Rule2024-14315
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan With a Section 4(d) Rule
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 3, 2024
Effective
August 2, 2024
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine threatened species status for the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura rainierensis), a bird subspecies in Washington, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This rule adds the subspecies to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and extends the Act's protections to the subspecies. We also finalize a rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act that provides measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55091-55113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14315]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0076; FXES1111090FEDR-245-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BE71
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status for Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan With a Section 4(d)
Rule
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
threatened species status for the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan
(Lagopus leucura rainierensis), a bird subspecies in Washington, under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This rule adds
the subspecies to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
extends the Act's protections to the subspecies. We also finalize a
rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act that provides
measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.
DATES: This rule is effective August 2, 2024.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0076 and at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/office/washington-fish-and-wildlife">https://www.fws.gov/office/washington-fish-and-wildlife</a>. Comments and
materials we received are available for public inspection at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0076. Supporting
materials we used in preparing this rule, such as the species status
assessment report, are also available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0076.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Thompson, State Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510
Desmond Drive, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503; telephone 360-753-9440.
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or
a threatened species (likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list
the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan meets the Act's definition of a
threatened species; therefore, we are listing the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan as a threatened species. Listing a species as an
endangered species or threatened species can be completed only by
issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking
process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. This rule makes final the listing of the
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan as a threatened species under the
Act and adopts a rule under section 4(d) of the Act for the subspecies.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered species or threatened species because of any
of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
We have determined that the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan
meets the definition of a threatened species due to habitat loss and
degradation resulting from climate change within the foreseeable
future. Rising temperatures associated with climate change are expected
to have direct and rapid impacts on individual birds. Changing habitat
conditions, such as loss of suitable alpine vegetation and reduced snow
quality and quantity, are expected to cause populations to decline.
This threat and responses are reasonably foreseeable because some are
already evident in the range of the subspecies, and the best available
information indicates that the effects of climate change will continue
to alter the subspecies' habitat within the foreseeable future.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that the Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan will adapt to the changing climate by moving northward
because alpine areas north of the subspecies' current range are
expected to undergo similar impacts due to climate change and any
potential connectivity to areas north of the current range is expected
to decline.
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing rule (86 FR 31668; June 15,
2021) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning
the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. The SSA report represents a
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available
concerning the status of the subspecies, including the impacts of past,
present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting
the subspecies. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and
our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of
peer review of listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent
scientific review of the information contained in the draft SSA report.
We sent the draft SSA report to seven independent peer reviewers
including scientists with expertise in white-tailed ptarmigan as well
as climate science; we received three responses. The peer reviews and
the draft SSA report they commented on can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. We also sent the draft SSA report to three agency
partners for review; we received comments from one agency--the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. We incorporated the results
of these reviews, as appropriate, into the 2021 SSA report (version
1.0, USFWS 2021, entire), which was the foundation for the proposed
rule and this final rule. Additionally, new information provided to us
during the public comment period on the proposed rule was incorporated
into both the final rule as well as version 2.0 of the SSA report
(USFWS 2023, entire). A summary of the peer review comments and our
responses can
[[Page 55092]]
be found in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations below.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered
comments and new information received from the public on the June 15,
2021, proposed rule. This final rule does not make any substantive
changes to the determinations made in the proposed rule. We updated the
SSA report to version 2.0 (USFWS 2023, entire), revising it based on
all new information and comments received. The new information received
from our agency partners and others on genetics, diet, habitat
characteristics, adaptive divergence, and range and distribution was
incorporated into version 2 of the SSA but not incorporated into this
final rule because it did not lead to substantive changes in the
determinations made in the proposed rule. The changes we made to this
final rule are as follows:
(1) We shorten the Background section to a condensed discussion of
the general information for the subspecies on taxonomy/genetics,
species description, range/distribution, life history, and habitat (for
the full updated discussion on these topics see version 2 the SSA
Report (USFWS 2023));
(2) We shorten the Summary of Biological Status and Threats section
to include only a brief discussion of recreation and the full
discussion of the effects of climate change (for the full updated
discussion on factors influencing the status of the subspecies see
version 2 the SSA Report (USFWS 2023));
(3) We make many clarifications and minor corrections in this rule
to ensure better consistency with the updated SSA report (USFWS 2023),
we clarify some information, and we update or add new references.
(4) We remove language referencing low connectivity between
populations from this final rule.
(5) We revise table 6 in the final rule (and table 17 the SSA
(USFWS 2023, p. 81) by correcting the following:
<bullet> We adjust the future condition score under Scenario 4 for
the North Cascades-West Population Unit to poor, to be consistent with
that unit's Scenario 2 score. Under both scenarios, we predict a lack
of future availability of breeding and post-breeding habitat (USFWS
2023, chapter 6.0).
<bullet> We adjust the future condition scores for Mount Adams
under Scenarios 1 and 3 from good to fair, to better reflect predicted
future conditions for Mount Adams, as explained in the SSA report
(version 2.0, USFWS 2023, chapter 6.0).
(6) In light of the April 5, 2024, regulation revisions to 50 CFR
424.12, that pertain to circumstances when a designation of critical
habitat may be not prudent, we indicate we will reevaluate the prudency
analysis for the ptarmigan and issue a critical habitat determination
in a separate Federal Register document.
(7) We make revisions to the description of the prohibitions and
exceptions in our rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act (``4(d)
rule'') in the preamble of this final rule to be consistent with the
regulatory text that sets forth the 4(d) rule.
(8) We revise the regulatory text that sets forth the 4(d) rule by
making the following changes:
<bullet> In Sec. 17.41(i)(1), we add the full suite of section 9
prohibitions. We want to prevent declines in the species' status, and
section 4(d) provides that the Secretary shall promulgate regulations
that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the
species. Although threatened species are not currently in danger of
extinction like endangered species, we have determined those species
are likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable
future, and we have an opportunity to try to prevent that from
happening for newly listed species. Further, we often lack a complete
understanding of the causes of a species' decline, and taking a
precautionary approach to applying protections would proactively
address potentially unknown threats. In addition, the initial listing
of a species may bring new attention to the species and that attention
may increase the risk of collection or sale. Therefore, this approach
of applying section 9 prohibitions assists our goal of putting in place
protections that will both prevent the species from becoming endangered
and promote the recovery of species. As we learn more about the Mount
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan and the reasons for its decline over
time, we have the option to revise the 4(d) rule accordingly.
<bullet> In Sec. 17.41(i)(2)(ii), we remove reference to
17.21(c)(5) as this was an error in the proposed rule.
<bullet> In Sec. 17.41(i)(2)(v), we remove the exception for Law
Enforcement and On-the-job Wildlife Professionals. The intent of this
exception is already satisfied by exceptions in Sec. 17.41(i)(2)(i)-
(iv), making this stand-alone this exception duplicative.
<bullet> In Sec. 17.41(i)(2)(iv)(F), we add developed ski areas
and helicopter landing pads to the list of examples of infrastructure
where incidental take of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan can occur
during routine maintenance. This revision ensures consistency between
our description of the exception in the preamble of this document and
in the regulatory text that sets forth the 4(d) rule. In addition, we
keep references to trails as part of infrastructure, but remove any
references to trails separate from infrastructure to eliminate
redundancy in both the preamble and promulgation.
We conclude that the information we received during the comment
period for the June 15, 2021, proposed rule did not change our previous
analysis of the magnitude or severity of factors influencing the
subspecies or our determination that the Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan meets the definition of a threatened species.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
Prior to developing the proposed rule, we solicited peer review and
received comments on the draft SSA report (USFWS 2021) as discussed
below. In our June 15, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 31668), we requested
that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by
August 16, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State
agencies, Tribes, scientific experts and organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule.
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the
Seattle Times on June 21, 22, and 23, 2021, and we did not receive any
requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided
during the public comment period either has been incorporated directly
into this final rule or is addressed below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed in Peer Review, above, we received comments from three
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we
received from the specialists for substantive issues and new
information regarding Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. The
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to
improve the SSA report and this final rule. The SSA peer review
comments mainly fell into categories pertaining to the subspecies' life
history, influence factors, and population needs. Revisions per peer
reviewer comments and expert opinions are incorporated into the SSA
report (version 1.0, USWFS 2021, entire;
[[Page 55093]]
version 2.0, USFWS 2023, entire) and this final rule as appropriate.
Public Comments
We received 14 public comment letters in response to the June 15,
2021, proposed rule. We reviewed all comments we received during the
public comment period for substantive issues and new information
regarding the proposed rule. A majority of the commenters supported the
listing determination and one opposed the determination. Eight
commenters provided substantive comments or new information concerning
the proposed listing and 4(d) rule for Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan. Below, we provide a summary of the substantive issues raised
in the public comments we received; however, comments outside the scope
of the proposed rule, and those without supporting information, did not
warrant an explicit response and, thus, are not presented here.
Identical or similar comments have been consolidated. As noted below in
Critical Habitat, any substantive comments regarding critical habitat
received during the comment period on the 2021 proposed rule will be
responded to in a separate determination in the future in the Federal
Register.
Comments From Federal Agencies
(1) Comment: The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) asked for clarification
regarding species and habitat responses to climate change, including
why the representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5 model predicted
good food abundance if there is overall habitat loss and whether
habitat loss is related to heat.
Our Response: We determined with our expert elicitation group that
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan need both an adequate quality and
quantity of foraging habitat in each season, but habitat quality is no
longer relevant if habitat quantity is zero. The expert elicitation
group included biologists from USFS, the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife (WDFW), and the National Park Service (NPS) with local
expertise on the subspecies and its habitat.
As described in the SSA report (USFWS 2023, chapter 3.0), we
developed a list of species' needs and their indicators prior to the
future condition analysis that includes the RCP8.5 scenario. The USFS
comment is correct in noting an apparent contradiction between the
ratings for habitat loss and food abundance, but the term ``abundance
of food resources'' was chosen to represent the quality and quantity of
foraging habitat within remaining breeding, post-breeding, and
wintering habitat. We used a variety of indicators to represent
``abundance of food resources,'' including acres of winter forage
vegetation, distance to water during the breeding season, Normalized
Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI; an index of plant growth) during
early brood rearing, peak timing of NDVI, soil moisture, and the width
of the unvegetated area of the glacial forefront not yet colonized by
forage plants. Of these, the only indicator available for future
scenarios was a measure of soil moisture. In forb-dominated alpine
environments, soil moisture will drive productivity in the face of
climate warming (Walker et al. 1994, p. 402; Winkler et al. 2016, p.
1553). Soil moisture was projected to remain within one standard
deviation of historical means (Northwest Climate Toolbox, developed by
members of the Applied Climate Science Lab at the University of Idaho
(Pacific Northwest Climate Impacts Research Consortium, CIRC, 2019)),
and therefore remains within the range of a ``good'' rating for some of
the population units in some future scenarios. We chose measures within
one standard deviation of historical means as representative of a
``good'' rating because our expert elicitation group concluded that
historical forage vegetation conditions adequately support populations
of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.
With regard to the potential relationship of habitat loss and heat,
the overall loss of ptarmigan habitat is not directly due to a warming
climate or desiccation of alpine meadows, but to a shift from open
meadow vegetation to forest (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) 2019, p. SPM-25; Jackson et al. 2015, p. 440; Steuve et al.
2009, entire; USFWS 2023, pp. 57-61). This future shift to forest
represents a loss of habitat for the Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan, and for other species dependent on alpine tundra vegetation.
(2) Comment: USFS questioned why alpine meadow habitat would not
expand into areas where glaciers have retreated.
Our Response: In the June 15, 2021, proposed rule, and as explained
in the SSA report (USFWS 2023, p. 60), as glaciers retreat and expose
soil-less, unvegetated bedrock (called the glacial forefront), we
estimate a minimum of 20 years for the development of white-tailed
ptarmigan forage plants, and 70 to 100 years for maturation to full
meadow and subshrub habitat within that area. This represents a time
gap in development of breeding and post-breeding habitat of 5 to 24
generations of ptarmigan (86 FR 31668, June 15, 2021, p. 31681), and
thus in the foreseeable future, habitat loss is expected to exceed
habitat gains. At some point after glacial retreat (beyond our
projected timeline), the exposed areas will be suitable ptarmigan
habitat with alpine meadows and remain so for a period of time.
Eventually, however, any alpine habitat that develops there will become
forest (USFWS 2023, pp. 57-61).
(3) Comment: USFS questioned our use of 50- to 80-year climate
models as ``foreseeable'' and asked for clarification on the projected
effects of warming temperatures on forage plant growth.
Our Response: As discussed below under Regulatory Framework, the
foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the Service can
make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the species
and the species' responses to those threats. Analysis of the
foreseeable future uses the best scientific and commercial data
available and should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant
threats and to the species' likely responses to those threats in view
of its life-history characteristics and the species' biological
response. For the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, we could make
reasonably reliable predictions 50 to 80 years into the future with
respect to the primary driver of the subspecies' status (climate
change) and our understanding of information available on the
subspecies' survival, generational framework, and physiology (see the
discussion in Climate Change under Summary of Biological Status and
Threats, below, and section 6.1 of SSA report (USFWS 2023, p. 73).
(4) Comment: USFS asked what metric we used to estimate the low
connectivity between populations discussed under Status Throughout all
its Range in the proposed rule, given that the subspecies is able to
fly relatively long distances.
Our Response: In the June 15, 2021, proposed rule, we erred in
stating that connectivity between populations is currently low (86 FR
31668 at p. 31685). Current connectivity levels between populations are
not negatively impacting the viability of the subspecies; therefore, we
removed language referencing low connectivity between populations from
this final rule. For the SSA, we analyzed current connectivity between
types of habitat within each population. Appendix F in the SSA report
(USFWS 2023, pp. 120-138) provides information on current connectivity
between breeding, post-breeding, and winter habitat within
[[Page 55094]]
each population unit. The categories of ``poor,'' ``fair,'' ``good,''
and ``very good'' are based on the size and abundance of habitat gaps
within a population unit. Current connectivity for each population was
categorically rated based on expert opinion (WDFW partners), but future
condition estimates of connectivity were left blank (see appendix G in
the SSA report (USFWS 2023, pp.138-156) because available vegetation
models are not sensitive enough to model small-scale areas, which would
be necessary to make a definitive statement of future condition of this
indicator. Therefore, this indicator was not used to rate future
condition of any population unit or the subspecies.
We clarified the language under Executive Summary, above, and
Status Throughout All of Its Range, below, to make clear that this
information was for evaluating connectivity between breeding, post-
breeding, and winter habitat within populations, as opposed to
connectivity between populations. We also clarified that the metric was
only used for analysis of current condition for each population.
(5) Comment: The British Columbia Ministry of Environment and
Climate Change remarked that the amount of existing recreation in
British Columbia is similar to that occurring in the United States,
with the same resultant effects to the species. USFS noted that
recreational use of high-elevation habitats has been increasing,
exponentially in recent years, but did not provide data to support or
further explain this statement.
Our Response: We agree that factors influencing Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan populations in British Columbia are similar to
those affecting populations in the State of Washington. We thoroughly
analyzed the best available information on the scope, magnitude, and
intensity of recreation in the range of the subspecies (USFWS 2023, pp.
42-48). Based on this analysis, recreation of any type or timing in the
range does not appear to currently affect any more than individual
ptarmigan in localized areas. Although both established recreation in
designated areas as well as recreation away from established roads and
trails will likely increase in the future, we do not have information
at this time to analyze whether future increases in recreation would
rise beyond individual-level impacts such that it is likely to affect
the resiliency of populations of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.
(6) Comment: Three commenters, including British Columbia Ministry
of Environment and Climate Change and USFS's Region 6, questioned the
wording in the discussion of taxonomy and genetics in the June 15,
2021, proposed rule and suggested the Service refer to Taylor (1920,
entire) and specific sections within Langin et al. (2018) in our final
rule. These commenters questioned our identified boundary for the
northern white-tailed ptarmigan, further suggesting the Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan may not be a valid subspecies based on peer
review comments and statements in Langin et al. (2018, entire).
Our Response: The June 15, 2021, proposed rule provided only a
summary of the taxonomic and genetic information from the SSA report
for the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. As noted in the SSA
report (USFWS 2023, p. 23), the 1957 American Ornithological Union
(AOU, now American Ornithological Society (AOS)) taxonomic
classification of the subspecies relies on a 1920 description (Taylor
1920, entire) of the subspecies based on a comparison of specimens
taken only from Mount Rainier National Park. We adopted the 1957 AOU
classification of the subspecies for delineating the range of the
subspecies for the SSA analysis and explain in the SSA report that the
AOU mapping of the subspecies' border at the international boundary was
likely a convenience; the range of the subspecies likely extends
slightly farther north than the U.S.-Canada border because habitat is
contiguous across the border (USFWS 2023, p. 23; Langin et al. 2018,
figures S10 and S14).
As explained in our June 15, 2021, proposed rule, a combination of
sightings, dispersal distance, occurrence and distribution of suitable
alpine/subalpine habitat, and forests, agriculture, cities, and
highways that occur west of the range of the subspecies in British
Columbia was used to determine the northern range limit. A 2018
genetics study referenced by commenters (Langin et al. 2018) raised
some uncertainty regarding the taxonomic validity of several of the
subspecies of white-tailed ptarmigan. However, Langin et al. (2018)
stated that sampling was sparse in the area at the border of Washington
and British Columbia, ``. . . making it infeasible to identify the
start and end points of putative genetic groups.'' Furthermore,
additional research by another group found that individuals are
genetically clustered largely by their recognized subspecies (Zimmerman
et al. 2021, p. 125).
We acknowledge there is some remaining uncertainty over the
relationship between the subspecies in question and the exact boundary
between L. l. rainierensis and other subspecies in the genus. However,
there has been no change to the official nomenclature of Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan, and the best available science leads us to find
that the Fraser River represents the northern terminus of the range of
the L. l. rainierensis subspecies. We have incorporated additional
information in the discussion of taxonomy and genetics in the SSA
report (USFWS 2023, pp. 4-6). All substantive peer review and expert
elicitation comments were incorporated into the SSA report (version
1.0. USFWS 2021, entire; version 2.0, USFWS 2023, entire) and
considered in development of the June 15, 2021, proposed rule and this
final rule.
Comments From States
Section 4(i) of the Act states that the Secretary shall submit to
the State agency a written justification for the failure to adopt
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition. Comments
we received from State agencies regarding the proposal to list the
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan as threatened under the Act are
addressed below. We received comments from WDFW related to biological
information, influence factors, and the 4(d) rule. WDFW provided a
number of recommended technical corrections, clarifications, or edits
to the proposed listing determination for the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan. As noted in the Summary of Changes from the Proposed
Rule, we have evaluated and incorporated this information into this
final rule where appropriate to clarify the final listing
determination.
(7) Comment: Citing a 1905 text by Judd, WDFW indicated the
historical range of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan may have
extended south to Mt. Hood and Mount Jefferson in Oregon.
Our Response: We contacted biologists at WDFW to discuss this
comment. Past research by WDFW biologists has shown that such
historical observations may be in error. Because the Judd text did not
provide any information on who or when someone may have seen the
subspecies in that area, their recommendation was to mention the
possible past occupancy of the subspecies in the area of Mt. Hood and
Mount Jefferson, but not to list the area as a historical population. A
clarification to this effect has been added to the SSA report (USFWS
2023).
(8) Comment: WDFW suggested that sections of the proposed rule that
cite results from research conducted within
[[Page 55095]]
the range of the southern white-tailed ptarmigan should be cited as
such, as those results may not accurately represent conditions or life-
history traits for the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.
Our Response: In this final rule, we clarify where information came
from in studies of southern white-tailed ptarmigan and other subspecies
of white-tailed ptarmigan under the Summary of Biological Status and
Threats, below.
Other Comments
(9) Comment: Several commenters from nongovernmental organizations
and other groups noted their repeated and extensive, yet unsuccessful,
searches for Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan over the last several
years, concluding that the subspecies' range is likely contracting.
Our Response: We incorporated the search effort information
provided by the commenters into the final SSA report and this rule (see
Background, below), and we considered the information in our
determination.
I. Final Listing Determination
Background
We completed a comprehensive assessment of the biological status of
the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan and prepared a report of the
assessment (SSA report; USFWS 2023, entire), which provides a thorough
account of the subspecies' overall viability and risks to that
viability. Please refer to the SSA report as well as our June 15, 2021,
proposed rule (86 FR 31668) for a full summary of subspecies
information. Both are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under
Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0076. Below, we summarize the key results and
conclusions of the SSA report.
The Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, one of five subspecies of
white-tailed ptarmigan (AOU 1998, p. xii; ITIS 2019; Clements et al.
2019, entire), is found in alpine and subalpine areas of the Cascade
Mountains (Cascades) in Washington State and southern British Columbia,
Canada. Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's historical range
extended along the Cascade Range from southern Canada south to and
including Mount St. Helens and Mount Adams. Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan regularly occurred on Mount St. Helens before the active
volcano lost approximately 400 meters (m) (1,314 feet (ft)) of
elevation when it erupted in 1980 (Brantley and Myers 1997, p. 2). The
population on Mount St. Helens is now presumed extirpated (Schroeder et
al. 2021, p 4). We consider the current range of the Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan to include alpine and subalpine areas in the
Cascade Mountains, extending from the southern edge of Mount Adams in
Washington State to approximately Lytton, British Columbia, Canada,
east of the Fraser River. Recent searches for the subspecies noted the
recession or loss of previously permanent snowfields, as well as a
marked decline in sightings or density of sightings of individuals
(Garner 2021, in litt.; Isley 2021, in litt.).
The four other recognized subspecies of white-tailed ptarmigan are
the southern white-tailed ptarmigan (L. l. altipetens) primarily in
Colorado; the Kenai white-tailed ptarmigan (L. l. peninsularis) in
Alaska; the Vancouver Island white-tailed ptarmigan (L. l. saxatilis)
in British Columbia, Canada; and the northern white-tailed ptarmigan
(L. l. leucura) in northern Montana, and the provinces of British
Columbia and Alberta, Canada. In the following paragraphs, we rely on
studies conducted on other subspecies of white-tailed ptarmigan because
most life-history studies either do not differentiate between the
subspecies or focus on the more well-studied southern white-tailed
ptarmigan subspecies. Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan are cryptic
birds that are resident or short-distance elevation migrants with
numerous adaptations for snow and extreme cold in winter, including
snow roosting behavior and heavily feathered feet that act as snowshoes
to support them as they walk across the snow (Braun et al. 2011,
Distinguishing Characteristics section). The subspecies molts
frequently throughout the year to remain cryptic, appearing entirely
white in winter (except for black eyes, dark toenails, and a black
beak), mottled with brown and white in spring, and brown in summer; the
tail feathers remain white year-round and distinguish the white-tailed
ptarmigan from other ptarmigan species (Braun et al. 2011,
Distinguishing Characteristics section; Braun et al. 1993, Appearance
section; Hoffman 2006, p. 12). Males and females share similar body
size and shape, with adult body lengths up to 34 centimeters (cm) (13.4
inches (in)), and body masses up to approximately 378 grams (g) (0.83
pounds (lb)) (Martin et al. 2015, table 3).
Pairs of ptarmigan form shortly after females arrive on breeding
areas in late April to mid-May (Martin et al. 2015, Phenology section).
Due to the short breeding season, female white-tailed ptarmigan raise
only one brood per year (Sandercock et al. 2005, p. 2177). Within 6 to
12 hours after all eggs have hatched, broods gradually move upslope,
depending on where forage and cover for chicks are found (Braun 1969,
p. 140; Schmidt 1988, p. 291; Giesen and Braun 1993, p. 74; Hoffman
2006, p. 21; Martin et al. 2015, Young Birds section). Records of
longevity for wild white-tailed ptarmigan include a 12-year-old female
and a 15-year-old male (Martin et al. 2015, Life Span and Survivorship
section). There have been no population-scale density estimates for
populations in the range of the Mount Rainier subspecies but estimates
for other subspecies range from fewer than 1 to about 14 birds per
square kilometer (km\2\) (2.6 to 36 birds per square mile (mi\2\))
(Clarke and Johnson 1990, p. 649). Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan
populations may or may not be within this wide range reported for other
subspecies (USFWS 2023, p. 26).
Chicks younger than 3 weeks old primarily eat invertebrates (May
1975, p. 28), but adult white-tailed ptarmigan, as well as chicks older
than approximately 5 weeks old, are herbivorous (May 1975, pp. 28-29).
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in the North Cascades were
observed eating, in order of preference: dwarf huckleberry (Vaccinium
deliciosum), red mountain heather (Phyllodoce empetriformes), black-
headed sedge (Carex nigricans), white mountain heather (Cassiope
mertensiana), crowfoot (Luetkea pectinata), Tolmie's saxifrage
(Saxifraga tolmiei), spiked wood rush (Luzula spicata), and mosses
(Skagen 1980, p. 4). A suitable microclimate is important for this
cold-adapted bird. Because white-tailed ptarmigan have the lowest
evaporative cooling efficiency of any bird (Johnson 1968, entire) and
will pant at temperatures above 21 [deg]C (70 [deg]F), adults are
likely limited by warm temperatures during the breeding and post-
breeding seasons. Thermal behavioral adaptations include seeking cool
microsites such as the edges of snowfields, near snowbanks, in the
shade of boulders, or near streams where temperatures are cool; the
absence of these microsites may preclude presence of the species
(Johnson 1968, p. 1012). Use of snow in late summer may be important.
Breeding and brood-rearing habitat of white-tailed ptarmigan is
within the alpine zone, defined by treeline at its lower elevation
limit and permanent snow or barren rock at its upper elevation limit.
As with breeding habitat, the lower elevation limit of post-breeding
habitat is likely defined by treeline and proximity to water (Frederick
and Gutierrez 1992, p. 895).
[[Page 55096]]
At high elevations in the Pacific Northwest, winter snowpack can store
a significant portion of winter precipitation and release it to the
soil during spring and early summer, thereby reducing the duration and
magnitude of summer soil water de[filig]cits (Peterson et al. 2014, p.
26). At the basin scale, glacier melt supplies 2 to 14 percent of
summer discharge in the Cascades and up to 28 percent of discharge by
September (Frans et al. 2018, p. 11); the proportion is likely much
greater in the high-elevation subbasins occupied by Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan, which have a smaller catchment area to supply
discharge from snow or rain.
No studies of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's use of
winter habitat have been conducted, however, white-tailed ptarmigan in
Colorado shelter from winter wind and cold in snow roosts (Braun et al.
1976, p. 2; Braun and Schmidt 1971, p. 245). Snow-roosting sites for
white-tailed ptarmigan have deep, fluffy snow with high insulation
value; this generally means snow that is cold, is relatively dry, and
has abundant air spaces. Wind influences snow deposition patterns and
the availability of snow roosts (Braun et al. 1976, p. 3). During the
day when ptarmigan are not feeding, they seek shelter beneath or on the
lee side of dwarf conifers growing along ridges, but snow on the ridges
is often shallow and covered with a hard crust, making conditions
unsuitable for night roosting. Thus, at dusk, the birds move from
ridges to areas of deeper and softer snow along treeline, where they
can burrow beneath the surface of the snow (Braun and Schmidt 1971, p.
245). When weather conditions are harsh, flocks will move below
treeline to stream bottoms and avalanche paths (Braun et al. 1976, p.
4).
The Cascades of the Pacific Northwest have some of the deepest
snowpack in North America. Willow stands along valley bottoms similar
to those relied on by southern white-tailed ptarmigan are rare and are
likely buried by heavy winter snows on the steep slopes within the
range of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan (Schroeder 2019,
pers. comm.). Based on limited observations and information from other
subspecies, we expect wintering Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan
will use alpine areas, open areas in subalpine parklands, and openings
created by stream courses, landslides, and avalanches within subalpine
forests, and refer to these habitat types as ``alpine'' or
``potentially suitable'' habitat herein. Approximately 76.5 percent of
the total suitable habitat for the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan
is found in the United States, and almost all of that area is federally
owned (94.5 percent, see table 1, below).
Table 1--Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan Suitable Habitat by Land Ownership, in Hectares
[Acres]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpine Mount North Cascades North Cascades William O. Percent
Population unit Lakes Goat Rocks Mount Adams Rainier East West Douglas Total ownership
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal:
USFS........................................................... 132,208 34,901 14,116 36,090 354,484 366,774 25,096 963,669 59
(326,693) (86,242) (34,881) (89,180) (875,949) (906,318) (62,014) (2,381,277)
NPS............................................................ 0 0 0 55,917 18,860 139,639 0 214,416 13
(138,174) (46,604) (345,056) (529,833)
Other Federal.................................................. 275 0 0 0 402 0 0 677 <1
(680) (993) (1,673)
State.............................................................. 161 8,522 0 0 24,396 2,576 29 35,684 2
(398) (21,058) (60,283) (6,364) (71) (88,177)
Tribal............................................................. 0 17,940 8,087 0 0 0 0 26,027 2
(44,331) (19,983) (64,314)
Private/Other...................................................... 876 3,488 1,248 360 141 1,562 0 7,675 <1
(2,166) (8,619) (3,084) (889) (348) (3,860) (18,965)
British Columbia:
Provincial Parks............................................... 0 0 0 0 60,479 39,596 0 100,075 6
(149,448) (97,845) ........... (247,291)
Private/Other.................................................. 0 0 0 0 188,077 95,801 0 283,878 17
(464,748) (236,730) (701,477)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................................... 133,520 64,851 23,451 92,367 646,839 645,948 25,125 1,632,101
(329,935) (160,250) (57,949) (228,244) (1,598,374) (1,596,172) (62,085) (4,033,009)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the
regulations in 50 CFR 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify
endangered and threatened species and what criteria we apply when
designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 24300). On the same
day, the Service published a final rule revising our protections for
endangered species and threatened species at 50 CFR 17 (89 FR 23919).
These final rules are now in effect and are incorporated into the
current regulations. Our analysis for this final decision applied our
current regulations. Given that we proposed listing for this species
under our prior regulations (revised in 2019), we have also undertaken
an analysis of whether our decision would be different if we had
continued to apply the 2019 regulations; we concluded that the listing
decision would be the same. However, we will reevaluate our not prudent
determination, as discussed below under Critical Habitat, in a separate
Federal Register notice. The analyses under both the regulations
currently in effect and the 2019 regulations are available on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine
[[Page 55097]]
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species
because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M- Opinion,'' available online at <a href="https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf">https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf</a>).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the Services
can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the
species and the species' responses to those threats. The Services need
not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of
time. The Services will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-
case basis, using the best available data and taking into account
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics,
threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of
the Act.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report (USFWS 2023, entire) documents the results of our
comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial
data regarding the status of a species, including an assessment of the
potential threats to that species. The SSA report does not represent
our decision on whether a species should be listed as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the
scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve
the further application of standards within the Act and its
implementing regulations and policies.
To assess the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's viability for
the SSA, we used the three conservation biology principles of
resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp.
306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the ability of a species to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years); redundancy is the ability of a species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
events); and representation is the ability of a species to adapt to
both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological
environment (for example, climate conditions or pathogens). In general,
species viability will increase with increases in resiliency,
redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these
principles, we identified the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and subspecies levels, and described the
beneficial and risk factors influencing the subspecies' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory
decision.
Analysis Units
Occurrence data are quite limited, and we do not know whether the
abundance of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan has changed over
time. To facilitate the assessment of the current and projected future
status of the subspecies across its range, we used the limited
occurrence data and expert elicitation to delineate representation
areas and population units. We separated the range into two
representation areas, the North Area and the South Area, to represent
the known ecological variation between the two regions. Within those
two representation areas, we identified seven current population units
based on observations, elevation, and vegetation types from Landfire
vegetation maps (see table 2, below).
We refined the boundaries of these units by selecting vegetation
types on recently refined NPS vegetation maps and Landfire vegetation
maps for USFS lands. Our refined population unit maps contain nearly
all observations of the subspecies obtained from agency partners. One
of the population units in the South Area, William O. Douglas, has
suitable habitat but unknown occupancy. Another historical population
in the South Area is
[[Page 55098]]
considered extirpated due to the 1980 eruption of the Mount St. Helens
volcano. We did not include the presumed extirpated Mount St. Helens
population unit in our analysis of current or future condition because
we conclude that it does not constitute suitable habitat now and is
unlikely to within the foreseeable future. Similarly, we did not
consider Mt. Hood or Mount Jefferson because records there are more
than 100 years old and are questionable.
Table 2--Number of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan observations by
population unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Representation area Population unit observations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North............................. North Cascades--East 484
North............................. North Cascades--West 315
North............................. Alpine Lakes........ 98
South............................. Mount Rainier....... 289
South............................. William O. Douglas.. 0
South............................. Goat Rocks.......... 4
South............................. Mount Adams......... 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA report (USFWS 2023); the full SSA report can be found at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0076.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of Mount
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan and its resources, and the threats that
influence the subspecies' current and future condition, in order to
assess the subspecies' overall viability and the risks to that
viability.
Factors Influencing the Status of Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan
The petition to list the southern and Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan subspecies as threatened (Center for Biological Diversity
(CBD) 2010, entire) identified the following influences as threats:
effects to habitat from global climate change, recreation, livestock
grazing, and mining; hunting; predation; inadequacy of regulatory
mechanisms; population isolation or limited dispersal distances; and
population growth rates and physiological response to a warming
climate. Our 90-day finding on the petition (77 FR 33143; June 5, 2012)
concluded that the petition presented substantial information to
indicate that the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan may warrant
listing due to the effects of climate change on habitat and population
growth rates, and the physiological response of the subspecies to a
warming climate.
As part of our analysis of the viability of the Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan, we looked at the previously identified
potential environmental and anthropogenic influences on viability, as
well as any new ones identified since the publication of our 90-day
finding. We analyzed population isolation and limited dispersal
distances in the context of our resiliency, redundancy, and
representation analysis for the subspecies. We also looked at the
regulatory and voluntary conservation mechanisms that may reduce or
ameliorate the effect of those stressors. To provide the necessary
context for our discussion of the magnitude of stressors, we first
discuss our understanding of existing regulatory and voluntary
conservation mechanisms.
Regulatory and Voluntary Conservation Mechanisms
A majority of the land (70 percent) within the national parks and
forests in the U.S. portion of the range of the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan is congressionally designated wilderness under 16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq. and 54 U.S.C. 100101 et seq. This designation bans
roads along with the use of motorized and nonmotorized vehicles. In
North Cascades National Park, 94 percent of the land is designated as
the Steven Mather Wilderness (259,943 ha (642,333 ac) of the total
275,655 ha (681,159 ac)) (NPS 2020, entire). There are 16 designated
wilderness areas on USFS land in the Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan's range; the percentage of designated wilderness in each
population unit is summarized below in table 3. Additionally, 6 percent
of the total suitable habitat for Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan
is located on land owned by British Columbia Provincial Parks (BC-Parks
2020, entire). Provincial parks are multiuse areas that contain some
remote wilderness and allow activities such as hiking, camping, and
winter recreation. The wilderness designation areas and Provincial Park
lands in the range of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan are shown
below in figure 1.
Table 3--Percent of Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan Habitat in U.S. Designated Wilderness by Population
Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hectares Percent of
Total hectares (acres) of habitat in unit
Population unit (acres) of habitat in designated as
habitat wilderness wilderness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Cascades--East (U.S. portion).......................... 398,283 232,041 58
(984,179) (573,387)
North Cascades--West (U.S. portion).......................... 510,551 394,529 77
(1,261,599) (974,902)
Alpine Lakes................................................. 133,520 100,566 75
(329,935) (248,504)
Mount Rainier................................................ 92,367 83,339 90
(228,244) (205,935)
[[Page 55099]]
William O. Douglas........................................... 25,125 19,468 78
(62,085) (48,106)
Goat Rocks................................................... 64,851 25,375 39
(160,250) (62,703)
Mount Adams.................................................. 23,451 13,266 57
(57,949) (32,781)
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 1,248,148 868,584 70
(3,084,241) (2,146,318)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 55100]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JY24.109
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
The WDFW considers the white-tailed ptarmigan a game bird but does
not have a hunting season on the species. Take or possession of the
species would be a violation of the Revised Code of Washington, section
77.15.400 (Washington State Legislature 2020, entire). Hunting of
ptarmigan is allowed in a relatively small portion of the Canadian
portion of the North Cascades-West population unit from mid-September
through mid-December (BC-Parks Canada 2020, entire).
White-tailed ptarmigan are a ``Species of Greatest Conservation
Need'' in the Washington State Wildlife Action Plan (WDFW 2015, pp. 3-
18). The WDFW is making efforts to better understand the distribution
and abundance of the species by soliciting observations from
[[Page 55101]]
birding enthusiasts, hikers, backpackers, mountaineers, skiers,
snowshoers, and other recreationists that visit ptarmigan habitat. The
Transboundary Connectivity Project (Krosby et al. 2016, entire)
included white-tailed ptarmigan as a focal species, and members created
conceptual models of stressors to the species and designed strategies
to abate threats.
Critical habitat for Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) overlaps the
range of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in most of the North
Cascades--East population unit, and about half of the North Cascades--
West population unit (79 FR 54782, September 12, 2014; 50 CFR
17.95(a)). One of the identified physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of Canada lynx is snow conditions (winter
conditions that provide and maintain deep fluffy snow for extended
periods). This critical habitat designation may provide some benefit to
the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan if it results in the
regulation of activities that would reduce the quantity and quality of
snow within these population units, but such a situation would not
likely happen at a scale that would benefit the resiliency of the
population unit.
Stressors
We analyzed a variety of stressors that potentially influence the
current status of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan or may
influence the subspecies' future status. We again reviewed all of the
factors identified in the petition, as well as any potential additional
influences in the range of the subspecies. Neither the petition nor our
90-day finding identified disease as a threat, and we did not find
information in our analysis to indicate that disease is currently, or
is likely to be in the future, a threat to the resiliency of any
population unit or the overall viability of the subspecies. Our SSA
concluded that the available information on several potential
stressors, including mining, hunting, grazing, browsing, the invasive
willow borer beetle (Cryptorhynchus lapathi), predation, and
infrastructure development, indicated that these did not operate at a
level affecting the resiliency of any population unit, or the overall
viability of the subspecies (USFWS 2023, pp. 37-41).
While the effects from recreation have not been investigated in the
field, recreation is the primary human activity throughout the range of
the subspecies. As discussed in the Proposed Rule and the SSA Report
(USFWS 2023, section 4.8), a wide array of recreation regularly occurs
year-round within all Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan population
units. Although no published studies exist that directly link
recreation to individual-level, population-level, or subspecies-level
effects to the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, effects to
individual Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan have been observed, and
studies have shown effects of recreation on closely related species
(USFWS 2023, p. 42-43). However, available information does not
indicate that recreation has impacted the historical abundance and
distribution of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. Further, although
we do not know the true overlap of recreational areas (mainly trails)
with concentrated Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan use areas, the
history of established recreation, the overall small amount of area
occupied by trails in Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan habitat
(0.02 percent as shown in Table 9, USFWS 2023, p. 47), and the large
percentage of protected wilderness in the range (70 percent of the
range of the subspecies in the United States as shown in Table 4, USFWS
2023, p. 41) all likely reduce the risk of exposure of the subspecies
to this stressor. The best available information does not indicate that
recreation currently has a population-level effect on the Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan. Although both established recreation in
designated areas as well as recreation away from established roads and
trails will likely increase in the future, available information does
not indicate that future increases in recreation would rise beyond
individual-level impacts such that it is likely to affect subspecies'
redundancy or representation.
The effects of climate change are already evident in Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan habitat, and the projected future increase in
those effects may decrease the viability of the subspecies. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2019, pp. 2-9)
projects with very high confidence that surface air temperatures in
high mountain areas will rise by 0.54 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) per decade,
generally outpacing global warming rates regardless of future emission
scenario. As temperatures increase, glaciers initially melt quickly and
contribute an increased volume of water to the system, but as glacial
mass is lost, their contribution of meltwater to the system decreases
over time. Global climate models project declines in current glacier
area throughout the Washington and northern Oregon Cascades (Frans et
al. 2018, p. 13) that will result in a corresponding decline in
associated snowpack and glacial melt contribution to summer discharge.
Scenario representation concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 is a moderate
emissions scenario, and RCP8.5 is a high emissions scenario (Alder and
Hostetler 2016, entire). In the North Cascades, glaciers are projected
to retreat 92 percent between 1970 and 2100 under RCP4.5, and 96
percent between 1970 and 2100 under RCP8.5 (Gray 2019, p. 34).
The effects of climate change have already led to some glacial
recession in Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan habitat (Snover et
al. 2013, pp. 2-3). Geologic mapping data, old maps and aerial photos,
and recent inventories indicate that glacier area declined 56 percent
in the North Cascades between 1900 and 2009 (Dick 2013, p. 59). On
Mount Adams, total glacier area decreased by 49 percent from 1904 to
2006, at about 0.15 km\2\ (0.06 mi\2\) per year (Sitts et al. 2010, p.
384). Other individual glaciers in Washington have receded from 12
percent (Thunder Creek; 1950-2010) to 31 percent (Nisqually River;
1915-2009) (Frans et al. 2018, p. 10), and throughout the Cascades,
glaciers continue to recede in both area and volume (Snover et al.
2013, pp. 2-3; Dick 2013, p. 59).
Glacier melt in many of the watersheds of the eastern Cascade Range
and low-moderate elevation watersheds of the western Cascades has
already peaked or will peak in the current decade (Frans et al. 2018,
p. 20). The variation in the timing of peak discharge from glacier to
glacier will initially lead to decreases in available moisture to some
alpine meadows but increases in others. Later in the century, we expect
all areas to suffer significant losses of glacier melt (Frans et al.
2018, p. 20). Total discharge in August and September from snowmelt,
rain, and glacial melt in a sample of Cascades watersheds is already
below the 1960-2010 mean and is expected to continue to drop through
2080 (Frans et al. 2018, p. 15). Glaciers on the east side of the
Cascade crest, where the precipitation regime is drier, show the
strongest response to climate in both historical and future time
periods, and will be the most sensitive to a changing climate (Frans et
al. 2018, p. 17).
Spring snowpack fluctuates substantially from year to year in
Washington but has declined overall by 30 percent from 1955 to 2016 and
is expected to further decline by up to 38 percent under RCP4.5 and up
to 46 percent under RCP8.5 by midcentury (Roop et al. 2019, p. 6).
Changes in snowpack in the colder interior mountains will largely be
driven by decreases in precipitation, while
[[Page 55102]]
changes in snowpack in the warmer maritime mountains will be driven
largely by increases in temperature (Hamlet 2006, pp. 40-42). Although
some high-elevation sites that maintain freezing winter temperatures
may accumulate additional snowpack as additional winter precipitation
falls as snow, overall, perennial snow cover is projected to decrease
with climate change (Peterson et al. 2014, p. 25). A substantial
decrease in perennial snow cover is projected for the North Cascades,
with many areas of current snow cover replaced by bare ground (Patil et
al. 2017, pp. 5600-5601). Field studies in the North Cascades-East
population unit of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan indicate
that despite above-average snowfall in the winter of 2020-2021, the
date of complete melt and disappearance of an important snowbank for
male flocks and some broods was the earliest recorded in 13 field
seasons since 1997 (Schroeder et al. 2021, p. 11).
Projected increases in air temperatures will also lead to changes
in the quality of available snow through increases in rain-on-snow
events and the refreezing of the surface of snowpack that melts in the
heat of the day. The refreezing of snow creates a hard surface crust
(Albert and Perron, Jr. 2000, p. 3208) that may make burrowing for
roosting sites difficult for ptarmigan, who prefer soft snow for their
roosts (Braun and Schmidt 1971, p. 244; Braun et al. 1976, pp. 3-4).
Furthermore, warm winter temperatures that create wet, heavy snow may
also make burrowing difficult for ptarmigan, and thus less suitable for
snow roosts.
Reduced snowpack, earlier snowmelt, elimination of permanent
snowfields, and higher evapotranspiration rates are likely to enhance
summer soil drying and reduce soil water availability to alpine
vegetation communities in the Cascades (Elsner et al. 2010, p. 245). As
the climate becomes warmer, vegetation communities are also expected to
shift their distributions to higher elevations. Globally, treelines
have either risen or remained stable, with responses to recent warming
varying among regions (Harsch et al. 2009, entire). Strong treeline
advances have already been found in some areas of Washington, such as
Mount Rainier National Park (Stueve et al. 2009, entire). As treeline
rises at the lower limit of the alpine zone, Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan habitat will be lost as open, alpine vegetation communities
become forested. Creation of new habitat by upward expansion of the
alpine zone will be constrained by cliffs, parent rock material, ice,
remaining glaciers, permanent snow, and the top of mountain ranges.
Where glaciers and permanent snow recede, primary succession will need
to occur before the underlying parent material can support alpine
meadows. Succession of the Lyman glacial forefront (the newly exposed
area under a receding glacier) in the North Cascades took 20-50 years
to develop early successional plant species.
Decreased winter wind associated with climate change may be
contributing to observed declines in snowpack and stream flows (Luce et
al. 2013, p. 1361). Continued decreases in wind are expected throughout
the Cascades (Luce 2019, p. 1363), potentially decreasing the
availability of forage for Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, as
well as allowing some krummholz to grow taller into tree form, which
can reduce the suitability of habitat. Decreased wind may reduce
snowbanks and thereby limit the availability of snow roosting sites for
the subspecies, increasing the exposure of Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan to temperatures below their tolerance, or increasing stress
levels in the winter. Delayed snowfall could also create plumage
mismatch, leading to increased predation. White-tailed ptarmigan are
adapted to be cryptic through all seasons by changing plumages
frequently to match the substrate as snow cover changes. A change in
timing of molt, or timing of snow cover, could limit the effectiveness
of this strategy, leading to higher predation risk to individuals.
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in white plumage have already been
detected in snow-free areas in fall (Riedell 2019, in litt.).
Climate change may affect Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan
through direct physiological effects on the birds such as increased
exposure to heat in the summer. White-tailed ptarmigan experience
physiological stress when ambient temperatures exceed 21 [deg]C (70
[deg]F; Johnson 1968, p. 1012), so their survival during warmer months
depends on access to cool microrefugia in their habitat; these cooler
areas are created by boulders and meltwater near glaciers, permanent
snowfields, snowbanks, and other areas of snow in alpine areas. The
projected increases in temperature and related decreases in snowpack
and meltwater will reduce the availability of these microrefugia in the
foreseeable future to populations of the Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan.
The timing of peak plant growth influences the availability of
appropriate seasonal forage to ptarmigan, as well as the availability
of insects. When the peak of plant abundance falls outside a crucial
post-hatch period, the resulting phenological mismatch affects chick
survival (Wann et al. 2019, entire). Projected effects of climate
change could alter the growing season and abundance of the ptarmigan's
preferred vegetation and the timing of the emergence and abundance of
the insects necessary for foraging. If these changes result in
significant asynchrony, populations of Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan may not have adequate forage availability.
Where upslope migration of alpine plant communities is able to
occur in the face of climate change, breeding and post-breeding habitat
for white-tailed ptarmigan will still not be available unless, or
until, primary succession proceeds to the stage where dwarf willows,
sedges, and other ptarmigan forage species are present in sufficient
abundance and composition to support foraging ptarmigan and insect
populations for chicks. If it takes at least 20 years to develop
limited white-tailed ptarmigan forage plants (Saxifrage species), and
70-100 years to mature to full habitat with lush meadows and ericaceous
subshrubs, this would represent a gap in breeding and post-breeding
habitat for 5 to 24 generations (assuming a generation length of 4.1
years) (Bird et al. 2020, supplement table 4). Thus, we do not expect
new breeding and post-breeding habitat for the subspecies to be created
at the same rate at which it is lost. Climate change will also convert
subalpine forest openings (e.g., meadows) to subalpine forests, which
are not suitable winter habitat for white-tailed ptarmigan. Infill of
subalpine openings with trees has already occurred at Mount Rainier
National Park (Stueve et al. 2009, entire). Subalpine tree species have
increasingly filled in subalpine meadows throughout northwestern North
America (Fagre et al. 2003, p. 267).
Species distribution models for all three species of ptarmigan in
British Columbia (rock ptarmigan (Lagopus muta), willow ptarmigan
(Lagopus lagopus), and white-tailed ptarmigan)) project that all three
species will experience upward shifts in elevation and latitude,
habitat loss, and subsequent range reductions throughout the province
(Scridel et al. 2021, p. 1764). The white-tailed ptarmigan, including
individuals in the area southeast of the Fraser River Valley included
in our SSA, is projected to experience an upward elevation gain of 254
m (833 ft), an upward latitude shift of 1.11[deg], and a range decline
of 86 percent by the 2080s (Scridel et al. 2021,
[[Page 55103]]
p. 1764). Projected distribution maps indicate that all habitat within
the range of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in British
Columbia will be lost by the 2080s (Scridel et al. 2021, p. 1765).
Although this study focused on British Columbia, climate change
projections for vegetation in Washington State are comparable, and
range declines of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in Washington
State are expected to be similar in both area and timing to those
predicted for British Columbia. As the distribution of white-tailed
ptarmigan habitat in British Columbia contracts, the habitat gap
between white-tailed ptarmigan in Washington and white-tailed ptarmigan
north of the Fraser River Valley will increase (Scridel et al. 2021, p.
1765). This increased habitat gap will decrease the likelihood of
genetic exchange between the subspecies.
A 1998 study assessed the potential vulnerability of wildlife
species within the Interior Columbia River Basin to effects of climate
change and reported that the species of white-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus
leucura) seemed particularly at risk (Marcot et al. 1988, pp. 58-63).
The study noted this species occurs only in alpine tundra habitats
within the Interior Columbia River Basin, in isolated locations that,
under climate change projections, would potentially undergo upward
shifts in elevation, further isolation, and reduction in area or local
elimination. The study determined white-tailed ptarmigan (at the
species level) was most at risk of all species in their analysis area,
as it uses only alpine tundra habitats (Marcot et al. 1998, p. 60).
In summary, the future condition of Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan habitat will likely be affected by several factors associated
with climate change, including the following: exposure to heat stress
(caused by increasing ambient temperatures coupled with decreasing
availability of the cool summer refugia supplied by snow and glaciers);
loss of winter snow roosts that protect ptarmigan from winter storms;
changes in snow deposition patterns that may affect both snow roosts
and forage availability; loss of alpine vegetation due to both
hydrologic changes caused by decreases in meltwater from snowpack and
glaciers as well as rising treelines; and phenological mismatch between
ptarmigan hatch and forage availability. These changes are likely to
impact the habitat at levels that measurably affect the resiliency of
all populations. Although a reasonable projection of future population
trend is limited by the lack of demographic data, the projected
degradation and loss of habitat, as well as likelihood of increased
physiological stress of individuals across the range, would have
negative effects on the future population growth rate of the
subspecies. The scope and intensity of these combined effects is likely
to affect the future resiliency of every extant population of the Mount
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan and the redundancy and representation of
those units across the range. Therefore, the effects of climate change
are likely to affect the overall viability of the subspecies.
Summary of Factors Influencing the Status of the Species
We reviewed the environmental and anthropogenic factors that may
influence the viability of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan,
including regulatory and voluntary conservation measures and potential
stressors. The subspecies is provided some measure of protection from
the large amount of Federal management and congressionally designated
wilderness in its range, the management of some of its range in Canada
by British Columbia Provincial Parks, the subspecies' State designation
in Washington, and the overlap of its range with designated critical
habitat for the Canada lynx.
The best available information does not indicate that disease has
previously, is currently, or will in the future affect the resiliency
of any Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan population units. Although
mining, hunting, grazing, browsing, the invasive willow borer beetle,
predation, infrastructure development, and recreation may have
localized effects to individual Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan,
the best available information does not indicate they affect the
overall viability of the subspecies, and adequate future projections
are not available to determine if these influence factors increase in
the future to a level that will affect the viability of the subspecies.
However, the effects of climate change are already evident in Mount
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan habitat, and the likely projected future
increase in the scope, magnitude, and intensity of those effects will
decrease the viability of the subspecies.
Current Condition
Based on our assessment of the biological information on the
subspecies, we identified 10 key resiliency attributes for populations
of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan: (1) connectivity among
seasonal use areas, (2) cool ambient summer temperatures, (3) a
suitable hydrologic regime to support alpine vegetation, (4) winter
snow quality and quantity, (5) abundance of forage, (6) cool
microsites, (7) suitable population structure and recruitment, (8)
adequate population size and dynamics, (9) total area of alpine
breeding and post-breeding habitat, and (10) total area of winter
habitat. We developed a table of these key population needs with one or
more measurable indicators of each population need (USFWS 2023, pp. 68-
69).
To evaluate current condition, we took information for the current
value of each indicator and assigned it to a condition category (USFWS
2023, pp. 68-69). We created condition categories based on what we
consider an acceptable range of variation for the indicator based on
our understanding of the subspecies' biology and the need for human
intervention to maintain the attribute (Conservation Measures
Partnership 2013, entire) (see table 4, below). Categorical rankings
were defined as follows:
Poor--Restoration of the population need is increasingly
difficult (may result in loss of the local population);
Fair--Outside acceptable range of variation, requiring human
intervention (this level would be associated with a decreasing
population);
Good--Indicator within acceptable range of variation, with some
intervention required for maintenance (this would be associated with
a stable population); and
Very Good--Ecologically desirable status, requiring little
intervention for maintenance (this would be associated with a
growing population).
Table 4--Metrics for Both Current and Future Condition Indicator Ratings for Habitat Attributes of Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicator ratings descriptions
Population need Indicator --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor Fair Good Very good
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool ambient temperatures in summer Maximum summer >38[deg]C (100 [deg]F) 21.1-38 [deg]C (70.1- 13.4-21 [deg]C (56-70 7.3-13.3 [deg]C (45-
temperature. 100 [deg]F). [deg]F). 56 [deg]F)
[[Page 55104]]
Cool ambient temperatures in summer Number of days above >3.................... 1 to 3............... 0-1.................. 0
30 [deg]C.
Hydrologic regime.................. Glacier melt <0.5.................. 0.5 to 0.75.......... >0.75 to 1........... >1
(discharge normalized
to 1960-2010 mean).
Hydrologic regime.................. Snow water equivalent >2 standard deviations 1-2 standard <1 standard deviation Pre-1970 levels
(April 1). from historical mean. deviations from from historical mean.
historical mean.
Abundance of food resources........ Distance to water >200 m................ 61-200 m............. 11-60 m.............. <10 m
during breeding
season.
Abundance of food resources........ Soil moisture......... >2 standard deviations 1-2 standard <1 standard deviation Pre-1970 levels
from historical mean. deviations from from historical mean.
historical mean.
Total area of modeled summer Area of alpine <7 sq km (1,730 ac)... 1,731-4,000 ac....... 4,000-12,000 ac...... >12,000 ac
habitat. vegetation modeled
from MC2.
Total area of modeled summer Area of alpine <7 sq km (1,730 ac)... 1,731-4,000 ac....... 4,000-12,000 ac...... >12,000 ac
habitat. vegetation modeled
from biome climatic
niche models.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eight additional indicators had data available for current
condition, but we did not have models that allowed us to project them
into the future, so we did not use them to assess future condition.
These additional indicators include connectivity within population
units between breeding, post-breeding, and winter habitat, which is
important for less-mobile broods; area of willow, alder, or birch
(winter forage); distance to water during breeding season; unvegetated
area of glacial forefront (not colonized by forage plants yet, less is
better); cover or distribution of large boulders (breeding and post-
breeding seasons); a qualitative assessment of vegetation quality;
mapped area of alpine vegetation from Landfire and NPS vegetation maps;
and mapped area of subalpine vegetation from Landfire and NPS
vegetation maps.
Current resiliency ratings are captured below in table 5.
Redundancy is limited to six known extant population units in ``good''
or ``fair'' condition across the range of the subspecies. With respect
to ecological variation, three extant populations occur in the South
representation area and three extant populations occur in the North
representation area. Although Mount Adams has poor landscape context
due to large gaps in habitat limiting connectivity throughout the unit,
and the condition is poor due to low quality of vegetation, the
availability of microrefugia and summer habitat are very good, so the
overall condition score of the population unit was scored as fair. The
historical population at Mount St. Helens was extirpated as a result of
the volcanic eruption in 1980. Historical populations that may have
existed in Oregon Cascades (Judd 1905, p. 47) have been extirpated for
many years, as we know of no observations in the past several decades.
The William O. Douglas Wilderness contains potential habitat, but we
have no records of white-tailed ptarmigan in the area and consider
occupancy unknown. Habitat for populations in the South representation
area is more limited and isolated than habitat for populations in the
North representation area. Observations on record and expert opinion
indicate there are only a small number of birds in the Goat Rocks
population unit in the South representation area and the Alpine Lakes
population unit in the North representation area.
Table 5--Current Condition for Each Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition metrics
Representation area Population unit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Resiliency rating
Landscape context * Condition (Habitat) size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North.............................. North Cascades--East.. Good.................. Good................. Fair................. Good.
North.............................. North Cascades--West.. Good.................. Fair................. Very Good............ Good.
North.............................. Alpine Lakes.......... Good.................. Fair................. Fair................. Fair.
South.............................. Mount Rainier......... Good.................. Fair................. Very Good............ Good.
South.............................. Goat Rocks............ Good.................. Fair................. Fair................. Fair.
South.............................. Mount Adams........... Poor.................. Poor................. Good................. Fair.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Landscape context describes the combined condition of habitat connectivity within population units, ambient temperature, hydrologic regime, and winter
snow.
Future Condition
To better understand the projected future condition of the Mount
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, we developed four future scenarios
based on global climate models at RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 to depict a range
of plausible potential outcomes for the subspecies' habitat over time.
Projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary
substantially across and within different regions of the world (IPCC
2007, pp. 8-12). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections when they
are available and are developed through appropriate scientific
procedures, because such projections provide higher resolution
information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for analyses
of a given species (Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61). We used data
obtained from the Northwest Climate Toolbox, developed by members of
the Applied Climate Science Lab at the University of Idaho
[[Page 55105]]
(Hegewisch and Abatzoglou 2019, entire). In addition to past and
current data, the Northwest Climate Toolbox provides modeled future
projections of climate and hydrology based on the effects of potential
degrees of greenhouse gas emissions reported by the IPCC (IPCC 2014,
entire).
We estimated area of alpine vegetation from vegetation models based
on the RCP4.5 or RCP8.5 scenarios (MC2 models) (Bachelet et al. 2017,
entire; Sheehan et al. 2015, entire). We also estimated area of alpine
vegetation from biome climatic niche models based on three earlier
global climate projections (CGCM3 1 A2 2090, Hadley A2 2090, and
Consensus A2 2090). These models were used to project alpine area (and
other vegetation type areas) for the Transboundary Connectivity Project
(Krosby et al. 2016, entire, based on the projections supplied by
Rehfeldt et al. 2012, entire). Alpine area from the NPS and Landfire
vegetation maps provides the most reliable and important measure of
current population resiliency. We reported subalpine area for each
analysis unit but did not use it as an indicator of future resilience
because this measure does not differentiate between subalpine forests
(which are not suitable for the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan)
and subalpine openings (suitable winter habitat for the subspecies). We
also included a management variable in our scenarios to assess if
specific management of recreation impacts and habitat enhancement and
restoration would make a difference to the projected status of the
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in the future. These management
variable factors ultimately made minimal difference in the outcome of
our scenarios in comparison to the impact of climate projections.
The future scenarios we developed based on the climate-based
vegetation models include:
(1) Projected climate change effects under RCP4.5 with no
management for Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan populations or
habitat;
(2) Projected climate change effects under RCP8.5 with no
management for Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan populations or
habitat;
(3) Projected climate change effects under RCP4.5 with management
to maintain Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan populations and
habitat; and
(4) Projected climate change effects under RCP8.5 with management
to maintain Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan populations and
habitat.
The scenarios demonstrated that the projected effects of climate
change could result in the loss of up to 95 percent of the Mount
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's currently available alpine tundra
habitat (USFWS 2023, appendix A) and could lead to a related decrease
in the availability of thermal microrefugia for the subspecies.
Although vegetation models yield different acreage projections,
trajectories of both vegetation models and all scenarios are similar in
indicating only one or two populations are likely to have any breeding
season habitat remaining by 2069. Mount Rainier is consistently
projected to be one of the remaining populations in all four future
scenarios. This is due to its high elevation, which results in a much
larger amount of current and future suitable habitat compared to other
populations in the subspecies' range. The management actions (which
include both reduced recreational impacts and habitat enhancement and
restoration) are not projected to affect the status of any population
unit in the Global Climate models (GCM). Table 6 summarizes the future
condition for all known currently extant population units; possible
ratings include poor, fair, good, or very good.
Table 6--Future Condition Rating for Each Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan Population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future condition
Representation area Population unit Current condition ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North............................. North Cascades--East. Good............. Poor............. Poor............. Poor............. Poor.
North............................. North Cascades--West. Good............. Poor............. Poor............. Poor............. Poor.
North............................. Alpine Lakes......... Fair............. Poor............. Poor............. Poor............. Poor.
South............................. Mount Rainier........ Good............. Good............. Good............. Good............. Good.
South............................. Goat Rocks........... Fair............. Poor............. Poor............. Poor............. Poor.
South............................. Mount Adams.......... Fair............. Fair............. Fair............. Fair............. Fair.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, population units of the Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan maintain fair to good resiliency across the subspecies'
range; no population unit has very good resiliency. The continuing
effects of climate change threaten Mount Rainier with-tailed ptarmigan
in the following ways: increased physiological stress due to elevated
temperatures; reduced availability of moist alpine vegetation and
associated insects; loss of snow cover and reduction of snow quality
for climate microrefugia and camouflage; and, most importantly, loss of
breeding and post-breeding habitat as a result of changes in
precipitation, wind, and temperature.
There is evidence of local adaptive divergence among subspecies of
the white-tailed ptarmigan based on variables that are likely to be
negatively impacted by climate change (Zimmerman et al. 2021, pp. 126-
127). This suggests the adaptive capacity (i.e., representation) of
each subspecies, including Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, may be
negatively impacted. Results from additional studies which are
discussed under Climate change, above, support that suggestion, as they
project a range decline of 86 percent for white-tailed ptarmigan
throughout British Columbia, Canada, by the 2080s; we would expect to
see a similar change in Washington State (Scridel et al. 2021, entire).
After developing four future scenarios based on downscaled climate
and vegetation models, we found that the South representation area
maintains much better future resiliency and redundancy than the North
representation area. Mount Rainier is the only population unit in the
range of the subspecies projected to have good resiliency across all
four future scenarios. Mount Adams is also projected to remain extant,
though with fair resiliency. Goat Rocks, however, along with all three
population units in the North representation area, has poor resiliency
in all four future scenarios. Overall, the number of sufficiently
resilient population units will decrease in the future, reducing
redundancy across the range. If population units in the North
representation area decrease in resiliency to the point of extirpation,
[[Page 55106]]
the ecological diversity present in the North representation area will
be lost.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not
only analyzed individual effects on the subspecies, but we have also
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the
current and future condition of the subspecies. To assess the current
and future condition of the subspecies, we undertake an iterative
analysis that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and
then accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may
be influencing the subspecies, including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire subspecies, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of
the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Determination of Mount Rainier White-Tailed Ptarmigan's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
We evaluated the environmental and anthropogenic factors
influencing Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan and assessed the
cumulative effect of those influences under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors. The habitat-based stressors of climate change, mining,
grazing, browsing, the invasive willow borer beetle, development, and
recreation demonstrated varying degrees of localized effects to
individual birds, but none of these stressors demonstrated effects to
habitat at a level that is currently impacting the viability of the
subspecies (Factor A). The best available information does not suggest
that hunting (Factor B) or predation or disease (Factor C) are threats
to the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. Habitat for the Mount
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is currently supporting populations of
the subspecies, and approximately 70 percent of the entire range is
protected from habitat loss as a result of development due to its
wilderness designation (Factor D). We also evaluated disturbance
associated with recreation effects, but the best available information
does not indicate any current effect to populations or the viability of
the subspecies (Factor E). We further examined the current information
available on demographics and distribution of the subspecies, as well
as availability and quality of suitable habitat in the subspecies'
range. The best available information does not demonstrate any
discernible trend for the condition (e.g., increasing, declining, or
stable) of the known populations of the Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan. Although evidence of climate change related impacts to
habitat already exists and these impacts are likely to continue in the
foreseeable future, the subspecies currently exhibits adequate
resiliency, redundancy, and representation. Thus, after assessing the
best available information, we determined that the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan is not currently in danger of extinction throughout
all of its range.
After assessing all the same stressors for future condition, we
determined that mining, grazing, browsing, the invasive willow borer
beetle, hunting, and disease will not affect the viability of the Mount
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan within the foreseeable future.
Additionally, although the level of predation, development, and
recreation may increase in the future, the best available information
at this time does not indicate that they are reasonably likely to
increase to a degree that will impact the viability of the subspecies
within the foreseeable future.
In contrast, habitat loss and degradation resulting from climate
change will affect the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's viability
within the foreseeable future. The best available scientific
information indicates that changing habitat conditions associated with
future climate change, such as loss of alpine vegetation and reduced
snow quality and quantity (Factor A), are expected to cause populations
of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan to decline. Furthermore, rising
temperatures associated with climate change are expected to have direct
impacts on individual birds (Factor E), which experience physiological
stress at temperatures above 21[deg]C (70 [deg]F).
Two independent vegetation models (Bachelet et al. 2017, Rehfeldt
et al. 2012) project that within the foreseeable future all alpine
tundra vegetation will be lost to forest expansion in all but two of
the population units (USFWS 2023, Appendix A). In the North Cascades,
glaciers are projected to retreat between 92 percent and 96 percent
within the next 50 to 80 years. Glacier melt in many of the watersheds
of the eastern Cascade Range and low-moderate elevation watersheds of
the western Cascades has already peaked or will peak in the current
decade. Total discharge in August and September from snowmelt, rain,
and glacial melt in Cascades watersheds has notably declined and is
expected to continue to drop through 2080. Spring snowpack in
Washington has already declined overall by 30 percent from 1955 to 2016
and is expected to further decline from 38 to 46 percent by midcentury.
The projected decreases in snowpack and glaciers and their associated
meltwater, as well as changes in snow quality, decreasing wind, and
advancing treeline and infill, could result in the loss of greater than
99 percent of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's currently
available alpine tundra habitat and a related loss in the availability
of thermal microrefugia for the subspecies (USFWS 2023, Appendix A).
Within 50 years, the climate within available suitable Mount
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan breeding and post-breeding habitat is
expected to change significantly, such that the subspecies may remain
in only one or two of the six current known extant population units. We
can make reasonably reliable predictions about this threat and the
subspecies' response; notable glacial retreat and tree expansion into
alpine and subalpine meadows have already occurred in the range due to
warming temperatures, and the best available information does not
indicate that the rate of climate change will slow within the
foreseeable future. The maximum two populations projected to remain in
50 years are insufficient to support the viability of the Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the Mount
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan will adapt to the changing climate by
moving northward because alpine areas north of the
[[Page 55107]]
subspecies' current elevational range are expected to undergo similar
impacts due to climate change (Scridel et al. 2021, entire).
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we determined
that the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is likely to become in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson,
435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), vacated the aspect of the
Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of
Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (Final Policy; 79 FR 37578, July
1, 2014) that provided that the Service does not undertake an analysis
of significant portions of a species' range if the species warrants
listing as threatened throughout all of its range. Therefore, we
proceed to evaluating whether the species is endangered in a
significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is any portion
of the species' range for which both (1) the portion is significant;
and (2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion.
Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can
choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question
we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the
first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other
question for that portion of the species' range.
Following the court's holding in Everson, we now consider whether
there are any significant portions of the species' range where the
species is in danger of extinction now (i.e., endangered). In
undertaking this analysis for the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan,
we choose to address the status question first--we consider information
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the subspecies and
the threats that the subspecies faces to identify portions of the range
where the subspecies may be endangered.
We evaluated the range of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan
to determine if the subspecies is in danger of extinction now in any
portion of its range. The range can theoretically be divided into
portions in an infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on
portions of the subspecies' range that may meet the definition of an
endangered species. For the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, we
considered whether the threats or their effects on the subspecies are
greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the subspecies' range
than in other portions such that the subspecies is in danger of
extinction now in that portion.
We assessed the best available science on factors influencing the
status of the subspecies, analyzing the scope, magnitude, and intensity
of all potential stressors, including predation, disease, browsing,
hunting, grazing, development, recreation, timber harvest, the invasive
willow borer beetle, and effects of climate change. Although several of
these factors may have localized effects on individual ptarmigan, we
determined that no stressor is currently impacting the viability of the
subspecies. However, changing habitat conditions associated with
ongoing climate change, including reduced snow quality and quantity,
reduced glacial melt and associated loss of alpine vegetation, and
decreasing wind, are expected to cause populations of the Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan to decline within the foreseeable future,
adversely impacting the future condition and overall viability of the
subspecies.
The statutory difference between an endangered species and a
threatened species is the time horizon in which the species becomes in
danger of extinction; an endangered species is in danger of extinction
now while a threatened species is not in danger of extinction now but
is likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Thus, we
considered the time horizon for the effects of climate change, which
are the threats that are driving the Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan to warrant listing as a threatened species throughout all of
its range. We then considered whether these threats are occurring in
any portion of the subspecies' range such that the subspecies is in
danger of extinction now in that portion of its range.
The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the
time horizon within which the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan will
experience the effects of and respond to climate change is within the
foreseeable future. Though some effects of climate change are already
evident in parts of the range, the best scientific and commercial data
available do not indicate that the resiliency of any Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan populations is currently low. Therefore, we
determine that the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is not in
danger of extinction now in any portion of its range, but that the
subspecies is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This does not conflict
with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the
Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center
for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz.
2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the
aspects of the Final Policy, including the definition of
``significant,'' that those court decisions held to be invalid.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available
indicates that the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan meets the Act's
definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we are listing the Mount
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan as a threatened species in accordance
with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies,
including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities
are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and
functioning components of their ecosystems.
[[Page 55108]]
The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed.
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery
planning process involves the identification of actions that are
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available
on our website as they are completed (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species">https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species</a>), or from our Washington Fish and Wildlife Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Once this subspecies is listed, funding for recovery actions will
be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets,
State programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Washington will be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection or recovery of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at: <a href="https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance">https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance</a>.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.
Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this
subspecies whenever it becomes available and any information you may
have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Section 7 of the Act is titled Interagency Cooperation and mandates
all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities to
further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed
species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations implementing
section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) states that
each Federal action agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary,
ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
Each Federal agency shall review its action at the earliest possible
time to determine whether it may affect listed species or critical
habitat. If a determination is made that the action may affect listed
species or critical habitat, formal consultation is required (50 CFR
402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in writing that the action is
not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. At
the end of a formal consultation, the Service issues a biological
opinion, containing its determination of whether the federal action is
likely to result in jeopardy or adverse modification.
Examples of discretionary actions for the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan that may be subject to consultation procedures under
section 7 are land management or other landscape-altering activities on
Federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and National Park
Service as well as actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands
that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act)
or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding from the
Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the
Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting
listed species or critical habitat--and actions on State, Tribal,
local, or private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or
carried out by a Federal agency--do not require section 7 consultation.
Federal agencies should coordinate with the local Service Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) with any specific questions on
Section 7 consultation and conference requirements.
It is the policy of the Services, as published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the extent known
at the time a species is listed, specific activities that will not be
considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act. To
the extent possible, activities that will be considered likely to
result in violation will also be identified in as specific a manner as
possible. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the
range of the species. Although most of the prohibitions in section 9 of
the Act apply to endangered species, sections 9(a)(1)(G) and 9(a)(2)(E)
of the Act prohibit the violation of any regulation under section 4(d)
pertaining to any threatened species of fish or wildlife, or threatened
species of plant, respectively. Section 4(d) of the Act directs the
Secretary to promulgate protective regulations that are necessary and
advisable for the conservation of threatened species. As a result, we
interpret our policy to mean that, when we list a species as a
threatened species, to the extent possible, we identify activities that
will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of the
protective regulations under section 4(d) for that species.
At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that
will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of section
9 of the Act beyond what is already clear from the descriptions of
prohibitions and exceptions established by protective regulation under
section 4(d) of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
II. Final Protective Regulations Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence
states that the Secretary shall issue such
[[Page 55109]]
regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of species listed as threatened species. Conservation is
defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and procedures which
are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to
the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no
longer necessary. Additionally, the second sentence of section 4(d) of
the Act states that the Secretary may by regulation prohibit with
respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section
9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the
case of plants. With these two sentences in section 4(d), Congress
delegated broad authority to the Secretary to determine what
protections would be necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of threatened species, and even broader authority to put
in place any of the section 9 prohibitions, for a given species.
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld, as a valid
exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section 4(d) that
included limited prohibitions against takings (see Alsea Valley
Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington
Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL
511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do
not address all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana
v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative
history when the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the
threatened list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options
available to [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those
species. [She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of
such species, or [she] may choose to forbid both taking and importation
but allow the transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd
Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
The 4(d) rule was developed considering our understanding of the
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's physical and biological needs,
which in large part relies upon information from other white-tailed
ptarmigan subspecies. Although there is some information on the
subspecies' habitat, the majority of habitat and demographic
information comes from other subspecies (particularly the southern
white-tailed ptarmigan in Colorado, where there is considerable habitat
connectivity and a very different climate). Given the unique aspects of
the landscape and climate in the Cascades, significant uncertainty
remains regarding the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's specific
needs and how and to what degree stressors are operating in the
subspecies' habitat. For example, we do not fully understand the Mount
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan's winter habitat requirements, its
winter food resources, or its reliance on snow roosting. We do not
understand why some areas of apparently suitable habitat lack
observational records of the subspecies. We also lack the demographic
information necessary to understand to the degree to which the
subspecies is at risk in the future from various forms of disturbance.
Considering these uncertainties and our requirement to develop a
recovery plan for the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, our 4(d)
rule is designed to promote the subspecies' conservation by
facilitating the viability of current populations, scientific study of
the subspecies, and conservation and restoration of its habitat. As we
learn more about the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan and its
habitat, we will refine our conservation recommendations for the
subspecies. The provisions of this 4(d) rule are some of many tools
that we will use to promote the conservation of the Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. These
requirements are the same for a threatened species with a species-
specific 4(d) rule. Section 7 consultation is required for Federal
actions that ``may affect'' a listed species regardless of whether take
caused by the activity is prohibited or excepted by a 4(d) rule. A 4(d)
rule does not change the process and criteria for informal or formal
consultations and does not alter the analytical process used for
biological opinions or concurrence letters. For example, as with an
endangered species, if a Federal agency determines that an action is
``not likely to adversely affect'' a threatened species, the action
will require the Service's written concurrence (50 CFR 402.13(c)).
Similarly, if a Federal agency determines that an action is ``likely to
adversely affect'' a threatened species, the action will require formal
consultation and the formulation of a biological opinion (50 CFR
402.14(a)). Two Federal agencies, the NPS and USFS, manage
approximately 95 percent of the U.S. portion of the Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan's range (Table 1). Because consultation
obligations and processes are unaffected by 4(d) rules, we may consider
developing tools to streamline future intra-Service and inter-Agency
consultations for actions that result in forms of take that are not
prohibited by the 4(d) rule (but that still require consultation).
These tools may include consultation guidance, Information for Planning
and Consultation effects determination keys, template language for
biological opinions, or programmatic consultations.
Provisions of the 4(d) Rule
Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act,
we have developed a rule that is designed to address the Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan's conservation needs. As discussed previously in
Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future primarily due to the projected
effects of climate change, especially increasing temperatures and a
loss of the conditions that support suitable alpine habitat (above
treeline). Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to issue such
regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of each threatened species and authorizes the Secretary to
include among those protective regulations any of the prohibitions that
section 9(a)(1) of the Act prescribes for endangered species. We are
not required to make a ``necessary and advisable'' determination when
we apply or do not apply specific section 9 prohibitions to a
threatened species (In re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing
and 4(d) Rule Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214, 228 (D.D.C. 2011)
(citing Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or. v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d
1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 515 U.S. 687 (1995))).
Nevertheless, even though we are not required to make such a
determination, we have chosen to be as transparent as possible and
explain below why we find that the protections, prohibitions, and
exceptions in this rule as a whole satisfy the requirement in section
4(d) of the Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of the Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan.
[[Page 55110]]
The protective regulations for the Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) to address the
threats to the species. Section 9(a)(1) prohibits the following
activities for endangered wildlife: importing or exporting; take;
possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering,
receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of commercial activity; or selling or offering
for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. This protective regulation
includes all of these prohibitions because the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future and
putting these prohibitions in place will help to preserve the
subspecies' remaining populations, slow their rate of decline, and
decrease cumulative or synergistic, negative effects from other
threats.
Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in
regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating
take will support the conservation of existing populations of the
subspecies by facilitating their viability in the face of these
projected environmental changes. Therefore, we are prohibiting take of
the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, except for take resulting
from those actions and activities specifically excepted by the 4(d)
rule. Exceptions to the prohibition on take include the general
exceptions to take of endangered wildlife as set forth in 50 CFR 17.21
and additional exceptions, as described below.
Despite these prohibitions regarding threatened species, we may
under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more
otherwise prohibited activities, including those described above. The
regulations that govern permits for threatened wildlife state that the
Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise
prohibited with regard to threatened species. These include permits
issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance
propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological
exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for
special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act (50 CFR
17.32). The statute also contains certain exceptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
In addition, to further the conservation of the species, any
employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal land management
agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, a State conservation
agency, or a federally recognized Tribe, who is designated by their
agency or Tribe for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of
their official duties, take threatened wildlife without a permit if
such action is necessary to: (i) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned
specimen; or (ii) Dispose of a dead specimen; or (iii) Salvage a dead
specimen that may be useful for scientific study; or (iv) Remove
specimens that constitute a demonstrable but nonimmediate threat to
human safety, provided that the taking is done in a humane manner; the
taking may involve killing or injuring only if it has not been
reasonably possible to eliminate such threat by livecapturing and
releasing the specimen unharmed, in an appropriate area.
We recognize the special and unique relationship that we have with
our State natural resource agency partners in contributing to
conservation of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific
data and valuable expertise on the status and distribution of
endangered, threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants.
State agencies, because of their authorities and their close working
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique
position to assist us in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this
regard, section 6 of the Act provides that we must cooperate to the
maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs
authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a
State conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative agreement
with us in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated
by his or her agency for such purposes, will be able to conduct
activities designed to conserve the Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan that may result in otherwise prohibited take without
additional authorization.
The 4(d) rule will also provide for the conservation of the species
by allowing exceptions that incentivize conservation actions or that,
while they may have some minimal level of take of Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan, are not expected to rise to the level that would have
a negative impact (i.e., would have only de minimis impacts) on the
species' conservation. The following exceptions to these prohibitions
are expected to have negligible impacts to the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan and its habitat:
<bullet> Take that is incidental to facilitating human safety (such
as rescue, fire, and other emergency responses) and the protection of
natural resources. During emergency events, the primary objective of
the responding agency must be to protect human life and property and
this objective takes precedence over considerations for minimizing
adverse effects to the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan.
<bullet> Take that is incidental to a person's lawfully conducted
outdoor recreational activities such as hiking (including associated
authorized pack animals and domestic dogs handled in compliance with
existing regulations), camping, backcountry skiing, mountain biking,
snowmobiling, climbing, and hunting where these activities are allowed.
We consider outdoor recreation lawful if it is carried out in
accordance with the recreation rules and limits established by the
State, Federal, or Tribal agency managing the land. This exception does
not apply to recreation planning activities by Federal or State
agencies. Based on available information, these types of activities
have the potential to disturb individual ptarmigan in localized areas
representing a very small portion of the available habitat in the
subspecies' range. Also, there are aspects of recreation that can be
beneficial to the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan and other alpine
species. USFS and NPS, through their recreational planning activities,
can help educate the public and build advocacy for conservation of
alpine habitats and species that are facing habitat loss due to climate
change, including the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. These and
other partners can train alpine recreationists to become citizen
scientists, helping us to better understand specific aspects of the
biology of this subspecies that we are lacking. In the future, should
recreation become a threat to the species, the Service may reconsider
this exception.
<bullet> Take that is incidental to authorized habitat restoration
actions consistent with the conservation needs of the Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan. Activities associated with habitat restoration
(e.g., weeding, planting native forage plants, establishing watering
areas) are likely to cause only short-term, temporary adverse effects,
especially in the form of harassment or disturbance of individual
ptarmigan. In the long term, the risk of these effects to both
individuals and populations is expected to be mitigated as these types
of activities will likely benefit the
[[Page 55111]]
subspecies by helping to preserve and enhance the habitat of existing
populations over time. We consider habitat restoration and enhancement
activities authorized if they are consistent with Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan conservation prescriptions or objectives that are
specifically included in established Federal, State, or Tribal
conservation plans.
<bullet> Take that is incidental to conducting lawful, authorized
control of predators of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan, provided
reasonable care is practiced to minimize effects to Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan. For example, the common raven is currently
managed within the range of greater sage-grouse in Washington and
common ravens have large home ranges. A professional biologist
documented travel of a raven collared at the Terrace Heights landfill
in Yakima to Mount Rainier National Park (White 2021, in litt.).
Ptarmigan are threatened in the foreseeable future by climate change
and the persistence of the subspecies will rely on the conservation of
existing populations, so predator control may be authorized by the
Service for the purposes of conservation of the Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan. Therefore, take of Mount Rainier white-tailed-
ptarmigan associated with authorized predator control coordinated in
advance with the Service will not be prohibited, as the benefit to the
subspecies from this activity outweighs the risk to individual
ptarmigan. Predator control activities may include the use of fencing,
trapping, shooting, and toxicants to control predators, and related
activities such as performing efficacy surveys, trap checks, and
maintenance duties. Reasonable care for predator control may include,
but would not be limited to, procuring and implementing technical
assistance from a qualified biologist on habitat management activities,
and best efforts to minimize Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan
exposure to hazards (e.g., predation, habituation to feeding,
entanglement, etc.). Any predator control conducted for the purposes of
conservation of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is considered
authorized if it is carried out in accordance with the rules and limits
established by the State, Federal, or Tribal agency managing the land
and coordinated in in advance with the Service.
<bullet> Take that is incidental to lawfully conducted timber
harvest or forest management activities, separate from those actions
covered under the habitat restoration actions exception described
above. During the summer, when timber harvest or forest management
activities are likely to occur, white-tailed ptarmigan are rarely found
in the vicinity of forested areas, but they may occur in alpine areas
adjacent to treeline and thus would be within sight and sound of such
activities. In the winter, ptarmigan may be found in openings in
forested areas adjacent to their alpine habitat. Forest management
activities in proximity to ptarmigan habitat may cause short-term,
temporary adverse effects, especially in the form of harassment or
disturbance of individual ptarmigan using habitats adjacent to forested
areas; however, in the long term, these activities may benefit the
subspecies by reducing the risk of wildfire near ptarmigan habitat, or
by opportunistically creating alpine area openings that ptarmigan may
use in winter. Legal and authorized forest management activities
include, but are not limited to, timber harvest and fire and vegetation
management. We consider forest management activities legal and
authorized if they are carried out in accordance with the forest
practices rules and limits established by the State, Federal, or Tribal
agency managing the land.
<bullet> Take that is incidental to the authorized maintenance of
any public or private infrastructure (e.g., buildings, roads, parking
lots, viewpoints, trails, designated camp sites, developed ski areas,
and helicopter landing pads) and supporting infrastructure (e.g.,
benches, signs, safety features) within or adjacent to Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan habitat. Within the subspecies' range, most
development and infrastructure, the largest of which is associated with
Mount Rainier National Park, has been in place for decades or longer.
The amount of land developed for roads, buildings, trail head
facilities and parking lots, trails, benches, signs, safety features,
designated camping sites, developed ski areas, and helicopter landing
pads is a very small percentage of the subspecies' range, and available
suitable habitat is abundant and remote. The maintenance of trails and
infrastructure within the subspecies' range has the potential to
temporarily disturb individual ptarmigan in localized areas. The best
available information does not indicate that these types of routine
maintenance are a threat to the species. We consider maintenance
activities authorized if they are carried out in accordance with the
rules established by the State, Federal, or Tribal agency managing the
land. This exception would not extend to take associated with the
development of new infrastructure.
As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats,
increasing temperatures (Factor E) and a loss of the conditions that
support suitable alpine habitat (Factor A) are driving the current and
future status of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. A range of
current and future activities could directly and indirectly impact the
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan via direct take or loss of
habitat. These activities may cause disturbance, harm, or mortality to
individual ptarmigan, trampling of habitat, introduction of invasive
species in habitat, and loss of habitat. These activities include:
human safety and emergency response; the work of law enforcement and
on-the-job wildlife professionals; lawful outdoor recreation in alpine
areas in summer, or subalpine areas in winter; habitat restoration and
predator control actions for purposes of Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan conservation; forest management actions; and routine
maintenance of infrastructure (e.g., roads, trails, buildings, parking
lots, etc.). The best available information indicates that these
activities, when conducted in accordance with the law, will not put the
viability of the Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan at risk. Allowing
the continuation of these activities while also prohibiting all other
forms of take will facilitate Federal agencies in managing their land
according to their priorities without unnecessary regulation while
still supporting the conservation of the subspecies.
Nothing in this 4(d) rule will change in any way the recovery
planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the consultation
requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of the Service
to enter into partnerships for the management and protection of the
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. However, interagency cooperation
may be further streamlined through planned programmatic consultations
for the subspecies between Federal agencies and the Service.
III. Critical Habitat
Background
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat
concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in
section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are
[[Page 55112]]
found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened
species. At the time of our June 15, 2021, proposed rule, we determined
that a designation of critical habitat would not be prudent. Our
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) in place at that time stated that the
Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation
would not be prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data
available.
However, on April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, we published a final rule revising the regulations
in 50 CFR 424.12 regarding circumstances when designation of critical
habitat may not be prudent (89 FR 24300). In light of these regulation
revisions, we will reevaluate our 2021 determination that the
designation of critical habitat for the ptarmigan is not prudent under
these revised regulations and publish a separate determination in the
future in the Federal Register. In that determination, we will also
respond to any comments related to critical habitat we received during
the public comment period on the June 15, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR
31668).
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical
habitat designations and species-specific protective regulations
promulgated concurrently with a decision to list or reclassify a
species as threatened. The courts have upheld this position (e.g.,
Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (critical
habitat); Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d)
rule)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. All potentially affected Tribes were
sent a letter highlighting our assessment of this subspecies and
requesting information about the subspecies or other feedback. These
Tribes included the three adjacent to the range of Mount Rainier white-
tailed ptarmigan, the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Snoqualmie Indian
Tribe, and Yakama Nation, as well as others (the Confederated Tribes of
the Chehalis Reservation; Cowlitz Indian Tribe; Lummi Nation;
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; Nisqually Indian Tribe; Nooksack Indian
Tribe; Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe; Puyallup Tribe of Indians; Samish
Indian Nation; Squaxin Island Tribe; Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians;
Suquamish Tribe; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; Tulalip Tribes; and
Upper Skagit Tribe). We did not receive any replies. We also sent
notification of the impending publication of our proposed listing rule
with an invitation to comment to all Tribes in the State of Washington
on June 14, 2021; we received no comments from Tribes during the
proposed rule's comment period.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and upon request from
the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife by adding an entry for ``Ptarmigan, Mount Rainier
white-tailed'' in alphabetical order under Birds to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 55113]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Ptarmigan, Mount Rainier Lagopus leucura Wherever found..... T 89 FR [INSERT FEDERAL
white-tailed. rainierensis. REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT BEGINS],
7/3/2024; 50 CFR
17.41(i).\4d\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.41 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.41 Species-specific rules--birds.
* * * * *
(i) Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura
rainierensis).
(1) Prohibitions. The following prohibition that applies to
endangered wildlife also applies to the Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan. Except as provided under paragraph (i)(2) of this section
and Sec. 17.4, it is unlawful for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to
solicit another to commit, or cause to be committed, any of the
following acts in regard to this species:
(i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(b) for endangered
wildlife.
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(1) for endangered
wildlife.
(iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as
set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial
activity, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(f) for
endangered wildlife.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. With regard to this subspecies,
you may:
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec. 17.32.
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(2) through (4) for
endangered wildlife.
(iii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.31(b).
(iv) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken
wildlife, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
(v) Take in accordance with these provisions:
(A) Human safety and emergency response. A person may incidentally
take Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in the course of carrying out
official emergency response activities related to human safety and the
protection of natural resources.
(B) Lawful outdoor recreation. A person may incidentally take Mount
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in the course of lawfully conducting
outdoor recreational activities, such as hiking (including associated
authorized pack animals and domestic dogs handled in compliance with
existing regulations), camping, backcountry skiing, mountain biking,
snowmobiling, climbing, and hunting where these activities are allowed.
We consider outdoor recreation lawful if it is carried out in
accordance with the recreation rules and limits established by the
State, Federal, or Tribal agency managing the land.
(C) Habitat restoration actions. A person may incidentally take
Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in the course of carrying out
authorized habitat restoration consistent with the conservation needs
of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. We consider habitat
restoration and enhancement activities authorized if they are
consistent with Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan conservation
prescriptions or objectives that are specifically included in
established Federal, State, or Tribal conservation plans and documents.
(D) Predator control. A person may incidentally take Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan in the course of carrying out lawful, authorized
predator control for the purpose of Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan conservation if reasonable care is practiced to minimize
effects to Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan. Predator control
activities may include the use of fencing, trapping, shooting, and
toxicants to control predators, and related activities such as
performing efficacy surveys, trap checks, and maintenance duties. Any
predator control conducted for the purposes of conservation of Mount
Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan is considered authorized if it is
carried out in accordance with the rules and limits established by the
State, Federal, or Tribal agency managing the land and coordinated in
in advance with the Service.
(E) Forest management. A person may incidentally take Mount Rainier
white-tailed ptarmigan in the course of carrying out legal and
authorized forest management activities, including, but not limited to,
timber harvest, and fire and vegetation management. We consider forest
management activities legal and authorized if they are carried out in
accordance with the forest practices rules and limits established by
the State, Federal, or Tribal agency managing the land.
(F) Routine maintenance to infrastructure. A person may
incidentally take Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan in the course of
carrying out authorized routine maintenance of public or private
infrastructure (e.g., buildings, roads, parking lots, viewpoints,
trails, designated camp sites, developed ski areas, and helicopter
landing pads) and supporting infrastructure (e.g., benches, signs,
safety features) within or adjacent to Mount Rainier white-tailed
ptarmigan habitat. We consider maintenance activities authorized if
they are carried out in accordance with the rules established by the
State, Federal, or Tribal agency managing the land. This exception does
not extend to take associated with the development of new
infrastructure.
(G) Reporting and disposal requirements. Any take (injury or
mortality) of Mount Rainier white-tailed ptarmigan associated with the
actions excepted under paragraphs (i)(2)(v)(A) through (G) of this
section must be reported to the Service and authorized State wildlife
officials within 72 hours, and specimens may be disposed of only in
accordance with directions from the Service. Reports should be made to
the Service's Office of Law Enforcement; contact information for that
office is located at 50 CFR 10.22.
* * * * *
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-14315 Filed 7-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 3, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.