HomeMy WebLinkAboutFish and Game Notice 12.24.13 - American pika Commissioners STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Michael Sutton,President Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor Sonke Mastrup,Executive Director
Monterey 1416 Ninth Street,Room 1320
Richard Rogers,Vice President Sacramento,CA 95814
Santa Barbara Fish and Game Commission (916)653-4899
Jim Kellogg,Member (916)653-5040 Fax
Discovery Bay c>""i`0414, www. c.ca. ov
Jack Baylis,Member m 9
Los Angeles o
Jacque Hostler-Carmesin,Member
McKinleyville y 41°°°'"'%"1 e`
4.
a'/7ti,ao
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DEC 2 7 2013
December 24, 2013 ORVILLE,CAl IFS
TO ALL AFFECTED AND INTERESTED PARTIES:
This is to provide you with a Notice of Findings regarding the American pika which will be
published in the California Regulatory Notice Register on December 27, 2013.
Sincerely,
heti Tiemann
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
Attachment
�}} ( /1 fila-ey
NOTICE OF FINDINGS
American pika
(Ochotona princeps schisticeps)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fish and Game Commission
(Commission), at its May 22, 2013 meeting in Los Angeles, California, made a
finding pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2075.5, that the petitioned
action to add the American pika (Ochotona princeps schisticeps) to the list of
threatened or endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act
(CESA)(Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.) is not warranted. (See also Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (i)(1).)
NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN that, at its December 11, 2013, meeting in San Diego,
California, the Commission adopted the following findings outlining the reasons
for its rejection of the petition.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petition History
The Center for Biological Diversity (Petitioner) submitted a petition to the
Commission on August 21, 2007, to list the American pika (Ochotona princeps)
as a threatened species, pursuant to CESA. As an alternative, the Petitioner
asked that the Commission list each of the then recognized five subspecies of
the American pika occurring in California as, variously, either endangered or
threatened species. The Commission received the petition on August 22, 2007.
The Commission referred it for evaluation to the Department on August 30, 2007.
On September 12, 2007, the Department asked the Commission to grant the
Department an additional 30 days, for a total 120 days, to evaluate the petition
pursuant to Fish & Game Code section 2073.5. On October 19, 2007, the
Commission granted this request.
The Department evaluated the petition, using the information in that document
and other relevant information available at that time, and found that the scientific
information presented in the petition was insufficient to indicate that either of the
petitioned actions may be warranted. That is, the Commission found in its
independent judgment at the time that the petition did not provide sufficient
scientific information to indicate that the following actions may be warranted: 1)
State listing of the pika as a threatened species, or 2) State listing of any of the
five subspecies of the pika occurring in California as, variously, either
endangered or threatened species. The Department's review of additional
scientific information supported these findings. The Department recommended
in its December 21, 2007, evaluation report to the Commission, pursuant to Fish
and Game Code section 2073.5, subdivision (a), that the Commission reject the
petition.
1
On April 10, 2008, the Commission determined that the petition provided
insufficient information to indicate the petitioned action may be warranted. On
June 24, 2009, the Commission set aside its April 10, 2008 decision, and again
determined that the petition did not provide sufficient information to indicate the
petitioned action may be warranted. The Petitioner challenged the Commission's
actions on both occasions in related litigation. As a result of the litigation, the
Commission reconsidered Petitioner's petition to list the American pika as
threatened or endangered under CESA, including a new submission by Petitioner
dated May 15, 2009. The Commission treated the petition, including Petitioner's
new submission, as an amended petition pursuant to Fish and Game Code
section 2073.7, and also determined the amendment to be substantive. At its
February 3, 2011 meeting, the Commission transmitted the amended petition to
the Department for review.
The Petitioner submitted another comment letter to the Commission on March
31, 2011. The Commission voted at its May 4, 2011, meeting that the March 31,
2011, letter submitted by the Petitioner amounted to yet another substantive
amendment of the petition. The Commission indicated in a memorandum to the
Department dated May 13, 2011, that the Department's evaluation report should
be submitted to the Commission on or before August 2, 2011. On June 27,
2011, the Department requested that the Commission grant the Department an
additional 30 days, for a total 120 days, to evaluate the amended petition,
pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2073.5, subdivision (b). On August 3,
2011, the Commission granted this request.
The Department submitted its initial evaluation of the amended petition to the
Commission on August 23, 2011, with a recommendation to reject the petition.
At the October 19, 2011, Commission meeting, the Department presented a
summary of its evaluation of the petition. At that meeting, the Department
Director presented a new recommendation to the Commission, indicating the
Commission should accept the petition, designate the American pika as a
candidate species under CESA, and direct the Department to conduct a 12-
month review of the status of the species in California. The Commission voted to
accept the petition based on its determination that there was sufficient
information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. On
November 11, 2011, the Commission published notice of its findings to accept
the amended petition for further review under CESA, as well as notice of the
American pika's designation as a candidate species under State law(Cal. Reg.
Notice Register 2001, No. 45—Z, p. 1826). With related notice of its candidacy,
the CESA prohibition against unauthorized "take" of the American pika is
currently in effect. (Fish & G. Code, § 2080, 2085).
Consistent with the Fish and Game Code and controlling regulation, the
Department commenced a 12-month status review of the American pika following
published notice of its designation as a candidate species under CESA. As part
2
of that effort, the Department solicited data, comments, and other information
from interested members of the public, and the scientific and academic
community; and the Department submitted a preliminary draft of its status review
for independent peer review by a number of individuals acknowledged to be
experts on the American pika, possessing the knowledge and expertise to
critique the scientific validity of the report. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2074.4, 2074.8;
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (f)(2).) The effort culminated with the
Department's final Status Review of the American pika (Ochotona princeps
schisticeps) in California (February 25, 2013) (Status Review), which the
Department submitted to the Commission at its meeting in Santa Rosa,
California, on April 17, 2013. The Department recommended to the Commission
based on its Status Review and the best science available to the Department that
designating the American pika as a threatened or endangered species under
CESA is not warranted. (Fish & G. Code, § 2074.6; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §
670.1, subd. (f).) Following receipt, the Commission made the Department's
Status Review available to the public, inviting further review and input. (Id., §
670.1, subd. (g).)
On May 22, 2013, at its meeting in Los Angeles, California, the Commission
considered final action regarding the Center's petition to designate American pika
as an endangered or threatened species under CESA. (See generally Fish & G.
Code, § 2075.5; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (i).) In so doing, the
Commission considered the petition, as amended, public comment, the
Department's 2008 Candidacy Evaluation Report, the Department's 2013 Status
Review, and other information included in the Commission's administrative
record of proceedings. Following public comment and deliberation, the
Commission determined, based on the best available science, that designating
American pika as an endangered or threatened species under CESA is not
warranted. (Fish & G. Code, § 2075.5(1); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd.
(i)(2).) At the same time, the Commission directed its staff in coordination with
the Department to prepare findings of fact consistent with the Commission's
determination for consideration and ratification by the Commission at a future
meeting.
Species Description
The American pika is a small mammal in the Order Lagomorpha. Until recently,
the American pika was considered to consist of 356 subspecies belonging to five
distinct evolutionary lineages. The five formerly recognized California
subspecies are now regarded as one subspecies, Ochotona princeps
schisticeps. The American pika occurs in most of the western United States and
the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. In California, it is found
from the Oregon border south through the Cascade region to Tulare and Inyo
counties in the Sierra Nevada. The American pika inhabits the range above the
3
mid-montane conifer belt in California's Sierra Nevada and other high elevation
mountain ranges. Although often considered to be rare below 2,500 m elevation
in California, American pikas have been reported at multiple locations below that
elevation in the southern portion of their range, and in northeastern California
they have been found as low as 1,250 m in elevation. The American pika
primarily lives in high-elevation patches of talus with adjacent herbaceous or
shrub vegetation, as well as in old lava formations.
American pikas are predominantly diurnal, although during hot weather they may
adjust their daily activity pattern to avoid excessive heat. American pikas are
territorial and their populations in many locations function as meta-populations.
Dispersal by American pika from a population is generally believed to be more
likely at high-elevation (cooler) sites than at warmer low-elevation sites.
The American pika is herbivorous and engages in both feeding and haying
(haypiling) while foraging. Haying is the caching of food for later consumption.
The American pika harvests herbaceous vegetation or tall grasses for storage in
hay piles, which allows them to survive harsh winters.
American pikas behaviorally thermoregulate in response to high ambient
temperatures by reducing activity on warm days or during mid-day hours. The
American pika does not hibernate but remains active throughout the winter, using
cover to abate the effects of extremely cold temperatures and to access stored
food. High temperature is a primary factor controlling the initial dispersal success
of juveniles, primarily at low-elevation sites. In general, temperatures within the
rock matrix of talus fields have been found to be lower and less variable than on
the surface of the talus in the summer. Generally, winter temperatures within
talus are warmer than the external air.
The population size for the American pika in California is uncertain but, based on
the best available scientific information, it appears well-distributed and relatively
stable.
Federal Status
The American pika is not currently listed as endangered or threatened nor is it a
candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. In October
2007, the Center petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to list the
American pika and conduct a status review of each of the recognized subspecies
of American pika. The Service advised the Center that the petition could not be
addressed at that time because existing court orders and settlement agreements
for other listing actions required nearly all of the listing funding. Subsequently, the
Center filed a notice of intent to sue over the Service's failure to publish a petition
finding. The Service then entered into a settlement agreement requiring the
Service to submit a petition finding to the Federal Register by May 1, 2009, and
to submit a status review finding to the Federal Register by February 1, 2010. On
February 10, 2010, the Service published the results of its status review, in which
4
it concluded that the American pika did not meet the criteria for listing under the
federal Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2010). The Service acknowledged
that the American pika is potentially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change
in portions of its range, but that the best available scientific information indicated
that the species will be able to survive despite higher temperatures and that there
is enough suitable high elevation habitat to prevent the species from becoming
threatened or endangered.
II.
STATUTORY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The Commission has prepared these findings as part of its final action under
CESA regarding the Center's petition to designate American pika as an
endangered or threatened species under CESA. As set forth above, the
Commission's determination that listing American pika is not warranted marks
the end of formal administrative proceedings under CESA prescribed by the Fish
and Game Code and controlling regulation. (See generally Fish & G. Code, §
2070 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1.) The Commission, as established
by the California Constitution, has exclusive statutory authority under California
law to designate endangered, threatened, and candidate species under CESA.
(Cal. Const., art. IV, § 20, subd. (b); Fish & G. Code, § 2070.)1
The CESA listing process for American pika began in the present case with the
Center's submittal of its petition to the Commission in September 2007. (Cal.
Reg. Notice Register 2007, No. 38-Z, p. 1572.) The regulatory process that
ensued is described above in some detail, along with related references to the
Fish and Game Code and controlling regulation. The CESA listing process
generally is also described in some detail in published appellate case law in
California, including
• Mountain Lion Foundation v. California Fish and Game Commission
(1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 114-116;
• California Forestry Association v. California Fish and Game Commission
(2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1535, 1541-1542;
• Center for Biological Diversity v. California Fish and Game Commission
(2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 597, 600; and
• Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Fish and Game
Commission (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1111-1116.
The "is not warranted" determination at issue here for American pika stems from
Commission obligations established by Fish and Game Code section 2075.5.
'The Commission, pursuant to this authority, may add, remove, uplist, downlist, or choose not to
list any plant or animal species to the list of endangered or threatened species, or designate any
such species as a candidate for related action under CESA. (See also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §
670.1,subd. (i)(1)(A)-(C)and (2).) In practical terms, any of these actions is commonly referred
to as subject to CESA's"listing"process.
5
Under this provision, the Commission is required to make one of two findings for
a candidate species at the end of the CESA listing process; namely, whether the
petitioned action is warranted or is not warranted. Here with respect to American
pika, the Commission made the finding under section 2075.5(1) that the
petitioned action is not warranted.
The Commission was guided in making this determination by various statutory
provisions and other controlling law. The Fish and Game Code, for example,
defines an endangered species under CESA as a native species or subspecies
of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile or plant which is in serious danger of
becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or
more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over exploitation,
predation, competition, or disease. (Fish & G. Code, § 2062.)
Similarly, the Fish and Game Code defines a threatened species under CESA as
a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile or
plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become
an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special
protection and management efforts required by this chapter. (Id., § 2067.)
Likewise as established by published appellate case law in California, the term
"range" for purposes of CESA means the range of the species within California.
(California Forestry Association v. California Fish and Game Commission, supra,
156 Cal. App.4th at p. 1540, 1549-1551.)
The Commission was also guided in making its determination regarding
American pika by Title 14, section 670.1, subdivision (i)(1)(A), of the California
Code of Regulations. This provision provides, in pertinent part, that a species
shall be listed as endangered or threatened under CESA if the Commission
determines that the species' continued existence is in serious danger or is
threatened by any one or any combination of the following factors:
1. Present or threatened modification or destruction of its habitat;
2. Overexploitation;
3. Predation;
4. Competition;
5. Disease; or
6. Other natural occurrences or human-related activities.
Fish and Game Code section 2070 provides similar guidance. This section
provides that the Commission shall add or remove species from the list of
endangered and threatened species under CESA only upon receipt of sufficient
scientific information that the action is warranted. Similarly, CESA provides
policy direction not specific to the Commission per se, indicating that all state
agencies, boards, and commissions shall seek to conserve endangered and
threatened species and shall utilize their authority in furtherance of the purposes
6
of CESA. (Fish & G. Code, § 2055.) This policy direction does not compel a
particular determination by the Commission in the CESA listing context. Yet, the
Commission made its determination regarding American pika mindful of this
policy direction, acknowledging that "'[I]aws providing for the conservation of
natural resources' such as the CESA 'are of great remedial and public
importance and thus should be construed liberally." (California Forestry
Association v. California Fish and Game Commission, supra, 156 Cal. App.4th at
pp. 1545-1546, citing San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. City of Moreno
Valley(1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 593, 601; Fish & G. Code, §§ 2051, 2052.)
Finally in considering these factors, CESA and controlling regulations require the
Commission to actively seek and consider related input from the public and any
interested party. (See, e.g., Id., §§ 2071, 2074.4, 2078; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14,
§ 670.1, subd. (h).) The related notice obligations and public hearing
opportunities before the Commission are also considerable. (Fish & G. Code, §§
2073.3, 2074, 2074.2, 2075, 2075.5, 2078; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1,
subds. (c), (e), (g), (i); see also Gov. Code, § 11120 et seq.) All of these
obligations are in addition to the requirements prescribed for the Department in
the CESA listing process, including an initial evaluation of the petition and a
related recommendation regarding candidacy, and a 12-month status review of
the candidate species culminating with a report and recommendation to the
Commission as to whether listing is warranted based on the best available
science. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2073.4, 2073.5, 2074.4, 2074.6; Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 14, § 670.1, subds. (d), (f), (h).)
III.
FACTUAL AND SCIENTIFIC BASES FOR THE COMMISSION'S FINDING
The factual and scientific bases for the Commission's finding that designating
American pika as an endangered or threatened species under CESA is not
warranted are set forth in detail in the Commission's administrative record of
proceedings. The evidence in the administrative record in support of the
Commission's determination includes, but is not limited to, the Department's
2008 Candidacy Evaluation Report and 2013 Status Review, and other
information specifically presented to the Commission and otherwise included in
the Commission's administrative record as it exists up to and including the
Commission meeting in Los Angeles, California, on May 22, 2013, and up to and
including the adoption of these findings.
The Commission finds the substantial evidence highlighted in the preceding
paragraph, along with other evidence in the administrative record, supports the
Commission's determination that the continued existence of American pika in the
State of California is not in serious danger of becoming extinct or threatened by
one or a combination of the following factors:
1. Present or threatened modification or destruction of its habitat;
7
2. Overexploitation;
3. Predation;
4. Competition;
5. Disease; or
6. Other natural occurrences or human-related activities.
The Commission also finds that the same evidence constitutes sufficient
scientific information to establish that designating American pika as an
endangered or threatened species under CESA is not warranted. The
Commission finds in this respect that the American pika is not in serious danger
of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range. Similarly,
the Commission finds that, although the dynamics and effects of climate change
due to global warming are real, the American pika is not presently threatened
with extinction and it is also unlikely to become an endangered species in the
foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management
efforts required by CESA.
The following Commission findings highlight in more detail some of the scientific
and factual information and other evidence in the administrative record of
proceedings that support the Commission's determination that designating
American pika as an endangered or threatened species under CESA is not
warranted:
1. The primary threat to the continued existence of the species is considered
to be future climate change, which may reduce the area available as
suitable habitat for American pika in California. However, some data
suggest the American pika may be able to contend with a generally
warmer and drier future climate.
2. The species is currently widely distributed in California and is thought to
be common where it occurs. Although climate change has occurred and
will continue to occur, the American pika has existed in western North
America for millennia, during a period characterized by repeated periods
of warming and cooling, suggesting the species may be able to persist
during projected future changes.
3. The overall population size for the American pika in California is unknown
and cannot be accurately determined because of the lack of available data
on population numbers, densities, and trends over time across their range.
However, resurveys of distribution at historically-occupied pika sites have
been conducted in several areas in California, as well as in the Great
Basin ranges of Nevada. In California, these studies have found pikas
occupying some but not all of the historical sites. More study is necessary
to fully understand the American pika's re-colonization behavior of
historical sites. A recent meta-analysis of several resurvey projects found
that the amount of talus habitat in the vicinity of the historical site had the
8
strongest ability to predict whether pikas still occupied the site. Elevation
was another significant factor, with low elevation sites more likely to have
lost pikas than high elevation sites. However, the extent of low elevation
talus habitat available to American pika in California is not presently
known.
4. The climate modeling studies reviewed by the Commission as part of its
analysis of the pika CESA listing petition, as amended, do not typically
consider aspects of a species' ecology other than the apparent
correlations of species occurrence with (typically) coarse-scale climate
variables. Nor do the models consider the capacity of the species to
behaviorally or physiologically adapt to different climatic conditions.
Additionally, the studies do not consider changes in human adaptation that
could influence the model projected climate change. In sum, a number of
survey studies on American pikas in California and elsewhere have
explored the relationships between pika occurrence and climate variables.
Although climate has been implicated in recent loss of pikas from some
historically-occupied sites in some studies, other studies have not found
such a pattern.
5. Because of the American pika's thermoregulatory characteristics, it has
been suggested that several climate change effects could threaten the
continued existence of the species, including mortality and stress
associated with increasing temperatures; changes in foraging and
dispersal behavior; mortality and stress associated with more extreme
cold in the winter; changes in nutrient and water availability in forage
plants; increased competition or predation; and combined effects of all
these factors. However, American pika have been found in low-elevation
areas (for example, Lava Beds National Monument) and studies on talus
temperatures show ameliorative benefits of the talus ecology for the
American pika (warmer in winter, cooler in summer), both of which
suggest that American pika may be sufficiently adaptable to rising
temperatures to persist despite global warming.
6. Other potential indirect effects on pikas due to climate change, such as
how climate change may affect disease dynamics and predator-prey
relations are presently unknown. Livestock grazing near talus habitat may
affect pika habitat and cause pikas to change their foraging behavior.
Mining may disturb or directly injure pikas. However, these potential
impacts are not clearly understood.
7. The Commission considered factors such as overexploitation, predation,
competition, and disease to not be a serious threat to the American pika
currently or in the foreseeable future.
IV.
9
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS INFORMING
THE COMMISSION'S FINAL DETERMINATION
The Commission's determination that designating American pika as an
endangered or threatened species under CESA is not warranted is informed by
various additional considerations. In general, the Fish and Game Code
contemplates a roughly 12-month long CESA listing process before the
Commission, including multiple opportunities for public and Department review
and input, and peer review specifically whenever possible. (See generally Fish &
G. Code, § 2070 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1.) The CESA listing
process for American pika, in contrast, is approaching the 7-year mark. This
length of time is not unusual compared to other recent CESA listing actions by
the Commission.2 What the length of time does underscore in the present case,
however, is the depth, breadth,and complexity of the scientific and legal issues
that the Commission has considered in making its final determination regarding
American pika. This section highlights some of those issues to more fully
document the Commission's final determination in the present case.
From the initial receipt of the Center's petition in August 2007 through the
Commission's decision in May 2013 that listing is not warranted, the Commission
received numerous comments and other significant public input regarding the
status of American pika from a biological and scientific standpoint, and with
respect to the petitioned action under CESA, including the listing process
generally. Similarly, the Commission received many comments focusing on the
current and historical status of American pika throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. The Commission also received comments regarding the
status of American pika under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)(16
U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.). Finally, the Commission received various comments and
other important information regarding a number of scientific issues related to the
status of American pika in California. The Commission, as highlighted below,
was informed by and considered all of these issues, among others, in making its
final determination that designating American pika as an endangered or
threatened species under CESA is not warranted. (Fish & G. Code, § 2075.5(1);
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (i)(2).)
SCIENTIFIC DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE
AMERICAN PIKA IN CALIFORNIA
CESA directs the Department to prepare this report regarding the status of the
American pika in California based upon the best scientific information. Key to the
Department's related analyses are relevant factors highlighted in regulation.
2 For example,with respect to the California tiger salamander, a species recently designated as
endangered or threatened under CESA, the Commission received the petition on January 30,
2004, and adopted findings that listing is warranted on May 20, 2010. (See Cal. Reg. Notice
Register 2004, No. 9-Z, p. 270; Cal. Reg. Notice Register 2010, No. 23-Z, p. 855).
10
Under the pertinent regulation, a "species shall be listed as endangered or
threatened ... if the Commission determines that its continued existence is in
serious danger or is threatened by any one or any combination of the following
factors: (1) present or threatened modification or destruction of its habitat; (2)
overexploitation; (3) predation; (4) competition; (5) disease; or(6) other natural
occurrences or human-related activities." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1
0)(1)(A)).
Also key from a scientific standpoint are the definitions of endangered and
threatened species, respectively, in the Fish and Game Code. An endangered
species under CESA, for example, is one "which is in serious danger of
becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or
more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over exploitation,
predation, competition, or disease." (Fish & G. Code, § 2062.) A threatened
species under CESA is one "that, although not presently threatened with
extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in
the absence of special protection and management efforts required by [CESA]."
(Id., § 2067.)
Present or Threatened Modification or Destruction of Habitat
Projections of the effects human-caused climate change would have on the
American pika are predicted based on climatic models and models of future
habitat extent. These models indicate a possible reduction in the amount of
suitable habitat for the American pika in California by the end of this century
(2100). However, some of the models that predict American pika habitat failed to
predict currently occupied habitat. Alternatively, some of the reduction in
climatically suitable habitat conditions for the American pika in California may be
ameliorated by behavioral and physiological mechanisms. In summary, the best
available scientific information suggests a substantial reduction in the geographic
range of the American pika in California could occur by 2100, but the effect on
the species' future existence at that time is currently uncertain. A generally
warming climate with more extreme weather conditions may have several
impacts to American pika populations, including reduced opportunities for
successful dispersal between habitat islands, reduced overwinter survival
(reduced winter snowpack will reduce insulation cover and create harsher winter
conditions or, conversely, heavier snowpack from extreme winters could delay
spring emergence of forage vegetation), and these factors may interact with
others to increase population impacts. There is significant, current uncertainty
about the degree of continued warming and the effect of this continued warming
on the ability of the American pika to persist in California during and after the
timeframe current modeling suggests climate change may pose a significant
threat to the species (2100 and after). In short, the Commission considers future
habitat impacts of projected climate change may be a threat to the continued
existence of the American pika in California by the end of the century, but not
11
until then at the earliest based on the best scientific information currently
available.
Overexploitation
The American pika in California is designated as a nongame mammal, and
therefore may not be legally taken. (See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 472).
There is no indication that American pikas have been harvested for recreational
or commercial purposes. A few individual American pikas have been captured
over the past several years for research purposes; only one mortality from these
studies has occurred. The Commission determines based on the best scientific
information available, there is not a threat to the species' continued existence
due to overexploitation.
Predation
American pikas are subject to predation by a variety of native predators and are
adapted to contend with predation pressure by several characteristics, such as
vigilant behavior, central-place foraging with good escape cover, and relatively
moderate reproduction rate. It is possible climate change may affect the
predator-prey relationships for the pika, either by allowing additional predator
species to move into areas occupied by the pika or by negatively impacting some
current pika predators by altering their preferred prey. Climate change may force
individual pikas to contend with greater predation risk while foraging or
dispersing, or may relieve them of some predation risk. The Department
concluded, and the Commission so finds, that the effects of predation as a threat
to pika populations are uncertain, as are any climate change change-induced
effects on predation, to American pikas. There is not sufficient scientific
evidence to indicate that predation is a current threat to the continued existence
of the species in California or that it will be in the foreseeable future
Competition
The Commission does not consider native competitors to the American pika in
California to be a threat to the continued existence of the species. However,
climate change may allow additional competitor species to move into areas
occupied by the American pika and to impact those American pika populations.
Additional or new competitors may reduce the fitness of individual pikas and
reduce the viability of American pika populations where the competitors invade.
However, it is also possible that some native competitors will be adversely
affected by climate change, thus relieving American pikas of some competition
from these species. The Department concluded, and the Commission so finds,
that the effect and magnitude of climate change on species competition with
American pikas are currently unknown. There is not sufficient, current scientific
evidence to indicate that competition is a threat to or that it will be a threat in the
foreseeable future to the continued existence of the American pika in California.
12
Disease
Diseases occur naturally in American pika populations. Health assessments of
American pika populations in California are just beginning. As with the other
factors, however, it is possible that climate change may facilitate the transmission
or increase the virulence of diseases currently endemic in American pika
populations. The Commission could not currently determine the magnitude of
the risks to pika populations from disease, nor from the interaction of climate
change and disease. The best scientific information available to the Department
and the Commission from disease studies in other pika populations suggests this
factor is not currently a threat nor will it be a threat in the foreseeable future to
the continued existence of the species in California.
Other Natural Occurrences or Human-related Activities
The Commission does not consider mining or grazing to be significant threats to
the continued existence of the American pika in California. Other human-related
activities contribute to global climate change (e.g. fossil fuel emissions, land use
practices, agricultural practices), and therefore indirectly threaten American pika
populations in California through the habitat, competition, predation, and disease
pathways discussed above. Most human-related (anthropogenic) contributions
to global climate change are projected to increase in the future. The Commission
finds that anthropogenic contributions to climate warming may pose a threat to
the species by the end of the 21St century, but that the species is not currently in
serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its
range in California and the same is true of the foreseeable future.
Summary of Key Findings
Based on the criteria described above, the best scientific information available to
the Commission indicates the American pika is not currently in serious danger of
becoming extinct in California in the next few decades, nor at any time by the end
of the century even if existing climate change models and the currently predicted
trajectory of suitable pika habitat in California comes to fruition at that time. At
the present time, in contrast, the species is widespread through its known range
in California and the uncertainty of the models precludes the ability of the
Commission to categorically know or state the danger of the threat to the
species. Models predict reduction in American pika habitat and therefore
populations, distribution, and abundance, but not extinction.
It will be imperative for the Department and for the conservation community to
study and monitor the distribution and abundance of the American pika over the
next few decades, and as climate change models become more data driven, to
be able to better assess the foreseeable future. Such monitoring will ultimately
inform the Department from a scientific basis whether the American pika is
• 13
trending toward a serious danger of becoming extinct, or not. In that regard, the
Department has made a number of future management recommendations,
including:
• Habitat-specific demographic information for the American pika, as per
Kreuzer and Huntly (2003), should be collected by the Department and its
partners. Such studies would inform conservation planning for the American pika
by allowing better evaluation of habitat areas needing protection, as well as
adaptation planning for climate change.
• Comprehensive genetic studies of American pika populations in California
and adjacent states should be conducted to provide a better understanding of the
genetic structure of the schisticeps subspecies. Such information is essential for
conservation planning.
• Research and consider implementing management activities that would
ensure that American pika populations persist despite projected climate change
impacts.
• Continue and expand monitoring efforts for pika populations and their
habitat as part of comprehensive climate change monitoring and adaptation
planning for high-elevation small mammal communities in California.
• Assess and recommend measures to reduce potential significant impacts
to American pika populations associated with activities such as mining and
livestock grazing, as part of the environmental review process for such projects.
• Assess the greenhouse gas emissions associated with proposed projects
and activities reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act. Such
assessments and associated recommendations should be made by the
Department as part of its general approach to the issue of climate change.
• Adaptation planning for climate change impacts on California's wildlife is
an on-going task of the Department. See the California Climate Change
3 The Department, along with federal and academic partners, led the formation in
2009 of the California Pika Consortium (CPC). The CPC consists of pika
researchers, wildlife and land management agency representatives, and non-
government organization members with its major purpose of facilitating
communication on issues related to the American pika and other high-elevation
small mammals in California. The group has generally met once or twice a year
since its first meeting in 2009 to share information, prioritize research topics,
discuss standardized field techniques, and to visit natural and human-made pika
sites in the eastern Sierra Nevada and western Great Basin. The CPC served as
the model for the formation of the North American Pika Consortium (NAPC),
which pursues similar goals throughout the geographic range of pikes in North
America; CPC members are actively engaged with NAPC activities. These two
organizations provide a forum for discussions of American pika biology,
conservation, and adaptation planning. The Department will continue to rely on
the CPC for information related to the American pika.
14
Adaptation Strategy (California Natural Resources Agency 2009 and DFG's
Vision Document, DFG Climate Science Web Page) for more information. The
Department, along with its diverse group of stakeholders, is also actively working
to address climate change adaptation actions for fish, wildlife, and habitats
across the state. Integrating climate change considerations into Department
functions, management activities, and conservation planning efforts such as the
state Wildlife Action Plan, are serious undertakings by the Department that have
placed it on the path towards successfully addressing climate change and the
many challenges it presents.
• Complete the Mammal Species of Special Concern update to determine
whether the American pika should be designated as a Species of Special
Concern.4 Conduct the follow-up climate-change analysis for the American pika
and other at-risk mammal taxa currently funded by a State Wildlife Grant.
Depending on the results of these analyses, the American pika may be among
those species prioritized for additional research and monitoring if funding is
available.
4 "Species of Special Concern" (SSC) is a Department administrative designation
intended to alert biologists, land managers, and others to a species' declining
status and to encourage them to afford these species additional management
consideration. SSCs are defined as species, subspecies, or distinct populations
of an animal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the
following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria: is extirpated from the State
or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role; is listed as
federally-, but not State-, threatened or endangered; meets the State definition of
threatened or endangered but has not been formally listed; is experiencing, or
formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range
retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State
threatened or endangered status; has naturally small populations exhibiting high
susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that
would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status (Comrack et al. 2008).
The Mammal Species of Special Concern (MSSC) list had been in a state of ad
hoc revision since the list was established in 1986 (Williams 1986). The
American pika is not currently designated as an MSSC. The MSSC list is now
undergoing a formal update and revision using an objective, criterion-based
method developed by the Department (see Shuford and Gardali 2008 for a
recent published example of the current method). As part of the update process,
the American pika is being evaluated, scored, and ranked using eight criteria
along with all other mammalian taxa naturally occurring in California. It is too
early in the evaluation process to ascertain whether the American pika will be on
the updated MSSC list. Additional evaluation of climate change impacts to
California mammals, including the American pika, will be made in a follow-up
analysis for the MSSC project.
15
Finally,the issues highlighted in this section represent only a portion of the
complex issues aired and considered by the Commission during the CESA listing
process for American pika. The issues addressed here in these findings
represent some, but not all of the information, issues, and considerations
affecting the Commission's final determination. Other issues aired before and
considered by the Commission are addressed in detail in the Commission's
administrative record of proceedings.
V.
FINAL DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION
The Commission has weighed and evaluated all information and inferences for
and against designating American pika as an endangered or threatened species
under CESA. This information includes scientific and other general evidence in
the Center's 2007 petition, as amended, the Department's 2008 Candidacy
Evaluation Report and 2013 Status Review, and the Department's related
recommendations based on the best available science, written and oral
comments received from members of the public, various public agencies, and the
scientific community; and other evidence included in the Commission's
administrative record of proceedings. Based upon the evidence in the
administrative record the Commission has determined that the best scientific
information available indicates that the continued existence of American pika in
California is not in serious danger or threatened in the foreseeable future by
present or threatened modifications or destruction of the species' habitat,
overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other natural occurrences or
human-related activities; stated another way, the Commission did not find
sufficient evidence of endangerment at this time. (See generally Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (i)(1)(A); Fish & G. Code, §§ 2062, 2067.) The
Commission finds for the same reason that there is not sufficient scientific
information at this time to indicate that the petitioned action is warranted. (See
Id., § 2070.) The Commission finds, as a result, that designating American pika
as an endangered or threatened species under CESA is not warranted and that,
with adoption of these findings, American pika for purposes of its legal status
under CESA shall revert to its status prior to the filing of the Center's 2007
petition. (Id., § 2075.5(2); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (i)(2).)
Fish and Game Commission
Dated: December 11, 2013 Sonke Mastrup
Executive Director
16