFW), and the National Park Service (NPS) with local 
expertise on the subspecies and its habitat.
    As described in the SSA report (USFWS 2023, chapter 3.0), we 
developed a list of species' needs and their indicators prior to the 
future condition analysis that includes the RCP8.5 scenario. The USFS 
comment is correct in noting an apparent contradiction between the 
ratings for habitat loss and food abundance, but the term ``abundance 
of food resources'' was chosen to represent the quality and quantity of 
foraging habitat within remaining breeding, post-breeding, and 
wintering habitat. We used a variety of indicators to represent 
``abundance of food resources,'' including acres of winter forage 
vegetation, distance to water during the breeding season, Normalized 
Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI; an index of plant growth) during 
early brood rearing, peak timing of NDVI, soil moisture, and the width 
of the unvegetated area of the glacial forefront not yet colonized by 
forage plants. Of these, the only indicator available for future 
scenarios was a measure of soil moisture. In forb-dominated alpine 
environments, soil moisture will drive productivity in the face of 
climate warming (Walker et al. 1994, p. 402; Winkler et al. 2016, p. 
1553). Soil moisture was projected to remain within one standard 
deviation of historical means (Northwest Climate Toolbox, developed by 
members of the Applied Climate Science Lab at the University of Idaho 
(Pacific Northwest Climate Impacts Research Consortium, CIRC, 2019)), 
and therefore remains within the range of a ``good'' rating for some of 
the population units in some future scenarios. We chose measures within 
one standard deviation of historical means as representative of a 
``good'' rating because our expert elicitation group concluded that 
historical forage vegetation conditions adequately support populations 
of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.
    With regard to the potential relationship of habitat loss and heat, 
the overall loss of ptarmigan habitat is not directly due to a warming 
climate or desiccation of alpine meadows, but to a shift from open 
meadow vegetation to forest (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) 2019, p. SPM-25; Jackson et al. 2015, p. 440; Steuve et al. 
2009, entire; USFWS 2023, pp. 57-61). This future shift to forest 
represents a loss of habitat for the Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan, and for other species dependent on alpine tundra vegetation.
    (2) Comment: USFS questioned why alpine meadow habitat would not 
expand into areas where glaciers have retreated.
    Our Response: In the June 15, 2021, proposed rule, and as explained 
in the SSA report (USFWS 2023, p. 60), as glaciers retreat and expose 
soil-less, unvegetated bedrock (called the glacial forefront), we 
estimate a minimum of 20 years for the development of white-tailed 
ptarmigan forage plants, and 70 to 100 years for maturation to full 
meadow and subshrub habitat within that area. This represents a time 
gap in development of breeding and post-breeding habitat of 5 to 24 
generations of ptarmigan (86 FR 31668, June 15, 2021, p. 31681), and 
thus in the foreseeable future, habitat loss is expected to exceed 
habitat gains. At some point after glacial retreat (beyond our 
projected timeline), the exposed areas will be suitable ptarmigan 
habitat with alpine meadows and remain so for a period of time. 
Eventually, however, any alpine habitat that develops there will become 
forest (USFWS 2023, pp. 57-61).
    (3) Comment: USFS questioned our use of 50- to 80-year climate 
models as ``foreseeable'' and asked for clarification on the projected 
effects of warming temperatures on forage plant growth.
    Our Response: As discussed below under Regulatory Framework, the 
foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the Service can 
make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the species 
and the species' responses to those threats. 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 and the species' biological 
response. For the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, we could make 
reasonably reliable predictions 50 to 80 years into the future with 
respect to the primary driver of the subspecies' status (climate 
change) and our understanding of information available on the 
subspecies' survival, generational framework, and physiology (see the 
discussion in Climate Change under Summary of Biological Status and 
Threats, below, and section 6.1 of SSA report (USFWS 2023, p. 73).
    (4) Comment: USFS asked what metric we used to estimate the low 
connectivity between populations discussed under Status Throughout all 
its Range in the proposed rule, given that the subspecies is able to 
fly relatively long distances.
    Our Response: In the June 15, 2021, proposed rule, we erred in 
stating that connectivity between populations is currently low (86 FR 
31668 at p. 31685). Current connectivity levels between populations are 
not negatively impacting the viability of the subspecies; therefore, we 
removed language referencing low connectivity between populations from 
this final rule. For the SSA, we analyzed current connectivity between 
types of habitat within each population. Appendix F in the SSA report 
(USFWS 2023, pp. 120-138) provides information on current connectivity 
between breeding, post-breeding, and winter habitat within

[[Page 55094]]

each population unit. The categories of ``poor,'' ``fair,'' ``good,'' 
and ``very good'' are based on the size and abundance of habitat gaps 
within a population unit. Current connectivity for each population was 
categorically rated based on expert opinion (WDFW partners), but future 
condition estimates of connectivity were left blank (see appendix G in 
the SSA report (USFWS 2023, pp.138-156) because available vegetation 
models are not sensitive enough to model small-scale areas, which would 
be necessary to make a definitive statement of future condition of this 
indicator. Therefore, this indicator was not used to rate future 
condition of any population unit or the subspecies.
    We clarified the language under Executive Summary, above, and 
Status Throughout All of Its Range, below, to make clear that this 
information was for evaluating connectivity between breeding, post-
breeding, and winter habitat within populations, as opposed to 
connectivity between populations. We also clarified that the metric was 
only used for analysis of current condition for each population.
    (5) Comment: The British Columbia Ministry of Environment and 
Climate Change remarked that the amount of existing recreation in 
British Columbia is similar to that occurring in the United States, 
with the same resultant effects to the species. USFS noted that 
recreational use of high-elevation habitats has been increasing, 
exponentially in recent years, but did not provide data to support or 
further explain this statement.
    Our Response: We agree that factors influencing Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan populations in British Columbia are similar to 
those affecting populations in the State of Washington. We thoroughly 
analyzed the best available information on the scope, magnitude, and 
intensity of recreation in the range of the subspecies (USFWS 2023, pp. 
42-48). Based on this analysis, recreation of any type or timing in the 
range 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, we do not have information 
at this time to analyze whether future increases in recreation would 
rise beyond individual-level impacts such that it is likely to affect 
the resiliency of populations of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.
    (6) Comment: Three commenters, including British Columbia Ministry 
of Environment and Climate Change and USFS's Region 6, questioned the 
wording in the discussion of taxonomy and genetics in the June 15, 
2021, proposed rule and suggested the Service refer to Taylor (1920, 
entire) and specific sections within Langin et al. (2018) in our final 
rule. These commenters questioned our identified boundary for the 
northern white-tailed ptarmigan, further suggesting the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan may not be a valid subspecies based on peer 
review comments and statements in Langin et al. (2018, entire).
    Our Response: The June 15, 2021, proposed rule provided only a 
summary of the taxonomic and genetic information from the SSA report 
for the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. As noted in the SSA 
report (USFWS 2023, p. 23), the 1957 American Ornithological Union 
(AOU, now American Ornithological Society (AOS)) taxonomic 
classification of the subspecies relies on a 1920 description (Taylor 
1920, entire) of the subspecies based on a comparison of specimens 
taken only from Mount Rainier National Park. We adopted the 1957 AOU 
classification of the subspecies for delineating the range of the 
subspecies for the SSA analysis and explain in the SSA report that the 
AOU mapping of the subspecies' border at the international boundary was 
likely a convenience; the range of the subspecies likely extends 
slightly farther north than the U.S.-Canada border because habitat is 
contiguous across the border (USFWS 2023, p. 23; Langin et al. 2018, 
figures S10 and S14).
    As explained in our June 15, 2021, proposed rule, a combination of 
sightings, dispersal distance, occurrence and distribution of suitable 
alpine/subalpine habitat, and forests, agriculture, cities, and 
highways that occur west of the range of the subspecies in British 
Columbia was used to determine the northern range limit. A 2018 
genetics study referenced by commenters (Langin et al. 2018) raised 
some uncertainty regarding the taxonomic validity of several of the 
subspecies of white-tailed ptarmigan. However, Langin et al. (2018) 
stated that sampling was sparse in the area at the border of Washington 
and British Columbia, ``. . . making it infeasible to identify the 
start and end points of putative genetic groups.'' Furthermore, 
additional research by another group found that individuals are 
genetically clustered largely by their recognized subspecies (Zimmerman 
et al. 2021, p. 125).
    We acknowledge there is some remaining uncertainty over the 
relationship between the subspecies in question and the exact boundary 
between L. l. rainierensis and other subspecies in the genus. However, 
there has been no change to the official nomenclature of Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan, and the best available science leads us to find 
that the Fraser River represents the northern terminus of the range of 
the L. l. rainierensis subspecies. We have incorporated additional 
information in the discussion of taxonomy and genetics in the SSA 
report (USFWS 2023, pp. 4-6). All substantive peer review and expert 
elicitation comments were incorporated into the SSA report (version 
1.0. USFWS 2021, entire; version 2.0, USFWS 2023, entire) and 
considered in development of the June 15, 2021, proposed rule and this 
final rule.
Comments From States
    Section 4(i) of the Act states that the Secretary shall submit to 
the State agency a written justification for the failure to adopt 
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition. Comments 
we received from State agencies regarding the proposal to list the 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan as threatened under the Act are 
addressed below. We received comments from WDFW related to biological 
information, influence factors, and the 4(d) rule. WDFW provided a 
number of recommended technical corrections, clarifications, or edits 
to the proposed listing determination for the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan. As noted in the Summary of Changes from the Proposed 
Rule, we have evaluated and incorporated this information into this 
final rule where appropriate to clarify the final listing 
determination.
    (7) Comment: Citing a 1905 text by Judd, WDFW indicated the 
historical range of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan may have 
extended south to Mt. Hood and Mount Jefferson in Oregon.
    Our Response: We contacted biologists at WDFW to discuss this 
comment. Past research by WDFW biologists has shown that such 
historical observations may be in error. Because the Judd text did not 
provide any information on who or when someone may have seen the 
subspecies in that area, their recommendation was to mention the 
possible past occupancy of the subspecies in the area of Mt. Hood and 
Mount Jefferson, but not to list the area as a historical population. A 
clarification to this effect has been added to the SSA report (USFWS 
2023).
    (8) Comment: WDFW suggested that sections of the proposed rule that 
cite results from research conducted within

[[Page 55095]]

the range of the southern white-tailed ptarmigan should be cited as 
such, as those results may not accurately represent conditions or life-
history traits for the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.
    Our Response: In this final rule, we clarify where information came 
from in studies of southern white-tailed ptarmigan and other subspecies 
of white-tailed ptarmigan under the Summary of Biological Status and 
Threats, below.
Other Comments
    (9) Comment: Several commenters from nongovernmental organizations 
and other groups noted their repeated and extensive, yet unsuccessful, 
searches for Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan over the last several 
years, concluding that the subspecies' range is likely contracting.
    Our Response: We incorporated the search effort information 
provided by the commenters into the final SSA report and this rule (see 
Background, below), and we considered the information in our 
determination.

I. Final Listing Determination

Background

    We completed a comprehensive assessment of the biological status of 
the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan and prepared a report of the 
assessment (SSA report; USFWS 2023, entire), which provides a thorough 
account of the subspecies' overall viability and risks to that 
viability. Please refer to the SSA report as well as our June 15, 2021, 
proposed rule (86 FR 31668) for a full summary of subspecies 
information. Both are available at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0076. Below, we summarize the key results and 
conclusions of the SSA report.
    The Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, one of five subspecies of 
white-tailed ptarmigan (AOU 1998, p. xii; ITIS 2019; Clements et al. 
2019, entire), is found in alpine and subalpine areas of the Cascade 
Mountains (Cascades) in Washington State and southern British Columbia, 
Canada. Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's historical range 
extended along the Cascade Range from southern Canada south to and 
including Mount St. Helens and Mount Adams. Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan regularly occurred on Mount St. Helens before the active 
volcano lost approximately 400 meters (m) (1,314 feet (ft)) of 
elevation when it erupted in 1980 (Brantley and Myers 1997, p. 2). The 
population on Mount St. Helens is now presumed extirpated (Schroeder et 
al. 2021, p 4). 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 in 
Washington State to approximately Lytton, British Columbia, Canada, 
east of the Fraser River. Recent searches for the subspecies noted the 
recession or loss of previously permanent snowfields, as well as a 
marked decline in sightings or density of sightings of individuals 
(Garner 2021, in litt.; Isley 2021, in litt.).
    The four other recognized subspecies of white-tailed ptarmigan are 
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 the provinces of British 
Columbia and Alberta, Canada. In the following paragraphs, we rely on 
studies conducted on other subspecies of white-tailed ptarmigan because 
most life-history studies either do not differentiate between the 
subspecies or focus on the more well-studied southern white-tailed 
ptarmigan subspecies. 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). 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).
    Pairs of ptarmigan form shortly after females arrive on breeding 
areas in late April to mid-May (Martin et al. 2015, Phenology section). 
Due to the short breeding season, female white-tailed ptarmigan raise 
only one brood per year (Sandercock et al. 2005, p. 2177). Within 6 to 
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). 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). There have been no population-scale density estimates for 
populations in the range of the Mount Rainier subspecies but estimates 
for other subspecies range from fewer than 1 to about 14 birds per 
square kilometer (km\2\) (2.6 to 36 birds per square mile (mi\2\)) 
(Clarke and Johnson 1990, p. 649). Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
populations may or may not be within this wide range reported for other 
subspecies (USFWS 2023, p. 26).
    Chicks younger 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). 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in the North Cascades were 
observed eating, in order of preference: dwarf huckleberry (Vaccinium 
deliciosum), red mountain heather (Phyllodoce empetriformes), black-
headed sedge (Carex nigricans), white mountain heather (Cassiope 
mertensiana), crowfoot (Luetkea pectinata), Tolmie's saxifrage 
(Saxifraga tolmiei), spiked wood rush (Luzula spicata), and mosses 
(Skagen 1980, p. 4). 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 [deg]C (70 [deg]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, in 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). Use of snow in late summer may be important.
    Breeding and brood-rearing habitat of 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. 
As with breeding habitat, the lower elevation limit of post-breeding 
habitat is likely defined by treeline and proximity to water (Frederick 
and Gutierrez 1992, p. 895).

[[Page 55096]]

At high elevations in the Pacific Northwest, 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 to 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.
    No studies of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's use of 
winter habitat have been conducted, however, white-tailed ptarmigan in 
Colorado shelter from winter wind and cold in snow roosts (Braun et al. 
1976, p. 2; Braun and Schmidt 1971, p. 245). Snow-roosting sites for 
white-tailed ptarmigan have deep, fluffy snow with high insulation 
value; this generally means snow that is cold, is relatively dry, and 
has abundant air spaces. Wind influences snow deposition patterns and 
the availability of snow roosts (Braun et al. 1976, p. 3). During the 
day when ptarmigan are not 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).
    The Cascades of the Pacific Northwest have some of the deepest 
snowpack in North America. Willow stands along valley bottoms similar 
to those relied on by southern white-tailed ptarmigan are rare and are 
likely buried by heavy winter snows on the steep slopes within the 
range of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan (Schroeder 2019, 
pers. comm.). Based on limited observations and 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, and refer to these habitat types as ``alpine'' or 
``potentially suitable'' habitat herein. Approximately 76.5 percent of 
the total suitable habitat for the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
is found in the United States, and almost all of that area is federally 
owned (94.5 percent, see table 1, below).

                                                  Table 1--Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan Suitable Habitat by Land Ownership, in Hectares
                                                                                             [Acres]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Alpine                                 Mount     North Cascades  North Cascades   William O.                    Percent
                          Population unit                               Lakes      Goat Rocks  Mount Adams    Rainier         East            West         Douglas         Total       ownership
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal:
    USFS...........................................................      132,208       34,901       14,116       36,090         354,484         366,774       25,096         963,669          59
                                                                       (326,693)     (86,242)     (34,881)     (89,180)       (875,949)       (906,318)     (62,014)     (2,381,277)
    NPS............................................................            0            0            0       55,917          18,860         139,639            0         214,416          13
                                                                                                              (138,174)        (46,604)       (345,056)                    (529,833)
    Other Federal..................................................          275            0            0            0             402               0            0             677          <1
                                                                           (680)                                                  (993)                                      (1,673)
State..............................................................          161        8,522            0            0          24,396           2,576           29          35,684           2
                                                                           (398)     (21,058)                                  (60,283)         (6,364)         (71)        (88,177)
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           7,675          <1
                                                                         (2,166)      (8,619)      (3,084)        (889)           (348)         (3,860)                     (18,965)
British Columbia:
    Provincial Parks...............................................            0            0            0            0          60,479          39,596            0         100,075           6
                                                                                                                              (149,448)        (97,845)  ...........       (247,291)
    Private/Other..................................................            0            0            0            0         188,077          95,801            0         283,878          17
                                                                                                                              (464,748)       (236,730)                    (701,477)
                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total......................................................      133,520       64,851       23,451       92,367         646,839         645,948       25,125       1,632,101
                                                                       (329,935)    (160,250)     (57,949)    (228,244)     (1,598,374)     (1,596,172)     (62,085)     (4,033,009)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework
    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the 
regulations in 50 CFR 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
endangered and threatened species and what criteria we apply when 
designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 24300). On the same 
day, the Service published a final rule revising our protections for 
endangered species and threatened species at 50 CFR 17 (89 FR 23919). 
These final rules are now in effect and are incorporated into the 
current regulations. Our analysis for this final decision applied our 
current regulations. Given that we proposed listing for this species 
under our prior regulations (revised in 2019), we have also undertaken 
an analysis of whether our decision would be different if we had 
continued to apply the 2019 regulations; we concluded that the listing 
decision would be the same. However, we will reevaluate our not prudent 
determination, as discussed below under Critical Habitat, in a separate 
Federal Register notice. The analyses under both the regulations 
currently in effect and the 2019 regulations are available on https://www.regulations.gov.
    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

[[Page 55097]]

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 (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). 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 which is 
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable 
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M- Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf). 
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the Services 
can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the 
species and the species' responses to those threats. The Services need 
not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of 
time. The Services will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-
case basis, using the best available data and taking into account 
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, 
threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other 
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can 
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean 
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of 
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of 
the Act.
Analytical Framework
    The SSA report (USFWS 2023, entire) documents the results of our 
comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial 
data regarding the status of a species, including an assessment of the 
potential threats to that species. The SSA report does not represent 
our decision on whether a species should be listed as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act. However, it does 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.
    To assess the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's viability for 
the SSA, we used the three conservation biology principles of 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 
306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the ability of a species to withstand 
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, 
warm or cold years); redundancy is the ability of a species to 
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution 
events); and representation is the ability of a species to adapt to 
both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological 
environment (for example, climate conditions or pathogens). In general, 
species viability will increase with increases in resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these 
principles, we identified the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's 
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the 
individual, population, and subspecies levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing the subspecies' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the 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 are quite limited, and we do not know whether 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 its range, we used the limited 
occurrence data and expert elicitation to delineate representation 
areas and population units. We separated the range into two 
representation areas, the North Area and the South Area, to represent 
the known ecological variation between the two regions. Within those 
two representation areas, we identified seven current population units 
based on observations, elevation, and vegetation types from Landfire 
vegetation maps (see table 2, below).
    We refined the boundaries of these units by selecting vegetation 
types on recently refined NPS vegetation maps and Landfire vegetation 
maps for USFS lands. Our refined population unit maps contain nearly 
all observations of the subspecies 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

[[Page 55098]]

considered extirpated due to the 1980 eruption of the Mount St. 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 within the foreseeable future. Similarly, we did not 
consider Mt. Hood or Mount Jefferson because records there are more 
than 100 years old and are questionable.

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

    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report (USFWS 2023); the full SSA report can be found at 
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0076.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan and its resources, and the threats that 
influence the subspecies' current and future condition, in order to 
assess the subspecies' overall viability and the risks to that 
viability.
Factors Influencing the Status of Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan
    The petition to list the southern and Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan subspecies as threatened (Center for Biological Diversity 
(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 presented substantial information to 
indicate that the 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 stressors, we first 
discuss our understanding of existing regulatory and voluntary 
conservation mechanisms.
Regulatory and Voluntary Conservation Mechanisms
    A majority of the land (70 percent) within the national parks and 
forests in the U.S. portion of the range of the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan is congressionally designated wilderness under 16 
U.S.C. 1131 et seq. and 54 U.S.C. 100101 et seq. 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 2020, entire). There are 16 designated 
wilderness areas on USFS land in the Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan's 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 
below in figure 1.

  Table 3--Percent of Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan Habitat in U.S. Designated Wilderness by Population
                                                      Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Hectares         Percent of
                                                               Total hectares    (acres) of     habitat in unit
                       Population unit                           (acres) of      habitat in      designated as
                                                                   habitat       wilderness        wilderness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Cascades--East (U.S. portion)..........................         398,283         232,041                 58
                                                                    (984,179)       (573,387)
North Cascades--West (U.S. portion)..........................         510,551         394,529                 77
                                                                  (1,261,599)       (974,902)
Alpine Lakes.................................................         133,520         100,566                 75
                                                                    (329,935)       (248,504)
Mount Rainier................................................          92,367          83,339                 90
                                                                    (228,244)       (205,935)

[[Page 55099]]

 
William O. Douglas...........................................          25,125          19,468                 78
                                                                     (62,085)        (48,106)
Goat Rocks...................................................          64,851          25,375                 39
                                                                    (160,250)        (62,703)
Mount Adams..................................................          23,451          13,266                 57
                                                                     (57,949)        (32,781)
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................................       1,248,148         868,584                 70
                                                                  (3,084,241)     (2,146,318)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 55100]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JY24.109

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    The 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 of 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-Parks Canada 2020, entire).
    White-tailed ptarmigan are a ``Species of Greatest Conservation 
Need'' in the Washington 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

[[Page 55101]]

birding enthusiasts, hikers, backpackers, 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 the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in most of the North 
Cascades--East population unit, and about half of the North Cascades--
West population unit (79 FR 54782, September 12, 2014; 50 CFR 
17.95(a)). 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). This critical habitat designation may provide some benefit to 
the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan if it results in the 
regulation of activities that would reduce the quantity and quality of 
snow within these population units, but such a situation would not 
likely happen at a scale that would benefit the resiliency of the 
population unit.
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 reviewed all of the 
factors identified in the petition, as well as any potential additional 
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 
is 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, browsing, the invasive 
willow borer beetle (Cryptorhynchus lapathi), predation, and 
infrastructure development, indicated that these did not operate at a 
level affecting the resiliency of any population unit, or the overall 
viability of the subspecies (USFWS 2023, pp. 37-41).
    While the effects from recreation have not been investigated in the 
field, recreation is the primary human activity throughout the range of 
the subspecies. As discussed in the Proposed Rule and the SSA Report 
(USFWS 2023, section 4.8), 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 recreation on closely related species 
(USFWS 2023, p. 42-43). However, available information does not 
indicate that recreation has impacted the historical abundance and 
distribution of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. Further, although 
we do not know the true overlap of recreational areas (mainly trails) 
with concentrated Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan use areas, the 
history of established recreation, the overall small amount of area 
occupied by trails in Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan habitat 
(0.02 percent as shown in Table 9, USFWS 2023, p. 47), and the large 
percentage of protected wilderness in the range (70 percent of the 
range of the subspecies in the United States as shown in Table 4, USFWS 
2023, p. 41) all likely reduce the risk of exposure of the subspecies 
to this stressor. The best available information does not indicate that 
recreation currently has a population-level effect on the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan. 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.
    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. 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 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]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 representation concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 is a moderate 
emissions scenario, and RCP8.5 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 RCP4.5, and 96 
percent between 1970 and 2100 under RCP8.5 (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 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 et al. 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 RCP4.5 and up 
to 46 percent under RCP8.5 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

[[Page 55102]]

changes in snowpack in the warmer maritime mountains will be driven 
largely by increases in temperature (Hamlet 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). Field studies in the North Cascades-East 
population unit of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan indicate 
that despite above-average snowfall in the winter of 2020-2021, the 
date of complete melt and disappearance of an important snowbank for 
male flocks and some broods was the earliest recorded in 13 field 
seasons since 1997 (Schroeder et al. 2021, p. 11).
    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 melts in the 
heat of the day. The refreezing of snow creates a hard surface crust 
(Albert and Perron, Jr. 2000, p. 3208) that may make burrowing for 
roosting sites difficult for ptarmigan, who prefer soft snow for their 
roosts (Braun and Schmidt 1971, p. 244; Braun et al. 1976, pp. 3-4). 
Furthermore, warm winter temperatures that create wet, heavy snow may 
also make burrowing difficult for ptarmigan, and thus 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, Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan habitat will be lost as open, alpine vegetation communities 
become forested. Creation of new habitat by 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 roosting sites for 
the subspecies, increasing the exposure of Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan to temperatures below their tolerance, or increasing stress 
levels 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, leading to higher predation risk to individuals. 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in white plumage have already been 
detected in snow-free areas in fall (Riedell 2019, in litt.).
    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. White-tailed ptarmigan experience 
physiological stress when ambient temperatures exceed 21 [deg]C (70 
[deg]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 the 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 alpine plant communities is able to 
occur in the face of climate change, breeding and post-breeding 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 breeding and post-breeding habitat for the subspecies to be created 
at the same rate at which it is lost. Climate change will also convert 
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).
    Species distribution models for all three species of ptarmigan in 
British Columbia (rock ptarmigan (Lagopus muta), willow ptarmigan 
(Lagopus lagopus), and white-tailed ptarmigan)) project that all three 
species will experience upward shifts in elevation and latitude, 
habitat loss, and subsequent range reductions throughout the province 
(Scridel et al. 2021, p. 1764). The white-tailed ptarmigan, including 
individuals in the area southeast of the Fraser River Valley included 
in our SSA, is projected to experience an upward elevation gain of 254 
m (833 ft), an upward latitude shift of 1.11[deg], and a range decline 
of 86 percent by the 2080s (Scridel et al. 2021,

[[Page 55103]]

p. 1764). Projected distribution maps indicate that all habitat within 
the range of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in British 
Columbia will be lost by the 2080s (Scridel et al. 2021, p. 1765). 
Although this study focused on British Columbia, climate change 
projections for vegetation in Washington State are comparable, and 
range declines of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in Washington 
State are expected to be similar in both area and timing to those 
predicted for British Columbia. As the distribution of white-tailed 
ptarmigan habitat in British Columbia contracts, the habitat gap 
between white-tailed ptarmigan in Washington and white-tailed ptarmigan 
north of the Fraser River Valley will increase (Scridel et al. 2021, p. 
1765). This increased habitat gap will decrease the likelihood of 
genetic exchange between the subspecies.
    A 1998 study assessed the potential vulnerability of wildlife 
species within the Interior Columbia River Basin to effects of climate 
change and reported that the species of white-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus 
leucura) seemed particularly at risk (Marcot et al. 1988, pp. 58-63). 
The study noted this species occurs only in alpine tundra habitats 
within the Interior Columbia River Basin, in isolated locations that, 
under climate change projections, would potentially undergo upward 
shifts in elevation, further isolation, and reduction in area or local 
elimination. The study determined white-tailed ptarmigan (at the 
species level) was most at risk of all species in their analysis area, 
as it uses only alpine tundra habitats (Marcot et al. 1998, p. 60).
    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 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 the 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 the 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' State designation 
in Washington, and the overlap of its range with designated critical 
habitat for the Canada lynx.
    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, browsing, the invasive willow borer beetle, 
predation, infrastructure development, and recreation may have 
localized effects to individual Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, 
the best available information does not indicate they affect the 
overall viability of the subspecies, and adequate future projections 
are not available to determine if these influence factors 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 likely projected future 
increase in the scope, magnitude, and intensity of those effects will 
decrease the viability of the subspecies.
Current Condition
    Based on our assessment of the biological information on the 
subspecies, we identified 10 key resiliency attributes for populations 
of the 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 post-breeding habitat, and (10) total area of winter 
habitat. We developed a table of these key population needs with one or 
more measurable indicators of each population need (USFWS 2023, pp. 68-
69).
    To evaluate current condition, we took information for the current 
value of each indicator and assigned it to a condition category (USFWS 
2023, pp. 68-69). We created condition categories based on what we 
consider an acceptable range of variation for the indicator based on 
our understanding of the subspecies' biology and the need for human 
intervention to maintain the attribute (Conservation Measures 
Partnership 2013, entire) (see table 4, below). 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); and
    Very Good--Ecologically desirable status, requiring little 
intervention for maintenance (this would be associated with a 
growing population).


         Table 4--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 summer  Maximum summer          >38[deg]C (100 [deg]F)  21.1-38 [deg]C (70.1-  13.4-21 [deg]C (56-70  7.3-13.3 [deg]C (45-
                                      temperature.                                    100 [deg]F).           [deg]F).               56 [deg]F)

[[Page 55104]]

 
Cool ambient temperatures in summer  Number of days above    >3....................  1 to 3...............  0-1..................  0
                                      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 equivalent   >2 standard deviations  1-2 standard           <1 standard deviation  Pre-1970 levels
                                      (April 1).              from historical mean.   deviations from        from historical mean.
                                                                                      historical mean.
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 standard deviations  1-2 standard           <1 standard deviation  Pre-1970 levels
                                                              from historical mean.   deviations from        from historical mean.
                                                                                      historical mean.
Total area of modeled 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 modeled
                                      from MC2.
Total area of modeled 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 modeled
                                      from biome climatic
                                      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 within population 
units between breeding, post-breeding, and winter habitat, which is 
important for less-mobile broods; 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 post-
breeding 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 below in table 5. 
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 
representation 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 St. Helens was extirpated as a result of 
the volcanic eruption in 1980. Historical populations that may have 
existed in Oregon Cascades (Judd 1905, p. 47) have been extirpated for 
many years, as we know of no observations in the past several decades. 
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 representation 
area is more limited and isolated than habitat for populations in the 
North representation area. Observations on record and expert opinion 
indicate there are only a small number of birds in the Goat Rocks 
population unit in the South representation area and the Alpine Lakes 
population unit in the North representation area.

                                   Table 5--Current Condition for Each Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Condition metrics
        Representation area              Population unit    ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Resiliency rating
                                                               Landscape context *         Condition            (Habitat) size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North..............................  North Cascades--East..  Good..................  Good.................  Fair.................  Good.
North..............................  North Cascades--West..  Good..................  Fair.................  Very Good............  Good.
North..............................  Alpine Lakes..........  Good..................  Fair.................  Fair.................  Fair.
South..............................  Mount Rainier.........  Good..................  Fair.................  Very Good............  Good.
South..............................  Goat Rocks............  Good..................  Fair.................  Fair.................  Fair.
South..............................  Mount Adams...........  Poor..................  Poor.................  Good.................  Fair.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Landscape context describes the combined condition of habitat connectivity within population units, ambient temperature, hydrologic regime, and winter
  snow.

Future Condition
    To better understand the projected future condition of the Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, we developed four future scenarios 
based on global climate models at RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 to depict a range 
of plausible potential outcomes for the subspecies' habitat over time.
    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

[[Page 55105]]

(Hegewisch and Abatzoglou 2019, 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 estimated area of alpine vegetation from vegetation models based 
on the RCP4.5 or RCP8.5 scenarios (MC2 models) (Bachelet et al. 2017, 
entire; Sheehan et al. 2015, entire). 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, entire). 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 the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan) 
and subalpine openings (suitable winter habitat for the subspecies). 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 the 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in the future. These management 
variable factors ultimately made minimal difference in the outcome of 
our scenarios in comparison to the impact of climate projections.
    The future scenarios we developed based on the climate-based 
vegetation models include:
    (1) Projected climate change effects under RCP4.5 with no 
management for Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan populations or 
habitat;
    (2) Projected climate change effects under RCP8.5 with no 
management for Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan populations or 
habitat;
    (3) Projected climate change effects under RCP4.5 with management 
to maintain Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan populations and 
habitat; and
    (4) Projected climate change effects under RCP8.5 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 2023, appendix A) and could 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. This is due to its high elevation, which results in a much 
larger amount of current and future suitable habitat compared to other 
populations in the subspecies' range. 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 Global Climate models (GCM). Table 6 summarizes the future 
condition for all known currently extant population units; possible 
ratings include poor, fair, good, or very good.

                                Table 6--Future Condition Rating for Each Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan Population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Future condition
        Representation area            Population unit     Current condition ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Scenario 1         Scenario 2         Scenario 3         Scenario 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North.............................  North Cascades--East.  Good.............  Poor.............  Poor.............  Poor.............  Poor.
North.............................  North Cascades--West.  Good.............  Poor.............  Poor.............  Poor.............  Poor.
North.............................  Alpine Lakes.........  Fair.............  Poor.............  Poor.............  Poor.............  Poor.
South.............................  Mount Rainier........  Good.............  Good.............  Good.............  Good.............  Good.
South.............................  Goat Rocks...........  Fair.............  Poor.............  Poor.............  Poor.............  Poor.
South.............................  Mount Adams..........  Fair.............  Fair.............  Fair.............  Fair.............  Fair.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, population units of the Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan maintain fair to good resiliency across the subspecies' 
range; no population unit has very good resiliency. The continuing 
effects of climate change threaten Mount Rainier with-tailed ptarmigan 
in the following ways: increased physiological stress due to elevated 
temperatures; reduced availability of moist alpine vegetation and 
associated insects; loss of snow cover and reduction of snow quality 
for climate microrefugia and camouflage; and, most importantly, loss of 
breeding and post-breeding habitat as a result of changes in 
precipitation, wind, and temperature.
    There is evidence of local adaptive divergence among subspecies of 
the white-tailed ptarmigan based on variables that are likely to be 
negatively impacted by climate change (Zimmerman et al. 2021, pp. 126-
127). This suggests the adaptive capacity (i.e., representation) of 
each subspecies, including Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, may be 
negatively impacted. Results from additional studies which are 
discussed under Climate change, above, support that suggestion, as they 
project a range decline of 86 percent for white-tailed ptarmigan 
throughout British Columbia, Canada, by the 2080s; we would expect to 
see a similar change in Washington State (Scridel et al. 2021, entire).
    After developing four future scenarios based on downscaled climate 
and vegetation models, we found that the South representation area 
maintains much better future resiliency and redundancy than the North 
representation area. Mount Rainier is the only population unit in the 
range of the subspecies projected to have good resiliency across all 
four future scenarios. Mount Adams is also projected to remain extant, 
though with fair resiliency. Goat Rocks, however, along with all three 
population units in the North representation area, has poor resiliency 
in all four future scenarios. Overall, the number of sufficiently 
resilient population units will decrease in the future, reducing 
redundancy across the range. If population units in the North 
representation area decrease in resiliency to the point of extirpation,

[[Page 55106]]

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 individual effects on the subspecies, 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 subspecies. To assess the current 
and future condition of the subspecies, we undertake an iterative 
analysis that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and 
then accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may 
be influencing the subspecies, 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 subspecies, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of 
the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.

Determination of Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan's 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 an ``endangered species'' as a 
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range and a ``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 the environmental and anthropogenic factors 
influencing Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan and assessed the 
cumulative effect of those influences under the Act's 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 the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. Habitat for the Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is currently supporting populations of 
the subspecies, and approximately 70 percent of the entire range is 
protected from habitat loss as a result of development due to its 
wilderness designation (Factor D). We also evaluated disturbance 
associated with recreation effects, but the best available information 
does not indicate any current effect to populations or the viability of 
the subspecies (Factor E). We further examined the current information 
available on demographics and distribution of the subspecies, as well 
as availability and quality of suitable habitat in the subspecies' 
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 the Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan. Although evidence of climate change related impacts to 
habitat already exists and these impacts are likely to continue in the 
foreseeable future, 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.
    After assessing all the same stressors for future condition, we 
determined that mining, grazing, browsing, the invasive willow borer 
beetle, hunting, and disease will not affect the viability of the Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan within the foreseeable future. 
Additionally, although the level of predation, development, and 
recreation may increase in the future, 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.
    In contrast, habitat loss and degradation resulting from climate 
change will affect the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's viability 
within the foreseeable future. The best available scientific 
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[deg]C (70 [deg]F).
    Two independent vegetation models (Bachelet et al. 2017, Rehfeldt 
et al. 2012) project that within the foreseeable future all alpine 
tundra vegetation will be lost to forest expansion in all but two of 
the population units (USFWS 2023, Appendix A). In the North Cascades, 
glaciers are projected to retreat between 92 percent and 96 percent 
within the next 50 to 80 years. 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 greater than 
99 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 (USFWS 2023, Appendix A).
    Within 50 years, the climate within available suitable Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan breeding and post-breeding habitat is 
expected to change significantly, such that the subspecies may remain 
in only one or two of the six current known extant population units. We 
can make reasonably reliable predictions about this threat and the 
subspecies' response; notable glacial retreat and tree expansion into 
alpine and subalpine meadows have 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 viability of the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan will adapt to the changing climate by 
moving northward because alpine areas north of the

[[Page 55107]]

subspecies' current elevational range are expected to undergo similar 
impacts due to climate change (Scridel et al. 2021, entire).
    Thus, after assessing the best available information, we determined 
that the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is likely to become in 
danger of extinction within 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 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 
435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), vacated the aspect of the 
Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of 
Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered 
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (Final Policy; 79 FR 37578, July 
1, 2014) that provided that the Service does 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 that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other 
question for that portion of the species' range.
    Following the court's holding in Everson, 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 the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, 
we choose to address the status question first--we consider information 
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the subspecies and 
the threats that the subspecies faces to identify portions of the range 
where the subspecies may be endangered.
    We evaluated the range of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan 
to determine if the subspecies is in danger of extinction now in any 
portion of its range. The range can theoretically be divided into 
portions in an infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on 
portions of the subspecies' range that may meet the definition of an 
endangered species. For the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, we 
considered whether the threats or their effects on the subspecies are 
greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the subspecies' range 
than in other portions such that the subspecies is in danger of 
extinction now in that portion.
    We assessed the best available science on factors influencing the 
status of the subspecies, analyzing the scope, magnitude, and intensity 
of all potential stressors, including predation, disease, browsing, 
hunting, grazing, development, recreation, timber harvest, the invasive 
willow borer beetle, and effects of climate change. Although several of 
these factors may have localized effects on individual ptarmigan, we 
determined that no stressor is currently impacting the viability of the 
subspecies. However, changing habitat conditions associated with 
ongoing climate change, including reduced snow quality and quantity, 
reduced glacial melt and associated loss of alpine vegetation, and 
decreasing wind, are expected to cause populations of the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan to decline within the foreseeable future, 
adversely impacting the future condition and overall viability of the 
subspecies.
    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 within the foreseeable future. Thus, we 
considered the time horizon for the effects of climate change, which 
are the threats that are driving the Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan to warrant listing as a threatened species throughout all of 
its range. We then considered whether these threats are occurring in 
any portion of the subspecies' range such that the subspecies is in 
danger of extinction now in that portion of its range.
    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 and respond to climate change is within the 
foreseeable future. Though some effects of climate change are already 
evident in parts of the range, the best scientific and commercial data 
available do not indicate that the resiliency of any Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan populations is currently low. 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 does not conflict 
with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the 
Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center 
for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 
2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the 
aspects of the Final Policy, including the definition of 
``significant,'' that those court decisions held to be invalid.
Determination of Status
    Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available 
indicates that the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan meets the Act's 
definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we are listing 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 species under the Act include recognition as a listed 
species, planning and implementation of 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, 
including the Service, 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. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. 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.

[[Page 55108]]

    The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery 
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed. 
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State 
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be 
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery 
planning process involves the identification of actions that are 
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the 
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies 
recovery criteria for review of 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. Revisions of the plan may 
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new 
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft 
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available 
on our website as they are completed (https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species), or from our Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of 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 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. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    Once 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 will 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: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. 
Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this 
subspecies whenever it becomes available and any information you may 
have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).
    Section 7 of the Act is titled Interagency Cooperation and mandates 
all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities to 
further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that their 
actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed 
species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations implementing 
section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) states that 
each Federal action agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, 
ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 
Each Federal agency shall review its action at the earliest possible 
time to determine whether it may affect listed species or critical 
habitat. If a determination is made that the action may affect listed 
species or critical habitat, formal consultation is required (50 CFR 
402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in writing that the action is 
not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. At 
the end of a formal consultation, the Service issues a biological 
opinion, containing its determination of whether the federal action is 
likely to result in jeopardy or adverse modification.
    Examples of discretionary actions for the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan that may be subject to consultation procedures under 
section 7 are land management or other landscape-altering activities on 
Federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and National Park 
Service as well as actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 
that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 
1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act) 
or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding from the 
Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting 
listed species or critical habitat--and actions on State, Tribal, 
local, or private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or 
carried out by a Federal agency--do not require section 7 consultation. 
Federal agencies should coordinate with the local Service Field Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) with any specific questions on 
Section 7 consultation and conference requirements.
    It is the policy of the Services, as published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the extent known 
at the time a species is listed, specific activities that will not be 
considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act. To 
the extent possible, activities that will be considered likely to 
result in violation will also be identified in as specific a manner as 
possible. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of 
the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the 
range of the species. Although most of the prohibitions in section 9 of 
the Act apply to endangered species, sections 9(a)(1)(G) and 9(a)(2)(E) 
of the Act prohibit the violation of any regulation under section 4(d) 
pertaining to any threatened species of fish or wildlife, or threatened 
species of plant, respectively. Section 4(d) of the Act directs the 
Secretary to promulgate protective regulations that are necessary and 
advisable for the conservation of threatened species. As a result, we 
interpret our policy to mean that, when we list a species as a 
threatened species, to the extent possible, we identify activities that 
will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of the 
protective regulations under section 4(d) for that species.
    At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that 
will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of section 
9 of the Act beyond what is already clear from the descriptions of 
prohibitions and exceptions established by protective regulation under 
section 4(d) of the Act.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Washington 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Final Protective Regulations 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

[[Page 55109]]

regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of species listed as threatened species. 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. With these two sentences in section 4(d), Congress 
delegated broad authority to the Secretary to determine what 
protections would be necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of threatened species, and even broader authority to put 
in place any of the section 9 prohibitions, for a given species.
    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, as a valid 
exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section 4(d) that 
included limited prohibitions against takings (see Alsea Valley 
Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington 
Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL 
511479 (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 [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those 
species. [She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of 
such species, or [she] 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).
    The 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. Although 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 the 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 fully understand the Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's winter habitat requirements, its 
winter food resources, or its reliance on snow roosting. We do 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 the degree to which 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, our 4(d) 
rule is designed to promote the subspecies' conservation by 
facilitating the viability of current populations, scientific study of 
the subspecies, and conservation and restoration of its habitat. 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 4(d) rule are some of many tools 
that we will use to promote the conservation of the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan.
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. These 
requirements are the same for a threatened species with a species-
specific 4(d) rule. Section 7 consultation is required for Federal 
actions that ``may affect'' a listed species regardless of whether take 
caused by the activity is prohibited or excepted by a 4(d) rule. A 4(d) 
rule does not change the process and criteria for informal or formal 
consultations and does not alter the analytical process used for 
biological opinions or concurrence letters. For example, as with an 
endangered species, if a Federal agency determines that an action is 
``not likely to adversely affect'' a threatened species, the action 
will require the Service's written concurrence (50 CFR 402.13(c)). 
Similarly, if a Federal agency determines that an action is ``likely to 
adversely affect'' a threatened species, the action will require formal 
consultation and the formulation of a biological opinion (50 CFR 
402.14(a)). Two Federal agencies, the NPS and USFS, manage 
approximately 95 percent of the U.S. portion of the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan's range (Table 1). Because consultation 
obligations and processes are unaffected by 4(d) rules, we may consider 
developing tools to streamline future intra-Service and inter-Agency 
consultations for actions that result in forms of take that are not 
prohibited by the 4(d) rule (but that still require consultation). 
These tools may include consultation guidance, Information for Planning 
and Consultation effects determination keys, template language for 
biological opinions, or programmatic consultations.

Provisions of the 4(d) Rule

    Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, 
we have developed a rule that is designed to address the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan's conservation needs. As discussed previously in 
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 primarily due to the projected 
effects of climate change, especially increasing temperatures and a 
loss of the conditions that support suitable alpine habitat (above 
treeline). Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to issue such 
regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of each threatened species and authorizes the Secretary to 
include among those protective regulations any of the prohibitions that 
section 9(a)(1) of the Act prescribes for endangered species. We are 
not required to make a ``necessary and advisable'' determination when 
we apply or do not apply specific section 9 prohibitions to a 
threatened species (In re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing 
and 4(d) Rule Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214, 228 (D.D.C. 2011) 
(citing Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or. v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 
1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 515 U.S. 687 (1995))). 
Nevertheless, even though we are not required to make such a 
determination, we have chosen to be as transparent as possible and 
explain below why we find that the protections, prohibitions, and 
exceptions in this rule as a whole satisfy the requirement in section 
4(d) of the Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to 
provide for the conservation of the Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan.

[[Page 55110]]

    The protective regulations for the Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) to address the 
threats to the species. Section 9(a)(1) prohibits the following 
activities for endangered wildlife: importing or exporting; take; 
possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering, 
receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign 
commerce in the course of commercial activity; or selling or offering 
for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. This protective regulation 
includes all of these prohibitions because the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future and 
putting these prohibitions in place will help to preserve the 
subspecies' remaining populations, slow their rate of decline, and 
decrease cumulative or synergistic, negative effects from other 
threats.
    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 
take will support the conservation of existing populations of the 
subspecies by facilitating their viability in the face of these 
projected environmental changes. Therefore, we are prohibiting take of 
the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, except for take resulting 
from those actions and activities specifically excepted by the 4(d) 
rule. Exceptions to the prohibition on take include the general 
exceptions to take of endangered wildlife as set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 
and additional exceptions, as described below.
    Despite these prohibitions regarding threatened species, we may 
under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more 
otherwise prohibited activities, including those described above. The 
regulations that govern permits for threatened wildlife state that the 
Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise 
prohibited with regard to threatened species. These include permits 
issued for the following purposes: for 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 (50 CFR 
17.32). The statute also contains certain exceptions from the 
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    In addition, to further the conservation of the species, any 
employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal land management 
agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, a State conservation 
agency, or a federally recognized Tribe, who is designated by their 
agency or Tribe for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of 
their official duties, take threatened wildlife without a permit if 
such action is necessary to: (i) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned 
specimen; or (ii) Dispose of a dead specimen; or (iii) Salvage a dead 
specimen that may be useful for scientific study; or (iv) Remove 
specimens that constitute a demonstrable but nonimmediate threat to 
human safety, provided that the taking is done in a humane manner; the 
taking may involve killing or injuring only if it has not been 
reasonably possible to eliminate such threat by livecapturing and 
releasing the specimen unharmed, in an appropriate area.
    We recognize the special and unique relationship that we have 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 us in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this 
regard, section 6 of the Act provides that we must 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 us in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated 
by his or her agency for such purposes, will be able to conduct 
activities designed to conserve the Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan that may result in otherwise prohibited take without 
additional authorization.
    The 4(d) rule will also provide for the conservation of the species 
by allowing exceptions that incentivize conservation actions or that, 
while they may have some minimal level of take of Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan, are not expected to rise to the level that would have 
a negative impact (i.e., would have only de minimis impacts) on the 
species' conservation. The following exceptions to these prohibitions 
are expected to have negligible impacts to the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan and its habitat:
     Take that is incidental to facilitating human safety (such 
as rescue, fire, and other emergency responses) and the protection of 
natural resources. 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 that is incidental to a person's 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 allowed. 
We consider outdoor recreation lawful if it is carried out in 
accordance with the recreation rules and limits established by the 
State, Federal, or Tribal agency managing the land. This exception does 
not apply to recreation planning activities by Federal or State 
agencies. Based on available information, these types of activities 
have the potential to disturb individual ptarmigan in localized areas 
representing a very small portion of the available habitat in the 
subspecies' range. Also, there are aspects of recreation that can be 
beneficial to the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan and other alpine 
species. USFS and NPS, through their recreational planning activities, 
can help educate the public and build advocacy for conservation of 
alpine habitats and species that are facing habitat loss due to climate 
change, including the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. These and 
other partners can train alpine recreationists to become citizen 
scientists, helping us to better understand specific aspects of the 
biology of this subspecies that we are lacking. In the future, should 
recreation become a threat to the species, the Service may reconsider 
this exception.
     Take that is incidental to authorized habitat restoration 
actions consistent with the conservation needs of the Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan. Activities associated with habitat restoration 
(e.g., weeding, planting native forage plants, 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

[[Page 55111]]

subspecies by helping to preserve and enhance the habitat of existing 
populations over time. We consider habitat restoration and enhancement 
activities authorized if they are consistent with Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan conservation prescriptions or objectives that are 
specifically included in established Federal, State, or Tribal 
conservation plans.
     Take that is incidental to conducting lawful, authorized 
control of predators of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, provided 
reasonable care is practiced to minimize effects to Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan. For example, the common raven is currently 
managed within the range of greater sage-grouse in Washington and 
common ravens have large home ranges. A professional biologist 
documented travel of a raven collared at the Terrace Heights landfill 
in Yakima to Mount Rainier National Park (White 2021, in litt.). 
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 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 authorized predator control coordinated in 
advance with the Service will not be prohibited, as the benefit to the 
subspecies from this activity outweighs the risk to individual 
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. Reasonable care for predator control 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.). Any predator control conducted for the purposes of 
conservation of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is considered 
authorized if it is carried out in accordance with the rules and limits 
established by the State, Federal, or Tribal agency managing the land 
and coordinated in in advance with the Service.
     Take that is incidental to lawfully conducted timber 
harvest or forest management activities, separate from those actions 
covered under the habitat restoration actions exception described 
above. During the summer, when timber harvest or forest management 
activities are likely to occur, white-tailed ptarmigan are rarely found 
in the vicinity of forested areas, but they may occur in alpine areas 
adjacent to treeline and thus would be within sight and sound of such 
activities. In the winter, ptarmigan may be found in openings in 
forested areas adjacent to their alpine habitat. 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, or 
by opportunistically creating alpine area openings that ptarmigan may 
use in winter. Legal and authorized forest management activities 
include, but are not limited to, timber harvest and fire and vegetation 
management. We consider forest management activities legal and 
authorized if they are carried out in accordance with the forest 
practices rules and limits established by the State, Federal, or Tribal 
agency managing the land.
     Take that is incidental to the authorized maintenance of 
any public or private infrastructure (e.g., buildings, roads, parking 
lots, viewpoints, trails, designated camp sites, developed ski areas, 
and helicopter landing pads) and supporting infrastructure (e.g., 
benches, signs, safety features) within or adjacent to Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan habitat. Within the subspecies' range, most 
development and infrastructure, 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 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. The maintenance of 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 are a threat to the species. We consider maintenance 
activities authorized if they are carried out in accordance with the 
rules established by the State, Federal, or Tribal agency managing the 
land. This exception would not extend to take associated with the 
development of new infrastructure.
    As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, 
increasing temperatures (Factor E) and a loss of the conditions that 
support suitable alpine habitat (Factor A) are driving the current and 
future status of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. A range of 
current and future activities could directly and indirectly impact the 
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: 
human safety and emergency response; the work of law enforcement and 
on-the-job wildlife professionals; lawful outdoor recreation in alpine 
areas in summer, or subalpine areas in winter; habitat restoration and 
predator control actions for purposes of Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan conservation; forest management actions; and routine 
maintenance of infrastructure (e.g., roads, trails, buildings, parking 
lots, etc.). The best available information indicates that these 
activities, when conducted in accordance with the law, will not put the 
viability of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan at risk. Allowing 
the continuation of these activities while also 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.
    Nothing in this 4(d) rule will 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 the 
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. However, interagency cooperation 
may be further streamlined through planned programmatic consultations 
for the subspecies between Federal agencies and the Service.

III. Critical Habitat

Background

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat 
concurrently with listing the species. 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

[[Page 55112]]

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.
    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. At the time of our June 15, 2021, proposed rule, we determined 
that a designation of critical habitat would not be prudent. Our 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) in place at that time stated 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.
    However, on April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, we published a final rule revising the regulations 
in 50 CFR 424.12 regarding circumstances when designation of critical 
habitat may not be prudent (89 FR 24300). In light of these regulation 
revisions, we will reevaluate our 2021 determination that the 
designation of critical habitat for the ptarmigan is not prudent under 
these revised regulations and publish a separate determination in the 
future in the Federal Register. In that determination, we will also 
respond to any comments related to critical habitat we received during 
the public comment period on the June 15, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 
31668).

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
    Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt 
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes 
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical 
habitat designations and species-specific protective regulations 
promulgated concurrently with a decision to list or reclassify a 
species as threatened. The courts have upheld this position (e.g., 
Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (critical 
habitat); Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) 
rule)).
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 federally recognized 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretary's 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. These 
Tribes included the three adjacent to the range of Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan, the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Snoqualmie Indian 
Tribe, and Yakama Nation, as well as others (the Confederated Tribes of 
the Chehalis Reservation; Cowlitz Indian Tribe; Lummi Nation; 
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; Nisqually Indian Tribe; Nooksack Indian 
Tribe; Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe; Puyallup Tribe of Indians; Samish 
Indian Nation; Squaxin Island Tribe; Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians; 
Suquamish Tribe; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; Tulalip Tribes; and 
Upper Skagit Tribe). We did not receive any replies. We also sent 
notification of the impending publication of our proposed listing rule 
with an invitation to comment to all Tribes in the State of Washington 
on June 14, 2021; we received no comments from Tribes during the 
proposed rule's comment period.

References Cited

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

Authors

    The primary authors of this final 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, Plants, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Regulation Promulgation

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


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 55113]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
         Common name             Scientific name        Where listed         Status          applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
            Birds
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Ptarmigan, Mount Rainier       Lagopus leucura      Wherever found.....  T               89 FR [INSERT FEDERAL
 white-tailed.                  rainierensis.                                             REGISTER PAGE WHERE
                                                                                          THE DOCUMENT BEGINS],
                                                                                          7/3/2024; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.41(i).\4d\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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


Sec.  17.41  Species-specific rules--birds.

* * * * *
    (i) Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura 
rainierensis).
    (1) Prohibitions. The following prohibition that applies to 
endangered wildlife also applies to the 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, any of the 
following acts in regard to this species:
    (i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(b) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(1) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as 
set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
    (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial 
activity, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
    (v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(f) for 
endangered wildlife.
    (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. With 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 (4) for 
endangered wildlife.
    (iii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.31(b).
    (iv) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken 
wildlife, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
    (v) Take 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) Lawful outdoor recreation. A person may incidentally take Mount 
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in the course of lawfully conducting 
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 allowed. 
We consider outdoor recreation lawful if it is carried out in 
accordance with the recreation rules and limits established by the 
State, Federal, or Tribal agency managing the land.
    (C) 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. We consider habitat 
restoration and enhancement activities authorized if they are 
consistent with Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan conservation 
prescriptions or objectives that are specifically included in 
established Federal, State, or Tribal conservation plans and documents.
    (D) Predator control. A person may incidentally take Mount Rainier 
white-tailed ptarmigan in the course of carrying out lawful, authorized 
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 is considered authorized if it is 
carried out in accordance with the rules and limits established by the 
State, Federal, or Tribal agency managing the land and coordinated in 
in advance with the Service.
    (E) 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, and fire and vegetation management. We consider forest 
management activities legal and authorized if they are carried out in 
accordance with the forest practices rules and limits established by 
the State, Federal, or Tribal agency managing the land.
    (F) Routine maintenance to infrastructure. A person may 
incidentally take Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in the course of 
carrying out authorized routine maintenance of public or private 
infrastructure (e.g., buildings, roads, parking lots, viewpoints, 
trails, designated camp sites, developed ski areas, and helicopter 
landing pads) and supporting infrastructure (e.g., benches, signs, 
safety features) within or adjacent to Mount Rainier white-tailed 
ptarmigan habitat. We consider maintenance activities authorized if 
they are carried out in accordance with the rules established by the 
State, Federal, or Tribal agency managing the land. This exception does 
not extend to take associated with the development of new 
infrastructure.
    (G) Reporting and disposal requirements. Any take (injury or 
mortality) of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan associated with the 
actions excepted under paragraphs (i)(2)(v)(A) through (G) 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 information for that 
office is located at 50 CFR 10.22.
* * * * *

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-14315 Filed 7-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P