Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 113 (Tuesday, June 15, 2021) 2021 Federal Register, 86 FR 31668-31692; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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

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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

[[Page 31669]]

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

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

Information Requested

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

[[Page 31670]]

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

Public Hearing

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

Previous Federal Actions

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

Supporting Documents

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

[[Page 31671]]

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

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

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

Species Description

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

Taxonomy and Genetics

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

Life History

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

[[Page 31672]]

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

Habitat

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

[[Page 31673]]

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

Historical and Current Distribution and Range

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

Land Ownership

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

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

[[Page 31674]]

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

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

Analytical Framework

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

Analysis Units

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

[[Page 31675]]

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

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

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

Factors Influencing the Status of the Species

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

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

[[Page 31676]]

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

BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 31677]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN21.009

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

[[Page 31678]]

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

[[Page 31679]]

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

[[Page 31680]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN21.010

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

[[Page 31681]]

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

[[Page 31682]]

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

Current Condition

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

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

[[Page 31683]]

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

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

Future Condition

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

[[Page 31684]]

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

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

[[Page 31685]]

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

Determination of Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan Status

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines ``endangered species'' as a species
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range'' and ``threatened species'' as a species ``likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we determine
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

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

[[Page 31686]]

in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

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

Determination of Status

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

Available Conservation Measures

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

[[Page 31687]]

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

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

Background

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

[[Page 31688]]

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

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule

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

[[Page 31689]]

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

III. Critical Habitat

Background

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

[[Page 31690]]

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

Prudency Determination

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

[[Page 31691]]

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

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

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

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

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

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

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

References Cited

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

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

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

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Birds

* * * * * * *
Ptarmigan, Mount Rainier white- Lagopus leucura Wherever found..... T [Federal Register
tailed. rainierensis. citation when
published as a
final rule]; 50
CFR 17.41(i);
\4d\.

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 31692]]

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

Sec. 17.41 Special rules--birds.

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

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