6438 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS-R6-ES-2009-0021 

MO 92210-0-0010] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-month Finding on a 

Petition to List the American Pika as 

Threatened or Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the American pika (Ochotona princeps) 

as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. After review of all available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that listing the American pika, 

at the species level or any of the five 

recognized subspecies (O. p. princeps, 

O. p. saxatilis, O. p. fenisex, O. p. 

schisticeps, and O. p. uinta), is not 

warranted at this time. However, we ask 

the public to submit to us any new 

information that becomes available 

concerning the threats to the American 

pika, the five subspecies, or its habitat 

at any time. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on February 9, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS-R6-ES-2009-0021. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological 

Services Field Office, 2369 W. Orton 

Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT 

84119. Please submit any new 

information, materials, comments, or 

questions concerning this finding to the 

above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah 

Ecological Services Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES); by telephone at 801-975- 

3330; or by facsimile at 801-975-3331. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800-877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, 

for any petition to revise the Federal 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants that contains 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

species may be warranted, we make a 

finding within 12 months of the date of 

receipt of the petition. In this 12–month 

finding, we may determine that the 

petitioned action is either: (1) not 

warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) 

warranted, but the immediate proposal 

of a regulation implementing the 

petitioned action is precluded by other 

pending proposals to determine whether 

species are threatened or endangered, 

and expeditious progress is being made 

to add or remove qualified species from 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 

treat a petition for which the requested 

action is found to be warranted but 

precluded as though resubmitted on the 

date of such finding, that is, requiring a 

subsequent finding to be made within 

12 months. We must publish these 12– 

month findings in the Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On October 2, 2007, we received a 

petition dated October 1, 2007, from the 

Center for Biological Diversity (Center) 

requesting that the American pika 

(Ochotona princeps) be listed as 

threatened or endangered under the Act. 

Included in the petition was a request 

that we conduct a status review of each 

of the 36 recognized subspecies of 

American pikas to determine if 

separately listing any subspecies as 

threatened or endangered may be 

warranted. Specifically, the Center 

requested that seven American pika 

subspecies be listed as endangered: the 

Ruby Mountains pika (O. p. 

nevadensis), O. p. tutelata (no common 

name), the White Mountains pika (O. p. 

sheltoni), the gray-headed pika (O. p. 

schisticeps), the Taylor pika (O. p. 

taylori), the lava-bed pika (O. p. 

goldmani), and the Bighorn Mountain 

pika (O. p. obscura). The Center 

requested that the remaining subspecies 

be listed as threatened. We 

acknowledged receipt of the petition in 

a letter to the Center dated October 18, 

2007. In that letter, we also stated that 

we could not address its petition at that 

time, because existing court orders and 

settlement agreements for other listing 

actions required nearly all of our listing 

funding. We also concluded that 

emergency listing of the American pika 

was not warranted at that time. 

We received a 60–day notice of intent 

to sue from the Center dated January 3, 

2008. We received a complaint from the 

Center on August 19, 2008. We 

submitted a settlement agreement to the 

Court on February 12, 2009, agreeing to 

submit a 90–day finding to the Federal 

Register by May 1, 2009, and, if 

appropriate, to submit a 12–month 

finding to the Federal Register by 

February 1, 2010. 

We received a letter from the Center, 

dated November 3, 2008, that discussed 

and transmitted supplemental 

information found in recent scientific 

studies that had not been included in 

the original petition. We considered this 

additional information when making 

this finding. 

In our 90–day finding published on 

May 7, 2009 (74 FR 21301), we reviewed 

the petition, petition supplement, 

supporting information provided by the 

petitioner, and information in our files, 

and evaluated that information to 

determine whether the sources cited 

support the claims made in the petition. 

We found that the petitioner presented 

substantial information indicating that 

listing the American pika as threatened 

or endangered under the Act may be 

warranted, because of the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range as a 

result of effects related to global climate 

change. We also solicited additional 

data and information from the public, 

other governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, and 

other interested parties concerning the 

status of the American pika throughout 

its range. The information collection 

period for submission of additional 

information ended on July 6, 2009. This 

notice constitutes our 12–month finding 

on the October 1, 2007, petition to list 

the American pika as threatened or 

endangered. 

Species Information 

Biology 

Like other pika species, the American 

pika (hereafter pika, unless stated 

otherwise) has an egg-shaped body with 

short legs, moderately large ears, and no 

visible tail (Smith and Weston 1990, p. 

2). Fur color varies among subspecies 

and across seasons, typically with 

shorter, brownish fur in summer and 

longer, grayish fur in winter (Smith and 

Weston 1990, p. 3). The species is 

intermediately sized, with adult body 

lengths ranging from 162 to 216 

millimeters (6.3 to 8.5 inches) and mean 

body mass ranging from 121 to 176 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6439 

grams (4.3 to 6.2 ounces) (Hall 1981, p. 

287; Smith and Weston 1990, p. 2). 

American pikas are generalist 

herbivores that select different classes of 

vegetation (Huntley et al. 1986, p. 143) 

and use different parts of the same 

plants when grazing versus haying 

(Dearing 1997a, p. 1160). Feeding (the 

immediate consumption of vegetation) 

occurs year-round; haying (the storage 

of vegetation for later consumption) and 

the creation of haypiles occurs only in 

summer months after the breeding 

season (Smith and Weston 1990, p. 4). 

The primary purpose of haypiles is 

overwintering sustenance, and 

individuals harvest more vegetation 

than necessary for these haypiles 

(Dearing 1997a, p. 1156). Pikas feed an 

average distance of 2 meters (m) (6.5 feet 

(ft)) from talus and will travel an 

average distance of 7 m (23 ft) when 

haying (Huntly et al. 1986, pp. 141-142). 

Huntly et al. (1986, p. 142) found that 

no feeding occurred beyond 10 m (33 ft) 

from talus, but haying was observed up 

to 30 m (98 ft). 

Vegetative communities immediately 

adjacent to pika locations are typically 

dominated by grasses (Huntly 1987, p. 

275). When pikas are excluded from 

grazing near talus slopes, the biomass of 

forbs and sedges (Roach et al. 2001, p. 

319) and cushion plants (Huntly 1987, 

p. 275) increases rapidly. Therefore, 

foraging pikas influence the presence of 

specific plant classes or functional 

groups, vegetative cover, and species 

richness (Huntly 1987, p. 274; Roach et 

al. 2001, p. 315), and modify habitat in 

their quest for food and survival (Aho et 

al. 1998, p. 405). Forbs and woody 

plants are typically found in pika 

haypiles (Huntly et al. 1986, p. 143), 

which provide the major source of 

sustenance for the winter (Dearing 

1997a, p. 1156). High phenolic 

(chemical compounds characterized by 

high acidity) concentrations of forbs and 

shrubs prevent pikas from grazing 

immediately on these plant types; 

however, pikas cache these plants and 

delay consumption until the toxins 

decay to tolerable levels (Dearing 1997b, 

p. 774). Additionally, plants with high 

levels of the phenolics deter bacterial 

growth and exhibit superior 

preservation qualities (Dearing 1997b, p. 

774). 

Thermoregulation is an important 

aspect of American pika physiology, 

because individuals have a high normal 

body temperature of approximately 40 

°C (104 °F) (MacArthur and Wang 1973, 

p. 11; Smith and Weston 1990, p. 3), 

and a relatively low lethal maximum 

body temperature threshold of 

approximately 43 °C (109.4 °F) (Smith 

and Weston 1990, p. 3). Most 

thermoregulation of individuals is 

behavioral, not physiological (Smith 

1974b, p. 1372; Smith and Weston 1990, 

p. 3). In warmer environments, such as 

during midday sun and at lower 

elevation limits, pikas typically become 

inactive and withdraw into cooler talus 

openings (Smith 1974b, p. 1372; Smith 

and Weston 1990, p. 3). Below-surface 

temperatures within talus openings can 

be as much as 24 °C (43.2 °F) cooler 

than surface temperatures during the 

hottest time of day (Finn 2009a, pers. 

comm.). Pikas avoid hyperthermia (heat 

stroke) during summer months by 

engaging in short bursts of surface 

activity followed by retreat to a cooler 

microclimate beneath the surface 

(MacArthur and Wang 1974, p. 357). 

Pikas can be nocturnal where daytime 

temperatures are stressful and restrict 

diurnal activity (Smith 1974b, p. 1371). 

Habitat occupied by American pikas 

is often patchily distributed, leading to 

a local population structure that is 

composed of island-like sites commonly 

termed a metapopulation (Smith and 

Weston 1990, p. 4; Moilanen et al. 1998, 

pp. 531-532). A metapopulation is 

composed of many largely discrete local 

populations, and metapopulation 

dynamics are characterized by 

extinction and recolonization occurring 

within independent local populations 

(Hanski 1999, cited in Meredith 2002, p. 

47). Local populations that make up 

each metapopulation frequently become 

extirpated and can be subsequently 

reestablished by immigration (Smith 

1974a, p. 1112; Moilanen et al. 1998, p. 

532). American pikas within 

metapopulations often exhibit a low 

emigration rate, especially in adults. 

Juveniles usually have short migration 

distances; however, exceptions occur 

(Peacock 1997, pp. 346-348). 

Dynamics of American pika 

populations are sufficiently 

asynchronous (not occurring at the same 

time), so that simultaneous extinction of 

entire metapopulations is unlikely 

(Smith 1980, p. 11; Moilanen et al. 1998, 

p. 532). When a single population 

becomes extirpated, distance to a source 

of colonizing pikas is an influential 

factor determining the probability of 

recolonization (Smith 1980, p. 11). 

American pika populations on small 

and medium-sized islands are more 

likely to be extirpated, with the 

probability of extirpation being higher 

on more distant islands (Smith 1980, p. 

12). 

Historically, researchers hypothesized 

that American pika juveniles are 

philopatric (remain in or return to their 

birthplace), dispersing only if no 

territory is available within their birth 

place (various studies cited in Smith 

and Weston 1990, p. 6). However, 

Peacock (1997, pp. 346-348) 

demonstrated that juvenile emigration 

to other population sites occurred over 

both long (2 kilometers (km); 1.24 miles 

(mi)) and short distances, and acted to 

support population stability by 

replacing deceased adults. Territory 

availability is a key factor for dispersal 

patterns, and local pika populations 

lack clusters of highly related 

individuals (Peacock 1997, pp. 347- 

348). 

Dispersal by American pikas is 

governed by physical limitations. Smith 

(1974a, p. 1116) suggested that it was 

difficult for juveniles to disperse over 

distances greater than 300 m (984 ft) in 

low-elevation (2,500 m (8,200 ft)) 

populations. Lower elevations are 

warmer in summer and represent the 

lower edge of the elevational range of 

the species (Smith 1974a, p. 1112). 

While dispersal distances of 3 km (1.9 

mi) have been documented at other 

locations and elevational ranges (Hafner 

and Sullivan 1995, p. 312), it is believed 

that the maximum individual dispersal 

distance is probably between 10 and 20 

km (6.2 and 12.4 mi) (Hafner and 

Sullivan 1995, p. 312). This conclusion 

is based on genetic (Hafner and Sullivan 

1995, pp. 302-321) and biogeographical 

(Hafner 1994, pp. 375-382) analysis. 

Genetic analysis revealed that pika 

metapopulations are separated by 

between 10 and 100 km (6.2 to 62 mi) 

(Hafner and Sullivan 1995, p. 312). 

Biogeographical analysis demonstrated 

that, during the warmer period of the 

mid-Holocene (about 6,500 years ago), 

the species retreated to cooler sites, and 

the species subsequently expanded its 

range somewhat as climatic conditions 

cooled (Hafner 1994, p. 381). However, 

the species has not recolonized vacant 

habitat patches greater than 20 km (12.4 

mi) from refugia sites and has 

recolonized less than 7.8 percent of 

available patches within 20 km (12.4 

mi) of those same refugia sites (Hafner 

1994, p. 381). The lack of recolonization 

is due to habitat becoming unsuitable 

from vegetation filling in talus areas 

(removing pika habitat) or from habitat 

becoming too dry due to environmental 

changes resulting from historical 

changes in climate (Hafner 1994, p. 

381). 

Individual pikas are territorial, 

maintaining a defended territory of 410 

to 709 square meters (m2) (4,413 to 

7,631 square feet (ft2)), but fully using 

overlapping home ranges of 861 to 2,182 

m2 (9,268 to 23,486 ft2) (various studies 

cited in Smith and Weston 1990, p. 5). 

Individuals mark their territories with 

scent and defend the territories through 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6440 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

aggressive fights and chases (Smith and 

Weston 1990, p. 5). 

Adults with adjacent territories form 

monogamous mating pairs. Males are 

sexually monogamous, but make little 

investment in rearing offspring (Smith 

and Weston 1990, pp. 5-6). Females give 

birth to average litter sizes of 2.4 to 3.7 

twice a year (Smith and Weston 1990, 

p. 4). However, fewer than 10 percent of 

weaned juveniles originate from the 

second litter, because mothers only 

wean the second litter if the first litter 

is lost (various studies cited in Smith 

and Weston 1990, p. 4). 

Adult pikas can be territorially 

aggressive to juveniles, and parents can 

become aggressive to their own 

offspring within 3 to 4 weeks after birth 

(Smith and Weston 1990, p. 4). To 

survive the winter, juveniles need to 

establish their own territories and create 

haypiles before the winter snowpack 

(Smith and Weston 1990, p. 6; Peacock 

1997, p. 348). However, establishing a 

territory and building a haypile does not 

ensure survival. 

Yearly average mortality in pika 

populations is between 37 and 53 

percent. Few pikas live to be 4 years of 

age (Peacock 1997, p. 346), however, 

some individuals survive up to 7 years 

(Smith 2009, p. 2). 

Taxonomy 

Historically, many taxonomic forms 

have been identified within Nearctic 

pikas, including as many as 13 species 

and 37 subspecies (Hafner and Smith 

2009, p. 1). Initially, 13 species and 25 

subspecies of Nearctic (a biogeographic 

region that includes the Arctic and 

temperate areas of North America and 

Greenland) pikas were described 

(Richardson 1828, cited in Hafner and 

Smith 2009). Howell (1924, pp. 10-11) 

performed a full taxonomic revision of 

the American pika and recognized 3 

species: Ochotona collaris, Ochotona 

princeps (16 subspecies), and Ochotona 

schisticeps (9 subspecies). Later, Hall 

(1981, pp. 286-292) described 36 

subspecies of American pika spread 

throughout western Canada and the 

western United States. The petition 

(Wolf et al. 2007) from the Center of 

Biological Diversity that requested that 

all American pika subspecies be listed 

as threatened or endangered was based 

on the Hall (1981, pp. 286-292) 

taxonomy. 

These references, in addition to others 

(Hafner and Smith 2009, p. 5) were used 

as the set of authoritative resources on 

pika taxonomy until genetic work 

identified four major genetic units of the 

American pika in the northern Rocky 

Mountains, Sierra Nevada, southern 

Rocky Mountains, and Cascade Range 

(Hafner and Sullivan 1995, p. 308). 

Further molecular phylogenetic and 

morphometric studies indicate the 

existence of five cohesive genetic units 

that have been referred to as ‘‘distinct 

evolutionarily significant units’’ 

(Galbreath et al. 2009a, p. 17; Galbreath 

et al. 2009b, pp. 7, 52). These studies 

support a revision of the subspecific 

taxonomy of the American pika to 

include five recognized subspecies: 

Ochotona princeps princeps (Northern 

Rockies), O. p. saxatilis (Southern 

Rockies), O. p. fenisex (Coast Mountains 

and Cascade Range), O. p. schisticeps 

(Sierra Nevada and Great Basin), and O. 

p. uinta (Uinta Mountains and Wasatch 

Range of Central Utah) (Hafner and 

Smith 2009, pp. 16-25). The previously 

described 36 subspecies (Hall 1981, pp. 

286-292) are now referred to as 

subspecies synonyms, with each 

subspecies synonym corresponding to a 

subspecies described by Hafner and 

Smith (2009, pp. 16-25). We are making 

our finding based on the most recent 

information that has identified five 

subspecies of American pika. The 

petition (Wolf et al. 2007) from the 

Center of Biological Diversity no longer 

contains the best available information 

on taxonomy. 

Historic Distribution and Habitat 

The restriction of American pikas to 

their current distribution (discussed 

below) is relatively recent. The shift in 

habitat range was shaped by long-term 

climate change and attendant impacts 

on vegetation. 

The geographic distribution of 

American pika may have encompassed 

not only the western United States and 

Canada during the last glacial maximum 

(30,000 years ago or later), but also parts 

of the eastern United States (Grayson 

2005, p. 2104). Archaeological and 

paleontological records for pika 

demonstrate that approximately 12,000 

years ago, pikas were living at relatively 

low elevations (less than 2,000 m (6,560 

ft)) in areas devoid of talus (Mead 1987, 

p. 169; Grayson 2005, p. 2104). By the 

Wisconsinan glacial period 

(approximately 40,000 to 10,000 years 

ago), American pikas were restricted to 

the intermontane region of the western 

United States and Canada. 

Low-elevation populations of 

American pikas became extinct in the 

northern half of the Great Basin between 

7,000 and 5,000 years ago (Grayson 

1987, p. 370). Fossil records indicate 

that the species inhabited sites farther 

south and at lower elevations than the 

current distribution during the late 

Wisconsinan and early Holocene 

periods (approximately 40,000 to 7,500 

years ago), but warming and drying 

climatic trends in the middle Holocene 

period (approximately 7,500 to 4,500 

years ago) forced populations into the 

current distribution of montane refugia 

(Grayson 2005, p. 2103; Smith and 

Weston 1990, p. 2). During the late 

Wisconsinan and early Holocene, nowextirpated American pika populations 

in the Great Basin occurred at an 

average elevation of 1,750 m (5,740 ft), 

which is 783 m (2,569 ft) lower than 18 

extant (in existence) Great Basin pika 

populations (Grayson 2005, p. 2106). 

Current Distribution and Habitat 

Ochotona princeps princeps is 

patchily distributed in cool, rocky 

habitat, primarily in high-elevation 

alpine habitats (see below for 

exceptions), from the Northern Rocky 

Mountains of central British Columbia 

and Alberta through Idaho and 

Montana, several mountain ranges of 

Wyoming, the Ruby Mountains of 

Nevada, the Wasatch Range of Idaho 

and Utah, and the Park Range and Front 

Range of Colorado north of the Colorado 

River (Hafner and Smith 2009, p.19). O. 

p. saxatilis occupies habitat in the 

southern Rocky Mountains south of the 

Colorado River (Front Range, San Juan 

Mountains, Sangre de Cristo Range), and 

isolated highlands including the La Sal 

Mountains of southeastern Utah, Grand 

Mesa of Colorado, and Jemez Mountains 

of New Mexico (Hafner and Smith 2009, 

pp. 21-22). O. p. schisticeps occupies 

habitats in volcanic peaks of northern 

California, throughout the Sierra Nevada 

of California and Nevada, and isolated 

highlands throughout the Great Basin of 

Nevada, eastern Oregon (north to the 

Blue Mountains), and southwestern 

Utah (Hafner and Smith 2009, pp. 23- 

24). O. p. fenisex occupies habitats from 

the Coast Mountains and Cascade Range 

from central British Columbia south to 

southern Oregon (Hafner and Smith 

2009, p. 20). O. p. uinta is patchily 

distributed in habitats in the Uinta 

Mountains and Wasatch Range of 

central Utah (Hafner and Smith 2009, p. 

24). 

Temperature restrictions influence the 

species’ distribution because 

hyperthermia or death can occur after 

brief exposures (as little as 6 hours) to 

ambient temperatures greater than 

25.5 °C (77.9 °F), if individuals cannot 

seek refuge from heat stress (Smith 

1974b, p. 1372). Therefore, American 

pika habitat progressively increases in 

elevation in the southern extent of the 

distribution (Smith and Weston 1990, p. 

2). In the northern part of its 

distribution (southwestern Canada), 

populations occur from sea level to 

3,000 m (9,842 ft), but in the southern 

extent (New Mexico, Nevada, and 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6441 

southern California) populations rarely 

exist below 2,500 m (8,202 ft) (Smith 

and Weston 1990, p. 2). Some 

exceptions exist in the southern portion 

of the species’ range. For example, pikas 

in 10 percent of 420 study sites in the 

Sierra Nevada Mountains, Great Basin, 

and Oregon Cascade Mountains occur 

below 2,500 m and as low as 1,645 m 

(5,396 ft) at McKenzie Pass in the 

Cascade Mountains of Oregon (Millar 

and Westfall 2009, p. 16). Beever et al. 

(2008, p. 10) recently discovered a new 

population of American pika in the 

Hays Canyon Range of northwestern 

Nevada at elevations ranging from 1,914 

to 2,136 m (6,280 to 7,008 ft). 

American pikas primarily inhabit 

talus fields fringed by suitable 

vegetation in alpine or subalpine areas 

(Smith and Weston 1990, pp. 2-4). A 

generalist herbivore that does not 

hibernate, the species relies on haypiles 

of summer vegetation stored within 

talus openings to persist throughout the 

winter months (Smith and Weston 1990, 

p. 3). Alpine meadows that provide 

forage are important to pika survival in 

montane environments. The species also 

occupies other habitats that include 

volcanic land features (Beever 2002, p. 

26; Millar and Westfall 2009, p. 10) and 

anthropogenic settings such as mine 

tailings, piles of lumber, stone walls, 

rockwork dams, and historic 

foundations (Smith 1974a, p. 1112; 

Smith 1974b, p. 1369; Lutton 1975, p. 

231; Crisafulli 2009, pers. comm.; Millar 

and Westfall 2009, p. 10). 

Pikas use talus, which can include 

rock-ice features, and other habitat types 

for den sites, food storage, and nesting 

(Smith and Weston 1990, p. 4; Beever et 

al. 2003, p. 39). Rock-ice features are 

defined as glacial- or periglacial- (i.e., 

around or near glaciers) derived 

landforms in high-elevation, semi-arid 

temperature mountain ranges and arctic 

landscapes (Millar and Westfall 2008, 

pp. 90-91). Talus, rock-ice feature till, 

and volcanic features (described below) 

also provide microclimate conditions 

suitable for pika survival by creating 

cooler, moist refugia in summer months 

(Beever 2002, p. 27; Millar and Westfall 

2009, p. 19-21) and insulating 

individuals in the colder winter months 

(Smith 1978, p. 137; Millar and Westfall 

2009, p. 21). 

Among 420 sites surveyed by Millar 

and Westfall (2009, p. 10), 83 percent of 

the pika sites occurred in rock-ice 

feature till, most notably rock-glacier 

and boulder-stream landforms, which 

contain topographic-climatic conditions 

that are favored by pikas (Millar and 

Westfall 2009, p. 20). 

Pikas also inhabit more atypical 

habitats that include lava tubes, caves, 

valley trenches, fault scarps, fault 

cracks, and cliff faces, which provide 

suitable habitat and thermal refuge 

(Beever 2002, pp. 26, 28; Millar and 

Westfall 2009, p. 10). For example, in 

Lava Beds National Monument in 

northern California and Craters of the 

Moon National Monument in southern 

Idaho, pikas typically inhabit large, 

contiguous areas of volcanic habitat 

(Beever 2002, p. 28). Within this habitat 

type, forage vegetation is accessible 

within distances comparable to 

dimensions of home ranges (Beever 

2002, p. 28). Pikas select habitat that 

includes topographical features 

characterized by rocks large enough to 

provide necessary interstitial spaces for 

underground movement and tunneling. 

Like talus and rock-ice features, these 

habitats provide pikas with cool refugia 

during conditions that may result in 

heat stress, which in addition to 

behavioral thermoregulation 

mechanisms, allow pika to persist in 

these low-elevation and potentially 

thermally challenging environments 

(Beever 2002, pp. 27-28). 

Population Status 

We relied on information from the 

International Union for Conservation 

and Nature of Natural Resources (IUCN), 

NatureServe, published literature, and 

public submissions during the 

information collection period on our 

90–day finding to evaluate the status of 

American pika populations. 

The IUCN Red List of Threatened 

Species provides taxonomic, 

conservation status, and distribution 

information on plants and animals 

(IUCN 2009, p. 2). The IUCN Red List 

system is designed to determine the 

relative risk of extinction for species, 

and to catalogue and highlight plant and 

animal species that are facing a higher 

risk of global extinction. The IUCN 

identified the status of the American 

pika species as Least Concern in 2008 

under the Red List review process 

(Beever and Smith 2008, p. 3). 

According to IUCN (version 3.1): ‘‘a 

taxon is Least Concern when it has been 

evaluated against the criteria and does 

not qualify for Critically Endangered, 

Endangered, Vulnerable or Near 

Threatened. Widespread and abundant 

taxa are included in this category.’’ The 

IUCN uses five quantitative criteria to 

determine whether a taxon is threatened 

or not, and if threatened, which category 

of threat it belongs in (i.e., critically 

endangered, endangered, or vulnerable). 

‘‘To list a particular taxon in any of the 

categories of threat, only one of the 

criteria needs to be met. The five criteria 

are: (1) Declining population (past, 

present and/or projected); (2) 

Geographic range size, and 

fragmentation, decline or fluctuations; 

(3) Small population size and 

fragmentation, decline, or fluctuations; 

(4) Very small population or very 

restricted distribution; and (5) 

Quantitative analysis of extinction risk 

(e.g., Population Viability Analysis) 

(IUCN Standards and Petitions Working 

Group 2008, p. 11).’’ 

However, the IUCN (using the Hall 

(1981) taxonomic classification, as 

Vulnerable or Near Threatened) 

considers eight American pika 

subspecies synonyms. These subspecies 

synonyms are Ochotona princeps 

goldmani, O. p. lasalensis, O. p 

nevadensis, O. p. nigrescens, O. p. 

obscura, O. p. sheltoni, O. p. tutelata, 

and O. p. schisticeps (Beever and Smith 

2008, p. 3). A vulnerable species or 

subspecies is facing a high risk of 

extinction in the wild. A near 

threatened species or subspecies is close 

to qualifying as or is likely to qualify as 

vulnerable in the near future (IUCN, 

section 3.1). Status for the eight 

subspecies synonyms applies under the 

Hall (1981) taxonomic classification of 

the American pika but may not apply to 

any of the subspecies described by 

Hafner and Smith (2009, pp. 16-25). For 

example, a status of ‘‘vulnerable’’ for O. 

p. goldmani does not imply that O. p. 

princeps (described by Hafner and 

Smith 2009, pp. 17-20) is vulnerable as 

well because the range of O. p. goldmani 

does not constitute the entire range of O. 

p. princeps. 

NatureServe is a nonprofit 

organization that, in part, collects and 

manages species information and data 

in an effort to increase our 

understanding of species, ecosystems, 

and conservation issues (NatureServe 

2009a, p. 1). NatureServe also assesses 

available scientific information to 

determine species status based on 

factors, including population number 

and size, trends, and threats. 

NatureServe provides comprehensive 

reports for species, including American 

pika. The report (Nature Service 2009b, 

pp. 1-7) for the American pika includes 

taxonomic information, conservation 

status information, lists of natural 

heritage records, species distribution by 

watershed, ecology and life history 

information, population delineation, 

population viability, and references. 

The report does not contain information 

on threats or a justification for 

designation of conservation status 

within states and provinces. 

In a review conducted in 1996, 

NatureServe assigned the American pika 

a global status of secure (i.e., common; 

widespread and abundant) in the United 

States and the Canadian provinces of 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6442 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Alberta and British and Columbia 

(NatureServe 2009b, pp. 1-2; Quinlan 

2009, pers. comm.). Within the United 

States, NatureServe considers the 

species secure or apparently secure (i.e., 

uncommon but not rare; some cause for 

long-term concern due to declines or 

other factors) in Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, Oregon, Washington, and 

Wyoming. NatureServe assigned the 

American pika a status of vulnerable in 

California and Utah (i.e., vulnerable in 

the jurisdiction due to a restricted range, 

relatively few populations, recent and 

widespread declines, or other factors 

making it vulnerable to extirpation), and 

a status of imperiled in Nevada and 

New Mexico (i.e., imperiled in the 

jurisdiction, because of rarity due to 

very restricted range, very few 

populations, steep declines, or other 

factors making it very vulnerable to 

extirpation from the jurisdiction). 

Northern Rocky Mountain Subspecies 

(Ochotona princeps princeps) 

The Northern Rocky Mountains 

subspecies (Ochotona princeps 

princeps) occurs primarily in Canada, 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, with a 

smaller amount of occupied habitat in 

Washington, Nevada, Utah, and 

Colorado. Data on status and trends of 

O. p. princeps are lacking for portions 

of the subspecies range. Available data 

consists mostly of a list of sites verified 

to be occupied in recent surveys. In 

locations where pika surveys have been 

conducted, we do not have historical 

information of the subspecies’ at those 

sites for comparison. 

The Canadian Endangered Species 

Conservation Council (2005) assigned a 

ranking of secure to Ochotona princeps 

princeps in Alberta and British 

Columbia, which are the only two 

provinces where this subspecies occurs 

in Canada. The ranking is based upon 

occurrence of large numbers of pikas in 

secure habitat (British Columbia 

Conservation Data Centre 2009, p. 1; 

Court 2009, pers. comm.). Pikas are 

common in suitable habitat in the 

mountains on both provincial lands and 

in national parks (Court 2009, pers. 

comm.). The population is thought to be 

stable in Alberta, Canada (Court 2009, 

pers. comm.). Greater than 100 

occurrences of O. p. princeps occur 

within Alberta (Court 2009, pers. 

comm.). We do not have population 

trend information for British Columbia. 

We do not have any information to 

suggest the distribution of the pika is 

changing in Canada. 

In Montana, there is little historical 

information to assess whether habitat 

loss has occurred or if populations are 

stable. Limited available data does not 

indicate a decline. Approximately 90 

percent of available habitat in Glacier 

National Park is occupied (National 

Park Service (NPS) 2009, p. 9). Based 

upon occupancy rates elsewhere (Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) 

2009, pp. 6, 11), we conclude the 

occupancy rate of pikas within Glacier 

National Park is high. 

Limited data are available for pika 

distribution, abundance, and population 

status in Wyoming. American pikas 

occur in every Wyoming mountain 

range except Laramie, Wasatch, and 

Black Hills (Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (WGFD) 2009, p. 1). 

American pikas are believed to occur in 

all locations where they were observed 

historically within the Grand Teton 

National Park (NPS 2009, p. 10). The 

WGFD will add the American pika to 

their 2010 State Wildlife Action Plan 

(WAP) (WGFD 2009, p. 1). They propose 

to treat the subspecies as having an 

Unknown Native Species Status because 

population and distribution trends are 

unknown and limiting factors are poorly 

understood (WGFD 2009, p. 1). 

In Idaho, the subspecies is broadly 

distributed and occupies a substantial 

number of sites throughout much of the 

State (Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game (IDFG) 2009, p. 1). The IDFG has 

no information to suggest threats exist to 

the subspecies. Pikas are not identified 

as a Species of Greatest Conservation 

Need in the Idaho Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) 

and pikas are considered to be secure, 

common, and widespread based on 

NatureServe’s conservation status (IDFG 

2005, App. A, p. 18). O. p. princeps was 

studied at Craters of the Moon National 

Monument in Idaho (Beever 2002, p. 25; 

NPS 2009, pp. 2-3), but reports did not 

reveal any information related to the 

status of pika populations there. 

Ochotona princeps princeps in Utah 

currently have a high occupancy rate 

(96 percent) in suitable habitat (UDWR 

2009, p. 7). Although there is no 

historical population information, 

UDWR believes that the high occupancy 

rate reflects stable populations (UDWR 

2009, p. 11). 

In Colorado, Ochotona princeps 

princeps is found only in the northern 

part of the State. Colorado Division of 

Wildlife (CDOW) (2009, p. 19) 

documented greater than 40 occupied 

sites based on historic and recent site 

surveys. Reports on O. p. princeps in 

Colorado do not provide any 

information on status (NPS 2009, p. 10- 

12; Ray 2009, pp. 1-4). 

Nevada and Washington have little 

information on the subspecies status. 

American pika records collected from 

1969 to 2008 from the Ruby Mountain 

chain in northeast Nevada identify at 

least 33 pika locations (Nevada 

Department of Wildlife (NDOW) 2009, 

pp. 2-3); however, we have no 

information on the status of populations 

from those locations. We have no 

information on the status of O. p. 

princeps in Washington. 

As previously stated, Beever and 

Smith (2008, p. 3) considered 

populations of O. p. goldmani, O. p. 

nevadensis, and O. p obscura, which 

represent a portion of the range of O. p. 

princeps (Hafner and Smith 2009, pp. 

18-19), as vulnerable (i.e., facing a high 

risk of extinction in the wild). 

Additionally, NatureServe (2009, p. 2) 

assigned Utah pikas, which contains 

populations representing all subspecies 

except O. p. fenisex, a status of 

vulnerable (i.e., a restricted range, 

relatively few populations, recent and 

widespread declines, or other factors 

making it vulnerable to extirpation). 

In summary, most States and 

provinces that contain populations of O. 

p. princeps have not determined the 

subspecies’ status and do not have 

information on population trends. Some 

populations within central Idaho (O. p. 

goldmani), northwestern Nevada (O. p. 

nevadensis), north-central Wyoming (O. 

p. obscura), and north-central Utah may 

be vulnerable (Beever and Smith 2008, 

p. 3; NatureServe 2009, p. 2). Outside of 

these areas, we do not have adequate 

information to determine the status of 

O. p. princeps populations. 

Sierra Nevada Subspecies (Ochotona 

princeps schisticeps) 

The Sierra Nevada subspecies 

(Ochotona princeps schisticeps) occurs 

primarily in California, Nevada, and 

Oregon with a small portion of occupied 

habitat in Utah. This subspecies has 

received more scientific study than any 

other American pika subspecies 

(Grayson 2005, p. 2104). Pikas are 

designated as a vulnerable species as 

well as a species of conservation 

priority in Nevada’s WAP, with a 

declining population (WAP Team 2006, 

pp. 291, 405). O. p. schisticeps status 

appears to be declining within the 

interior Great Basin, primarily in 

southern Oregon and northwestern 

Nevada, and some places along the 

eastern Sierra Nevada Mountain Range 

(Beever et al. 2003, p. 44; Wilkening 

2007, p. 58); however, outside of these 

areas there is no indication that the 

subspecies is in decline (Millar and 

Westfall 2009, p. 25). As identified by 

Beever et al. (2003, pp. 39, 44), the 

interior Great Basin refers to the 

hydrographic definition of the Great 

Basin (Grayson 1993, cited in Beever et 

al. 2003, p. 39). 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6443 

As previously mentioned, some 

isolated populations of O. p. schisticeps 

have been extirpated in the interior 

Great Basin. Beever et al. (2003, p. 43) 

did not detect pikas at 6 of 25 historical 

(dating back to the early to mid-1900s) 

populations during surveys from 1994 

to 1999 and later documented three 

extirpations during 2000 to 2007 

(Wilkening 2007, pp. 25-27; Beever et 

al. 2009, p. 15). 

Researchers have not systematically 

searched all potential pika habitat 

within the Great Basin and acknowledge 

that other sites with pikas may exist 

(Beever et al. 2009, pp. 31), particularly 

the Toiyabe Mountain Range, White 

Mountains, Toquima Mountain Range, 

and the Warner Mountains (Meredith 

2002, p. 11; Beever 2009a, pers. comm.). 

In fact, two new sites were discovered 

in the Great Basin in northwestern 

Nevada from 2008 to 2009: Hays Canyon 

(Beever et al. 2008, p. 9) and SheldonHart National Wildlife Refuge (Collins 

2009, pers. comm.). However, the 

subspecies is rare in the Great Basin, 

and likely has been relatively rare in the 

Great Basin for the past several 

thousand years. It is unlikely that many 

additional occupied sites will be found 

(Beever et al. 2008, p. 11). 

Trends of pika status are mixed in 

other locations within the subspecies 

range. Pikas occur within Sequoia and 

Kings Canyon National Parks in 

California along the eastern edge of the 

Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, 

however, the population status is 

unknown (NPS 2009, p. 6). Pikas are 

widely distributed throughout Lava 

Beds National Monument (Ray and 

Beever 2007, p. 2) and populations 

appear to persist in warmer and drier 

sites, which is contrary to expectations 

because pikas are generally restricted to 

cool, moist habitats on higher peaks 

(Hafner 1993, p. 375). The lower 

elevation range limit of pikas in 

Yosemite National Park has contracted 

and moved upslope by 153 m (502 ft) 

(Moritz et al. 2008, p. 263), and at least 

one historic pika site has been 

extirpated within the Park (Moritz 2007, 

p. 37). Despite this extirpation, we do 

not know the status of the entire 

Yosemite National Park pika 

population. Pika populations near 

Bodie, California, have experienced 

decline as well, but not in the largest 

portion of the population which 

contains more suitable habitat and 

subsequently more pikas (Moilanen et 

al. 1998, p. 531; Nichols 2009, pp. 2, 5; 

Smith 2009, pers. comm.). 

The relative number of unoccupied 

sites increased from the Sierra Nevada 

eastward into the Great Basin ranges 

(Millar and Westfall 2009, pp. 9, 11). 

Millar and Westfall (2009, p. 25) 

concluded that pika populations in the 

Sierra Nevada and southwestern Great 

Basin are thriving and show little 

evidence of extirpation or decline. 

Central Great Basin populations, on the 

other hand, appear less viable and more 

subject to disturbance from random 

events (Millar and Westfall 2009, p. 25). 

In Utah, a population of pikas at 

Cedar Breaks National Monument was 

extirpated sometime between 1974 and 

2006 (Oliver 2007, p. 5). As of 2009, the 

site still does not contain pikas (NPS 

2009, p. 9). Pikas may have disappeared 

from sites near Lava Point in Zion 

National Park (NPS 2009, p. 13; Oliver 

2007, pp. 7-8). However, pikas occur in 

other nearby locations (NPS 2009, p. 9; 

UDWR 2009, p. 20), demonstrating that 

suitable habitat capable of supporting a 

pika population still exists in southern 

Utah. Eighty-four percent of Ochotona 

princeps schisticeps suitable habitats in 

Utah are occupied (UDWR 2009, p. 7). 

In summary, despite some of the 

uncertainty in trends across the current 

range of O. p. schisticeps populations, it 

is clear that some interior Great Basin 

pika populations (Beever et al. 2003, pp. 

44, 53-54; Beever et al. 2009, p. 6) are 

being extirpated and moving upslope in 

elevation. The recent loss of lowelevation historical pika populations 

near the southern edge of historical 

range within the Great Basin appears to 

track the fossil record (see section on 

Historic Distribution and Habitat). The 

recent rate of population loss is more 

rapid than that suggested by 

paleontological records (Beever et al. 

2003, p. 48). The majority of suitable 

habitat for O. p. schisticeps occurs 

outside of the Great Basin in the Sierra 

Nevada Mountain Range and a large 

study area in the Sierra Nevada 

Mountain Range shows the status 

appears to be stable. 

Southern Rocky Mountain Subspecies 

(Ochotona princeps saxatilis) 

Even in the absence of survey data for 

portions of the range of the Southern 

Rocky Mountain subspecies, Ochotona 

princeps saxatilis, available information 

suggests that the subspecies is stable 

across the majority of its range. Survey 

data are lacking for portions of the 

subspecies’ range. 

Pikas are well distributed in highelevation areas of Colorado, which 

contains the majority of the subspecies’ 

habitat. Fifty-eight of 62 historical sites 

surveyed had O. p. saxatilis populations 

persisting even at relatively lowelevation 2,743 to 3,048 m (9,000 to 

10,000 ft) sites (CDOW 2009, p. 22; 

Peterson 2009, pers. comm.). Pika 

habitat is extensive in Colorado, and 

connectivity between pika habitat and 

populations appears sufficient to 

maintain a healthy population structure 

(CDOW 2009, p. 22). 

In Utah, 92 percent of surveyed 

suitable pika habitat in the La Sal 

Mountains of eastern Utah was 

occupied (UDWR 2009, p. 7). There is 

no evidence of declines of American 

pika populations from historical levels 

in Utah (UDWR 2009, p. 11). 

Density and trend data are not 

available for Ochotona princeps 

saxatilis populations in New Mexico 

(New Mexico Department of Game and 

Fish (NMDGF) 2009, p. 2; U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) 2009, p. 1). New 

Mexico’s CWCS lists the Goat Peak pika 

(was Ochotona princeps nigrescens, 

now included in O. p. saxatilis) as a 

subspecies of greatest conservation need 

as well as vulnerable and State sensitive 

(NMDGF 2006, pp. 55, 57). However, 

based on limited field observation, 

persistence of O. p saxatilis populations 

within New Mexico does not appear to 

reflect the pattern of recent extirpation 

observed within the interior Great Basin 

(NMDGF 2009, p. 3). Beever and Smith 

(2008, p. 3) have assigned O. p. 

lasalensis and O. p. nigrescens, which 

now belong to the O. p. saxatilis 

subspecies (see Table 1; Hafner and 

Smith 2009, p. 21), a status of 

vulnerable. 

Despite some of the uncertainty in 

status across the range of O. p. saxatilis 

in New Mexico, the subspecies appears 

to be well distributed throughout the 

available habitat, especially in Colorado 

and Utah (CDOW 2009, p. 22; UDWR 

2009, p. 11). There is no evidence 

indicating that the subspecies is in 

decline across its range in Utah and 

Colorado. Based on other status reviews 

(Beever and Smith 2008; NatureServe 

2009b, p. 2), further monitoring may be 

warranted for O. p. saxatilis populations 

in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico 

and La Sal Mountains of Utah to obtain 

a current status characterization of this 

portion of the subspecies range. 

Cascade Mountain Subspecies 

(Ochotona princeps fenisex) 

We have no trend data available for 

Ochotona princeps fenisex populations. 

In many locations where recent pika 

surveys have been conducted, no 

historical information exists for 

purposes of comparison. NatureServe 

has assigned the American pika a status 

of apparently secure (i.e., uncommon 

but not rare; some cause for long-term 

concern due to declines or other factors) 

in Oregon; secure (i.e., common; 

widespread and abundant) in the State 

of Washington; and secure in the 

Canadian province of British Columbia. 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6444 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

All eight survey locations in the Three 

Sisters Mountains and at McKenzie 

Pass, (located in the Cascade Mountain 

Range) have evidence of recent pika 

activity (Millar and Westfall 2009, p. 9). 

O. p. fenisex populations also occur in 

low-elevation (range of 121 to 255 m 

(397 to 837 ft)) habitat in the Columbia 

River Gorge, Oregon (Simpson 2009, p. 

244). We have population estimates of 

O. p. fenisex from Mt. St. Helens from 

1992 to 1994 (Bevers 1998, p. 42), but 

no information on the population status. 

Survey data are lacking for a large 

portion of O. p. fenisex range, and no 

reports indicate population status. 

Based on the current pattern of known 

occupancy and the NatureServe (2009b, 

pp. 1-2) assessment, the subspecies is 

apparently secure. 

Uinta Mountain Subspecies (Ochotona 

princeps uinta) 

The Uinta Mountain subspecies, 

Ochotona princeps uinta, occurs solely 

within the State of Utah. The species is 

believed to have a relatively high 

occupancy rate (63 percent) with no 

evidence of declines from historical 

levels (UDWR 2009, pp. 7, 9, 11, 20). 

Based on available information, O. p. 

uinta populations appear stable. 

Summary of American Pika Population 

Status 

Most States and provinces that 

contain populations of O. p. princeps 

and O. p. fenisex have not determined 

the subspecies’ status and do not have 

information on population trends. 

Information presented above suggests 

that O. p. schisticeps populations in 

some areas, primarily in the interior 

Great Basin, may be in decline. O. p. 

saxatilis populations appear to be well 

distributed throughout the majority of 

available habitat and O. p. uinta 

populations appear stable. Recent 

observed trends for O. p. princeps, O. p. 

saxatilis, O. p. fenisex, and O. p. uinta 

subspecies do not seem to mirror the 

loss of occupied pika sites and upward 

range contraction that has been reported 

for interior Great Basin populations. 

There is discrepancy among reported 

population trends within California, 

southern Utah, and New Mexico. Some 

information suggests that the species is 

vulnerable within some areas of 

California, southern Utah, and New 

Mexico (Beever and Smith 2008; 

NatureServe 2009b); however, other 

reports discussed above suggest that the 

O. p. schisticeps subspecies is stable or 

not in decline (Millar and Westfall 2009, 

p. 25; NMDGF 2009, p. 3; UDWR 2009, 

p. 11). 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

Section 4 of the Act and 

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 

424) set forth procedures for adding 

species to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Federal 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. Under section 

4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be 

determined to be endangered or 

threatened based on any of the 

following five factors: (1) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (5) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. In making this finding, 

information pertaining to the American 

pika in relation to the five factors 

provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is 

discussed below. In making our 12– 

month finding on a petition to list the 

American pika or any of the five 

subspecies of pika, we considered and 

evaluated the best available scientific 

and commercial information. Below, we 

provide a summary of our analysis of 

threats to the five recognized subspecies 

of the American pika and to the species 

as a whole. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range 

The following potential factors that 

may affect the habitat or range of 

American pika are discussed in this 

section: (1) Climate change; (2) livestock 

grazing; (3) native plant succession; (4) 

invasive plant species; and (5) fire 

suppression. 

Climate Change 

Climate change is a potential threat to 

the long-term survival of the American 

pika. Thermal and precipitation regime 

modifications may cause direct adverse 

effects to individuals or populations. 

Climate change has the potential to 

contribute to the loss of and change in 

pika habitat and enhance negative 

ecological and anthropogenic effects. 

The Science of Climate Change 

The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that 

global climate change is occurring and 

is caused by human activities, such as 

the burning of fossil fuels and clearing 

of forests (Forster et al. 2007, pp. 135- 

136). The IPCC is a scientific 

intergovernmental body established by 

the World Meteorological Organization 

and the United Nations Environment 

Programme ‘‘to assess scientific 

information related to climate change, to 

evaluate the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of climate 

change, and to formulate realistic 

response strategies’’ (IPCC 2007, p. iii). 

The publications of the IPCC, 

specifically the four-volume IPCC 

Fourth Assessment Report: Climate 

Change 2007, constitute the best 

available science on global climate 

change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment 

Report: Climate Change 2007 included 

the findings of three working groups 

composed of more than 500 lead authors 

and 2,000 expert reviewers and 

provided objective scientific guidance to 

policymakers on the topic of climate 

change (IPCC 2007, p. iii). We believe 

the IPCC information is the best 

available scientific information on 

global climate change at a broad scale. 

Historical records analyzed by the 

IPCC demonstrate that global surface 

temperatures have risen (with regional 

variations) during the past 157 years, 

most strongly after the 1970s (Trenberth 

et al. 2007, p. 252). Globally, average 

surface temperatures have risen by 

0.074 °C plus or minus 0.018 °C 

(0.13 °F plus or minus 0.03 °F) per 

decade during the past century (1906 

through 2005) and by 0.177 °C plus or 

minus 0.052 °C (0.32 °F plus or minus 

0.09 °F) per decade during the past 

quarter-century (1981 through 2005) 

(Trenberth et al. 2007, p. 253). 

Changes in the amount, intensity, 

frequency, and type of precipitation 

have been summarized by the IPCC 

(Trenberth et al. 2007, p. 262). The 

warming of global temperatures has 

increased the probability of 

precipitation falling as rain rather than 

snow, especially in near-freezing 

situations, such as the beginning and 

end of the snow season (Trenberth et al. 

2007, p. 263). In many Northern 

Hemisphere regions, this has caused a 

reduced snowpack, which can greatly 

alter water resources throughout the 

year (Trenberth et al. 2007, p. 263). As 

a result of thermal and precipitation 

regime changes, the IPCC expects the 

snowline (the lower elevation of yearround snow) in mountainous regions to 

rise 150 m (492 ft) for every 1 °C 

(1.8 °F) increase in temperature 

(Christenson et al. 2007, p. 886). These 

predictions are consistent with regional 

predictions for the Sierra Nevada in 

California that calculate that year-round 

snow will be virtually absent below 

1,000 m (3,280 ft) by the end of the 21st 

century under a high emissions scenario 

(Cayan et al. 2006, p. 32). 

Scientists at climate research 

institutions in the United States and in 

over a dozen countries worldwide, have 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6445 

generated projections of future climatic 

conditions both globally and in the 

United States, which includes the range 

of the American pika. These projections 

were assessed and synthesized in the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. 

The United States Global Change 

Research Program (USGCRP) 

coordinates climate change research 

from 13 departments and agencies and 

was mandated by Congress in the Global 

Change Research Act of 1990 to, ‘‘assist 

the Nation and the world to understand, 

assess, predict, and respond to humaninduced and natural processes of global 

change.’’ The IPCC has predicted global 

average surface warming during the 21st 

century is likely between 1.1 and 6.4 °C 

(2.0 and 11.5 °F), depending on the 

emissions scenario, and taking into 

account other sources of uncertainty in 

the projections (Solomon et al. 2007, p. 

70, Table TS. 6). The recent USGCRP 

assessment of climate impacts (Karl et 

al., 2009, pp. 129, 135) also adopts the 

IPCC range of temperature projections 

for different United States regions. 

On a regional scale, North America is 

likely to exceed the global mean 

warming in most areas (Christenson et 

al. 2007, p. 850). Specifically, warming 

is likely to be largest in winter in 

northern regions of North America, with 

minimum winter temperatures likely 

rising more than the global average 

(Christenson et al. 2007, p. 850). Across 

21 global climate models using a midlevel emissions scenario, the IPCC 

predicted that the average annual 

temperature in western North America 

(covering the entire range of the 

American pika) will increase between 

2.1 and 5.7 °C (median 3.4 °C) (3.8 and 

10.3 °F (median 6.1 °F)) during the 21st 

century (Christenson et al. 2007, p. 856). 

The 2009 USGCRP impacts report 

projects the Southwest to warm 2 to 6 

°C (4 to 10 °F) relative to the 1960-1979 

baseline (Karl et al. 2009, p. 129) and 

the Northwest to warm by ‘‘another 2 to 

6 °C (3 to 10 °F)’’ by the end of the 

century (Karl et al. 2009, p. 135). 

In the 20th century, the Pacific 

Northwest and western United States 

experienced annual average temperature 

increases of 0.6 to 1.7 °C (1.1 to 3.1 °F) 

and 1.1 to 2.8 °C (2.0 to 5.0 °F), 

respectively (Parson et al. 2001, p. 248; 

Smith et al. 2001, p. 220). Temperature 

increases are expected to affect 

precipitation, snowpack, and snowmelt 

in the range of the American pika. 

Climate warming corresponds with a 

reduced mountain snowpack (Mote et 

al. 2005 and Regonda et al. 2005 cited 

in Vicuna and Dracup 2007, p. 330; 

Trenberth et al. 2007, p. 310) and a 

trend toward earlier snowmelt in 

western North America (Stewart et al. 

2004, pp. 217, 219, 223). The IPCC 

concluded that snow-season length and 

depth of snowpack are very likely to 

decrease in most of North America 

(Christenson et al. 2007, p. 850). Leung 

et al. (2004, p. 75) concluded that future 

warming increases in the western 

United States will cause increased 

rainfall and decreased snowfall, 

resulting in reduced snow accumulation 

or earlier snowmelt. Similarly, Rauscher 

et al. (2008, p. 4) concluded that 

increased temperatures in the late 21st 

century could cause early-season 

snowmelt-driven runoff to occur as 

much as 2 months earlier than presently 

in the western United States. 

The above information applies at 

large, general scales. To understand the 

changes likely to occur in pika habitat, 

we worked with the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) to assess the best available 

climate science across the range of the 

American pika (NOAA 2009, p. 4). The 

NOAA study reviewed historical 

climate observations and climate 

projections of surface temperatures for 

20–year periods centered on 2025, 2050, 

and 2100 in alpine and subalpine 

mountain areas that are habitat for the 

American pika. Because model 

projections for precipitation are less 

reliable than for temperature in this 

region, their report focused primarily on 

temperature (NOAA 2009, pp. 10, 15). 

We primarily relied on this report to 

perform deterministic risk assessments 

of increased temperature in the 

foreseeable future to American pika 

populations throughout their range in 

the western United States. In addition, 

we used information on historical 

climate observations to supplement 

previous peer-reviewed publications 

and other reports from the literature to 

assess how temperature increases may 

have affected pikas in recent decades. 

The NOAA’s analysis (NOAA 2009, p. 

9) revealed an evident warming trend 

between 1950 and 2007 in the western 

United States. Strong warming trends 

occurred across 89 percent of the 

western United States and 37 to 42 

percent of western United States 

mountain ranges (Das et al. 2009, cited 

in NOAA 2009, p. 9). Within the 

western United States, warming was 

documented and is attributable to 

anthropogenic climate change (Bonfils 

et al. 2008, cited in NOAA 2009, p. 11). 

Some studies (Barnett et al. 2008, p. 

1080; Pierce et al. 2008, p. 6436) have 

estimated that up to about half of the 

trends in temperature and associated 

hydrologic variables can be attributed to 

anthropogenic causes. Natural climate 

variability may account for the 

remainder of the observed climate 

change in the western United States, 

and will likely play a role in the future 

climate of that region. 

Changes in the hydrologic cycle, 

including timing of snowmelt runoff, 

amount of precipitation falling as snow 

versus rain, and spring snow water 

equivalent, have been documented in 

the mountains of western North 

American and attributed to 

anthropogenic causes (multiple 

references cited in NOAA 2009, p. 8), 

with the exception of some highelevation areas, especially in the Rocky 

Mountains. Most of the reduction in 

snowpack in the western United States 

has occurred below about 2,500 m 

(8,200 ft) (Regonda et al. 2005, cited in 

NOAA 2009, p. 9). This elevation is near 

the lower limit of American pikas’ 

elevation range (Smith and Weston 

1990, p. 2); therefore, it can be inferred 

that the majority of pika habitat in 

mountainous areas has not experienced 

the large changes in the hydrologic 

cycle seen at lower elevations. 

Climate Change and Pika Biology 

Several climate variables are relevant 

to persistence of American pika 

populations because past and present 

trends in climate have been identified as 

having important physiological, 

ecological, and demographic 

consequences. These climate variables 

include, but may not be limited to, 

number of extremely hot or cold days, 

average summer temperatures, and 

duration of snow cover (Beever et al. 

2009, pp. 5, 10, 16-18). 

In general, pika biologists agree that 

temperatures below the habitat surface, 

such as in talus crevices, better 

approximate the conditions experienced 

by individual pikas because pikas rely 

on subsurface refugia to escape hotter 

summer daytime temperatures and 

obtain insulation in the colder winter 

months (Beever et al. 2009, p. 9). 

Therefore, surface temperature variables 

may not be as useful as subsurface 

temperatures for predicting persistence 

or extirpations of pika populations in 

the face of climate change. However, 

data on subsurface temperatures within 

pika habitat vary depending on sitespecific conditions and are largely 

unavailable. 

Beever et al. (2009, p. 18) found that 

average summer (June-July-August (J-JA)) below-talus temperature was the 

best predictor of pika extirpation. They 

also discovered two other patterns: (1) 

The number of extremely cold and hot 

days based on estimates of below-talus 

temperatures was useful in predicting 

patterns of pika extirpations (Beever et 

al. 2009, p. 18); and (2) the majority of 

pika-extirpated sites were covered with 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6446 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

snow for only 2 weeks or less; whereas, 

the majority of pika-extant sites had 

continuous snow cover for greater than 

2 weeks and as long as 8.2 months 

(Beever et al. 2009, p. 16). Because 

American pikas are small and do not 

hibernate, reduced snowpack can mean 

a lack of insulation from cold winter 

temperatures (Morrison and Hik 2008, 

p. 905). Exposure to colder temperatures 

could have an adverse effect on pika 

individuals and populations as a result 

of increased energy expenditure during 

a time of year where food resources are 

limited (Smith et al. 2004, p. 5). 

However, pika biologists have not 

determined the actual effects of acute 

cold-stress on pikas (Beever et al. 2009, 

p. 29). 

The population collapse of a closely 

related pika species, the collared pika 

(Ochotona collaris), was related to 

warmer winters that resulted in low 

snow accumulation (and, therefore, poor 

insulation value), increased frequency 

of freeze-thaw events, icing following 

winter rains, and late winter snowfalls 

that delay the start of the growing 

season (Morrison and Hik 2008, pp. 104- 

105, 110). Following a decline in 

population abundance, populations 

recovered in subsequent years, in some 

cases to near pre-decline levels 

(Morrison and Hik 2007, pp. 902-903). 

Declines in snowpack and earlier 

montane snowmelt are predicted to 

occur within the next century, and 

winter survival of the American pika 

may consequently decrease. 

Alternatively, earlier snowmelt could 

improve pika survival and positively 

affect American pika populations 

(Morrison and Hik 2007, p. 905). Based 

on the available information there does 

not appear to be a direct line of 

evidence linking reduced snowpack to 

reductions in American pika 

populations. 

Several lines of evidence have been 

used to suggest that thermal stress will 

adversely impact the American pika. 

Wolf et al. (2007, p. 43) pointed out that 

increasing temperatures will eliminate 

cool, moist refugia in talus habitat, 

causing individuals to be unable to 

thermoregulate in summer months. 

However, Millar and Westfall (2009, p. 

25) stated that non-rock-ice features will 

likely become warmer and more 

marginal for pikas, but environments 

with rock-ice features are highly likely 

to remain buffered against temperature 

change due to the insulation of rock 

features. Millar and Westfall (2009, p. 

10) documented that 83 percent of over 

400 surveyed pika sites in the Sierra 

Nevada and Great Basin occurred in 

rock-ice landforms, indicating that pikas 

have a preference for these types of 

environments. Therefore, we expect 

pika habitat that contains rock-ice 

features or features that are similar to 

rock-ice (i.e., talus or talus-like 

environments) to be buffered from rising 

surface temperatures. We are not aware 

of any studies that have identified the 

distribution of these types of features, 

and thus we are not able to use that type 

of information to help us increase the 

sensitivity of our climate change threats 

analysis. 

Wolf et al. (2007, p. 44) also state that, 

even if the talus refugia remain cool, 

ambient external temperatures may 

reduce an individual’s ability to forage 

during midday. They assert that if pika 

individuals cannot adequately forage in 

the summer months, they may not have 

the required body mass or haypile 

volume needed for winter survival. 

However, pikas at low elevations restrict 

their activity when temperatures exceed 

their thermal tolerance but are able to 

obtain enough food and overwintering 

vegetation (hay pile) during the morning 

and evening so that long-term 

population persistence is not affected 

(Smith 1974a, pp. 1117-1118; Smith 

1974b, pp. 1370-1372; Smith 2009, p. 4). 

Warmer summer temperatures may 

affect the ability of juvenile pikas to 

successfully disperse and colonize new 

areas (Smith 1974a, p. 1112; Smith 

1978, p. 137; Wolf et al. 2007, p. 44). 

Because dispersal occurs on the habitat 

surface, dispersing pikas are exposed to 

the hottest temperatures on the surface 

of their environment. Hotter surface 

temperatures may decrease the distance 

juveniles are able to travel in search of 

new habitat patches, but primarily in 

warmer, low-elevation habitats. A pika 

metapopulation range may decline if 

juveniles are unable to colonize new 

patches or immigrate to other 

populations. 

Wilkening (2007, pp. 36-37) suggested 

that a greater depth of available talus 

should be positively associated with 

pika persistence, and pika populations 

located in habitat with shallow talus or 

small diameter rocks of similar size 

might be susceptible to adverse effects 

of increasing temperatures. With the 

appropriate assemblage of talus 

structural features, below-talus 

microclimate might be less thermally 

variable and more suitable for pikas 

(Millar and Westfall 2009, p. 21). 

Studies from Lava Beds National 

Monument support this hypothesis by 

demonstrating that talus depth (amount 

of insulation) was one of the strongest 

predictors of pika occurrence (Ray and 

Beever 2007, p. 45). Based on these data, 

it is likely that habitat with sub-optimal 

talus characteristics would be less likely 

to support pika populations under 

projected warming scenarios. 

American Pika Responses to Climate 

Change 

Past and Present Trends 

Recent climatic change, including 

increased temperatures, freeze-free 

periods, and changes in precipitation is 

an important driving force on 

ecosystems and has affected a wide 

variety of organisms with diverse 

geographic distributions (Walther et al. 

2002, pp. 391-392; Parmesan and Yohe 

2003, p. 41). Many plant and animal 

species have advanced the timing of 

spring events (e.g., plant flowering or 

bird migration) and experienced a shift 

in latitudinal and altitudinal range (i.e., 

movement to higher latitudes or higher 

altitude) (Walther et al. 2002, pp. 391- 

392). 

The biology of the American pika 

makes the species a useful indicator of 

changing climatic conditions and useful 

to test extinction theory (Smith et al. 

2004, p. 5; Smith 2009, p. 2). The 

species lives in a very narrow ecological 

habitat (primarily talus) that is 

frequently fragmented or patchily 

distributed. They are generally poor 

dispersers, and thus the narrow niche 

may expose some populations to 

negative effects associated with 

increasing temperatures (Smith 1974b, 

p. 1372; Smith 2009, p. 2). However, 

pikas also may exhibit considerable 

behavioral and physiological flexibility 

that may allow them to persist in 

environmental conditions that humans 

perceive to be outside of the species’ 

ecological niche (Smith 2009, p. 4). 

The distribution of American pikas 

from prehistoric times to the present is 

a result of changing climatic conditions. 

Pika population occurrences in the 

southern Rocky Mountains are closely 

tied to the past and present distribution 

of alpine permafrost conditions, with 

altithermal (i.e., a dry postglacial 

interval centered about 5,500 years ago 

during which temperatures were 

warmer than at present) warming 

accounting for 66.7 percent of all postWisconsinan period population 

extirpations (Hafner 1994, p. 375). 

Climate change and subsequent impacts 

on vegetation determined the 

distribution of the American pika in the 

Great Basin (Grayson 2005, p. 2103). 

The present distribution of the 

American pika in the Great Basin is 

approximately 783 m (2,568 ft) higher in 

elevation than the distribution during 

the late Wisconsinan and early 

Holocene periods (Grayson 2005, p. 

2103), demonstrating an elevational 

retreat tracking colder microclimates. 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6447 

While these trends, acting over long 

timescales, demonstrate the role of 

historical climate conditions in shaping 

pika distribution, we have evidence that 

recent climate change has caused 

additional contractions in the American 

pika’s range within some localities. 

NOAA (2009, pp. 11-14) analyzed 

past climate observations at 22 sites 

known to be recently or currently 

occupied by American pikas. They 

analyzed the observations in detail for a 

subset of sites along the southern 

Nevada/California border, southern 

Oregon, and northern California, where 

recent pika extirpations were 

documented in the Great Basin; 

however, NOAA’s analyses were not 

limited to these regions (see Figure 1 in 

NOAA 2009, p. 1). Along the southern 

Nevada/California border, the summers 

of the last decade showed a pronounced 

warming trend (NOAA 2009, p. 12). By 

comparison, nearly all extirpated sites 

within the Great Basin are associated 

with relatively low elevations with little 

suitable habitat accessible nearby at 

higher elevations, which is in agreement 

with previous reports (Beever et al. 

2003, p. 48; Wilkening 2007, p. 32). 

Southern Oregon and northern 

California experienced less pervasive 

warming over the past 75 years in these 

regions when compared to Nevada 

(NOAA 2009, p. 14). However, the last 

30 years in southern Oregon and 

northern California feature a 

pronounced warming in the summer 

(NOAA 2009, p. 14). Based on 

observations of climatology in areas 

known to contain American pikas, it is 

apparent that pikas have been and 

currently are being exposed to warmer 

temperatures, which may correlate with 

extirpations in Nevada, Oregon, and 

California. 

The American pika appears to be 

experiencing habitat shifts in some 

areas, including an increasing rate of 

upslope movement (Beever 2009b, pers. 

comm.); the disappearance of 

populations at relatively lower 

elevations and hotter sites (Beever et al. 

2003, pp. 45, 49; Beever et al. 2009, pp. 

16-18); and loss of populations from 

habitats that do not maintain adequate 

snowpack levels (Smith et al. 2004, p. 

5; Morrison and Hik 2008, p. 905; 

Beever et al. 2009, p. 16). 

A few reports have documented 20th 

century range contractions in both the 

Great Basin and the Sierra Nevada. A 

study of Great Basin pika populations 

found that 7 of 25 populations, which 

is a subset of all pika-occupied sites 

within the Great Basin, appeared to 

have experienced extirpations between 

1994 and 1999 (Beever et al. 2003, p. 

37). Of these, one site was subsequently 

determined to be occupied (Wilkening 

2007, p. 26). The most recent 

information indicates that 9 out of 25 

(36 percent) historically occupied pika 

sites within the Great Basin have been 

extirpated (Krajick 2004, p. 1602; 

Wilkening 2007, p. 46). These 25 sites 

in the Great Basin were first described 

in 1946 by Hall (pp. 587-593). Elevation 

is an important parameter in models 

predicting the persistence of pika 

populations, and thermal effects 

(because it is typically hotter at lower 

elevations) are the primary reason for 

recent extirpations. Thermal effects 

have also influenced recent persistence 

trajectories of Great Basin populations 

of pikas (Beever et al. 2003, pp. 43, 46- 

47; Beever 2009, pp. 1, 3). Other 

anthropogenic factors may affect 

persistence to a lesser degree (Beever 

2009, pp. 1, 3), such as proximity to 

roads, habitat size, and livestock 

grazing, particularly when assessed 

cumulatively with environmental 

conditions (Beever et al. 2003, p. 46). 

Millar and Westfall (2009, p. 12) 

similarly documented that unoccupied 

historical pika sites were associated 

with significantly higher warmer 

maximum surface temperatures than 

occupied sites. In general, their survey 

sites in the Great Basin had colder 

winter and warmer summer 

temperatures than their survey sites in 

the Sierra Nevada (Millar and Westfall 

2009, p. 13). The authors also 

documented that unoccupied pika sites 

were significantly more likely to be 

associated with southern aspects, which 

receive more direct sunlight and, 

therefore, may experience warmer 

temperatures, than occupied pika sites 

(Millar and Westfall 2009, p. 11). 

Long-term responses of small 

mammal communities to recent climate 

change were studied in the Sierra 

Nevada (Moritz et al. 2008, pp. 261- 

264). Because the study area has been 

protected since 1890, responses to 

climate change were not confounded by 

land-use effects (Moritz et al. 2008, p. 

261). Range contractions were 

documented in high-elevation species 

and upward range expansion in lowelevation species (Moritz et al. 2008, p. 

262). The lower range limit of the 

American pika within their study site 

shifted 153 m (502 ft) upslope from 

approximately 1920 to present (Moritz 

et al. 2008, p. 263). Based on the Great 

Basin and Sierra Nevada studies, 

temperatures provide the most likely 

explanation for observed range shifts in 

American pika populations. 

Despite the trends of increasing pika 

extirpations in the Great Basin and 

upward range expansion as a response 

to increasing temperatures, there is 

ample evidence suggesting the species 

can survive and thrive in habitats with 

relatively hot surface temperatures. 

American pika populations thrive at a 

low-elevation (2,550 m (8,366 ft)) site in 

the mountains near Bodie, California, 

where August daily maximum shade 

temperatures approach 30 °C (86 °F) at 

the hottest time of day (Smith 1974a, p. 

1117; Smith 1974b, p. 1369). Pikas 

persist here, because they reduce 

activity during hot mid-day 

temperatures by retreating to 

significantly cooler conditions under 

the talus surface (MacArthur and Wang 

1974, p. 357; Finn 2009a, pers. comm.; 

Millar and Westfall 2009, pp. 13-14), 

and perform necessary daily activities 

during the cooler morning and evening 

periods (Smith 1974b, p. 1370). Despite 

altering their behavior in response to 

high temperatures, pikas maintain high 

birth and low mortality rates (Smith 

1974a, p. 1117). 

American pikas also persist in the hot 

climates of Craters of the Moon and 

Lava Beds National Monuments (Idaho 

and California, respectively). Average 

and extreme maximum surface 

temperatures in August at these sites are 

32 °C (90 °F) and 38 °C (100 °F), 

respectively (Western Region Climate 

Center 2009, p. 1). Pika persistence at 

these sites is noteworthy because the 

climate is an estimated 18 to 24 percent 

drier and 5 to 11 percent warmer during 

the hottest months of the year than 

experienced at the interior Great Basin 

locations where pikas have been 

extirpated (Beever 2002, pp. 26-27). 

Three habitat characteristics seem 

important to these two California and 

Idaho populations: large, contiguous 

areas of rocky, volcanic habitat; average 

or greater than average amounts of 

accessible vegetation; and 

microtopography with rocks large 

enough for subsurface movement and 

tunneling by pikas (Beever 2002, p. 28). 

With suitable structural habitat, 

American pikas persist in climates that 

typically would be considered too hot 

for the species. 

Pikas persist at low-elevation (2,400 

to 2,500 m (7,874 to 8,202 ft)), relatively 

warm sites in areas adjacent to human 

disturbance and lacking in accessible 

vegetation (Smith 2009, p. 5). Pikas exist 

in environments not typically viewed as 

suitable pika habitat. For example, pikas 

were found at a low-altitude (2,400 to 

2,500 m (7,874 to 8,202 ft)) site adjacent 

to an area of human land-use that was 

almost barren of vegetation; yet, 

biologists found a robust haypile (Smith 

2009, p. 5). This information suggests 

the species tolerates a wider range of 

environmental conditions than 

previously thought. 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6448 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Habitat structure appears to be just as 

or more important of a predictor of pika 

population persistence as temperature. 

The amount of talus habitat appears to 

be the strongest individual variable 

useful for predicting persistence. In 17 

of 18 instances, populations in 

mountain ranges with moderate to large 

amounts of talus remained extant 

(Beever et al. 2003, pp. 43, 47; 

Wilkening 2007, p. 33). Pika island 

(patch) size was the most important 

persistence factor near Bodie, California 

(Smith 1974a, p. 1114). 

We believe recent American pika 

range contractions that have occurred or 

are occurring in one locality or region 

should not be assumed to have occurred 

or be occurring in other areas. For 

example, American pika have been 

documented moving upslope in the 

Great Basin and Yosemite National Park; 

however, populations in the Sierra 

Nevada occur 650 m (2,132 ft) below 

historically known low-elevation pika 

sites (Millar and Westfall 2009, p. 16), 

and therefore have not moved upslope 

in this region. Given the available 

information we conclude that the 

species range has not contracted 

upslope on a range-wide basis in the 

recent past and changes in the elevation 

range of the species appear to be sitespecific. Persistence of lower elevation 

sites is likely related to local climate, 

habitat structure, geomorphology, and 

intra-talus microclimate (Millar and 

Westfall 2009, pp. 16-23). 

Based on information we have 

obtained from a variety of sources, it is 

apparent that American pika have 

responded to long-term climate change 

(10,000 to 40,000 years) as seen by the 

current patchy distribution of the 

species at generally higher elevations, 

particularly in the southern portion of it 

range. The species also appears to be 

responding to shorter term climatic 

change in the last century in some 

locations. Some lower elevation 

populations in the southern portions of 

the species range have been extirpated 

and some have shown evidence of 

upslope movement in response to 

increased temperatures. Responses of 

American pika to changing climatic 

conditions are variable as a result of 

localized environmental conditions. 

We are unaware of any losses of 

American pika populations outside the 

interior Great Basin as a response to 

climate change (see Population Status 

section). We acknowledge that there is 

evidence that eastern Sierra Nevada and 

Great Basin pikas may be responding to 

recent climate change (Beever et al. 

2009, p. 18). These effects are most 

prevalent at low elevations. 

Future Trend Projections 

The timeframe over which the best 

available scientific information allows 

us to reliably assess the effect of climate 

change on the American pika is a 

critical component of our status review 

and finding. The projections generated 

by NOAA (2009) for surface temperature 

in pika habitat centered on 2025, 2050, 

and 2100, but the study concludes that 

projection results over the next 30 to 50 

years are more reliable than projections 

over the next 80 to 100 years (NOAA 

2009, p. 8). 

Until about 2050, greenhouse gas 

emissions scenarios (reviewed in IPCC 

Special Report on Emission Scenarios in 

2000 as cited in NOAA 2009, p. 8), 

which are an essential component of 

any climate change assessment, result in 

a similar range of projections of global 

and regional climate change (NOAA 

2009, p. 8). Temperature increases over 

the next 30 to 50 years are relatively 

insensitive to the emissions scenarios 

used to model the projected change. 

Some warming as projected in the 

greenhouse gas emissions scenarios is 

anticipated as a result of greenhouse 

gases already in the atmosphere that 

will influence future climate; however, 

this is more so for mid-century versus 

late century (Meehl et al. 2007, p. 749). 

For a given emissions scenario there is 

still a range in the spread of the model 

projection. This spread is due both to 

details in the formulation of the models 

that differ among the individual models 

and to natural variability in climate that 

is simulated by the models. Because 

increases of greenhouse gas emissions 

have lag effects on climate and 

projections of greenhouse gas emissions, 

it can be interpreted with greater 

confidence until approximately midcentury, model projections for the next 

30 to 50 years (centered on 2050) have 

greater reliability than results projected 

further into future. 

The range of projections for surface 

temperatures beyond mid-century will 

partially depend on human population 

growth, technological improvements, 

societal and regulatory changes, and 

economic growth effects to greenhouse 

gas emissions. Reports from the IPCC 

Fourth Assessment (Meehl et al. 2007, 

p. 749) and Mote and Salathea ́ (2009, p. 

30) reach a similar conclusion about the 

reliability of projection results until 

mid-century versus results for the end of 

the 21st century. On the basis of 

NOAA’s report (2009, p. 8) and other 

supplemental information (Meehl et al. 

2007, p. 749; Mote and Salathea ́ 2009, 

p. 30), we have determined that climate 

changes for 2025 and 2050 are more 

reliable than projections for the second 

half (up until 2100) of the 21st century. 

As such, we consider the time period 

from 2025 to 2050 to represent the 

foreseeable future for the purposes of 

our evaluation and this finding. 

Nonetheless, it should be noted that the 

IPCC projections indicate continued 

global and regional warming into the 

second half of this century, and if 

emissions follow the higher scenarios, 

warming in 2090 could be double that 

in 2050. 

There are a few studies that attempt 

to project future pika trends. McDonald 

and Brown (1992, pp. 409-415) applied 

the theory of island biogeography to 

isolated mountaintop ranges in the 

Great Basin of western North America 

and modeled potential extinctions 

brought on by changing climatic 

conditions. They predicted that the 

American pika would be locally 

extirpated within the next century from 

four of five mountain ranges in the Great 

Basin assuming a less than 3 °C (5.4 °F) 

increase in temperature (McDonald and 

Brown 1992, p. 411, Table 1). Broader 

ecological results of the model indicate 

that mountain ranges would lose 35 to 

96 percent of their boreal habitat and 9 

to 62 percent of boreal mammal species, 

depending on the mountain range in 

question (McDonald and Brown 1992, p. 

413). At this point, the fate of pika 

populations occupying portions of the 

five mountain ranges discussed in 

McDonald and Brown (1992) is unclear 

because pikas still exist in the five 

mountain ranges analyzed and we are 

aware of only one metapopulation that 

has been extirpated from one of the five 

mountain ranges in the last 15 years 

(Wilkening 2007, p. 46). 

Other researchers have used the 

species-climate envelope modeling 

approach (Pearson and Dawson 2003, p. 

361; Araua ́jo et al. 2005, p. 529), also 

known as ecological niche or 

bioclimatic envelope modeling, to 

generate projections of altered American 

pika distributions by the late 21st 

century. Essentially, a species’ 

ecological niche is the range of 

biological and physical conditions 

under which an organism can survive 

and grow (Hutchinson 1957, cited in 

Pearson and Dawson 2003, p. 362). A 

bioclimatic envelope model is one that 

relates a species current distribution to 

its climatic driving forces, and then 

applies scenarios of future climate 

change to project a redistribution of the 

species’ climate space (Pearson and 

Dawson 2003, p. 361). Bioclimatic 

models typically consider only climatic 

variables and do not include other 

environmental, biotic or abiotic, factors 

that influence the distribution of 

species. These models are potentially 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6449 

powerful tools for predicting the 

potential effects of climate change to 

animal distributions, including those of 

American pikas; however, Guisan and 

Thuiller (2005, pp. 1003-1004) and 

Hijmans and Graham (2006, p. 2) state 

that the usefulness of these models for 

guiding policymaking and conservation 

planning are limited. 

In one such model, Loarie et al. (2009, 

p. 2) predicted that 9 of 427 (2 percent) 

extant pika sites will have an annual 

extirpation probability greater than 5 

percent in 2010. By 2099, they predict 

the annual extinction probability of 

extant pika sites increases to 21 percent 

(range of 2 to 30 percent) under a 

medium emissions scenario (Loarie et 

al. 2009, p. 5). They also predict that the 

percentage of 427 sites with a greater 

than 50 percent probability of persisting 

from 2010 through 2099 is 60 percent 

(range of 51 to 81 percent) under a 

medium emissions scenario (Loarie et 

al. 2009, p. 5). In the Great Basin, 

persistence probabilities in 2099 will be 

lower than the range-wide average, 

equaling 44 percent under the medium 

emissions scenario. According to this 

model, only 11 percent of pikas within 

the species current range have a very 

high (95 percent) probability of 

surviving from 2010 through 2099. By 

2100, the areas with the highest 

predicted probabilities of persistence 

occur primarily in the high elevations of 

the southern Rocky Mountains, 

Yellowstone National Park region, 

portions of the Northern Rocky 

Mountains, Uinta Mountains, Olympic 

Mountains, and a small portion of the 

Sierra Nevada (Loarie et al. 2009, p. 13, 

Figure 3). 

Such extensive loss of suitable pika 

habitat across the range of the American 

pika in the United States has been 

projected by others as well. Trook (2007, 

pp. 6-16) used a similar approach as 

Loarie et al. (2009, pp. 2-5), and 

predicted dramatic declines in pika 

range over the next 80 years for 

projections centered on 2090 (10–year 

average from 2085 to 2095). His 

projections estimated the amount of 

suitable habitat for low, medium, and 

high emission scenarios would 

represent an 81 percent decrease, 86 

percent decrease, and 98 percent 

decrease in suitable habitat across the 

range of the species in the United States 

(Trook 2007, p. 19). Under this model, 

areas that would experience the greatest 

loss, or complete disappearance, of 

suitable habitat include the Cascade 

Mountains, the northern Rocky 

Mountains, and isolated mountain 

ranges within Nevada (Trook 2007, p. 

19). Galbreath et al. (2009a, pp. 13-16) 

also predicted extensive loss of suitable 

pika habitat under a scenario where 

atmospheric carbon dioxide (a major 

greenhouse gas) concentrations are 

double their current levels (Galbreath et 

al. 2009, p. 20). Particular losses were 

projected in the Sierra Nevada and 

throughout the southwestern portion of 

the species range (Galbreath et al. 2009, 

pp. 20, 45, Figure 5c). 

As stated earlier, Guisan and Thuiller 

(2005, pp. 1003-1004) and Hijmans and 

Graham (2006, p. 2) state that the 

usefulness of bioclimatic envelope 

models is limited for several reasons, 

which include making unrealistic 

assumptions of species distributions 

being at equilibrium with current 

climate, interpreting species-climate 

relationships as if indicating causal 

mechanisms, and ignoring the biotic 

interactions between species (Pearson 

and Dawson 2003, p. 361; Hampe 2004, 

pp. 469-470). Climate can be considered 

a dominant factor at the continental 

scale, while at more local scales factors 

such as topography and land-cover type 

become important (Pearson and Dawson 

2003, p. 368). Such is the case of the 

American pika, a species that is not only 

generally tied to cool, moist climate, but 

also is reliant upon particular 

topographical features and land-cover 

types such as talus, rock-ice features, 

and volcanic substrates and the features 

(such as caves or crevices) contained 

within them. If conditions at the 

landscape level are satisfied, biotic 

interactions and microclimate may 

become even more significant to species 

such as the American pika (Pearson and 

Dawson 2003, p. 368). Climate forecasts 

of species distributions are intended to 

be accurate at spatial resolutions at 

much coarser levels than the resolution 

of field data that have been collected for 

American pikas (Beever et al. 2009, p. 

19). 

We point out the following reasons for 

considering the bioclimatic envelope 

models discussed above as not being 

useful for the American pika status 

review: 

(1) All three reports (Galbreath et al. 

2009a, p. 14; Loarie et al. 2009, p. 5; 

Trook 2007, p. 6) provide projections for 

beyond mid-century; as stated earlier, 

we have determined that climate 

changes predictions for 2025 and 2050 

are more reliable than projections for 

the second half (up until 2100) of the 

21st century. 

(2) Authors used relatively few 

explanatory (climate) variables in 

modeling current and future suitable 

habitat; none of the variables included 

those which are known to be important 

predictors of pika persistence, such as 

land-cover type (e.g., talus), 

microclimate, or other physical habitat 

features. 

(3) Bioclimatic envelope models for 

pikas base persistence projections on 

surface temperatures. However, we 

determined that temperatures below the 

habitat surface, such as in talus crevices, 

are more important for survival of 

individual pikas and are a better 

predictor of persistence (see Climate 

Change and Pika Biology section). 

(4) None of the models factor in the 

pika’s documented behavioral ability to 

avoid warmer temperatures during the 

hottest part of the day. 

Because of the problems associated 

with relying solely on available 

bioclimatic envelope models, we 

partnered with NOAA to assess 

temperature projections for the western 

United States and 22 pika-relevant sites 

representing the 5 subspecies (Ochotona 

princeps princeps (Northern Rockies), 

O. p. saxatilis (Southern Rockies), O. p. 

fenisex (Coast Mountains and Cascade 

Range), O. p. schisticeps (Sierra Nevada 

and Great Basin), and O. p. uinta (Uinta 

Mountains and Wasatch Range of 

Central Utah) (Hafner and Smith 2009, 

pp. 16-25) across the range of the 

species (NOAA 2009, pp. 1, 15-21). This 

information was useful in our analysis 

to determine if pikas would experience 

significant risk of extirpation within the 

foreseeable future. 

The average projection of annual 

mean temperature increase for much of 

the interior western United States by 

2050 is approximately 2.2 °C (range 

from 1.4 to 3.0 °C (4 °F (range from 2.5 

to 5.5 °F)) (NOAA 2009, p. 15). 

Summers are predicted to warm more 

than winters (mean of 2.8 °C (5 °F) vs. 

1.7 °C (3 °F)). In general, the dominant 

precipitation pattern in North America 

projects a wetter climate in northern 

portions of North America and a drier 

climate in the southwestern United 

States (NOAA 2009, p. 15); however, as 

previously stated, for much of the range 

of the American pika, precipitation 

projections diverge and are not in 

agreement (NOAA 2009, p. 15). The 

Washington Climate Change Impacts 

Assessment has projected an increase in 

average annual Pacific Northwest 

temperature of 1.1 °C (2.0 °F) by the 

2020s and 1.8 °C (3.2 °F) by the 2040s 

when compared to climate observations 

from 1970 to 1999 (Mote and Salathea ́

2009, p. 21). By 2050, the summer J-JA climate has moved northward in 

latitude and the climate zones of the 

valleys and mountains has migrated 

upward in elevation (NOAA 2009, p. 

16). 

Projections for climate at 22 sites 

anchored on pika observations tell a 

similar story to what is projected for the 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6450 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

western United States. Using 

established methods and existing 

gridded temperature datasets (see 

NOAA 2009, pp. 15-20), NOAA 

generated site-specific projections for 

surface temperatures within elevation 

bands known to harbor pikas (Table 1). 

In Table 1, we present NOAA’s 

calculations for the J-J-A mean surface 

temperatures from 1950 to 1999 

(Column 4) and compare them to J-J-A 

mean surface temperature projections 

for 2050 (Column 5) using a medium 

emissions scenario. The projections 

shown here are for the average of the 

climate model projections considered. 

The NOAA study (2009, p. 19) also 

considers high- and low- end model 

projections. High-end projections are 

approximately 1 °C (1.8 °F) warmer than 

the multi-model average, and would 

indicate increased risk at a number of 

sites, including at the maximum 

elevations in some study areas. 

For 2025 and 2050, projections from 

all three emissions scenarios (low, 

medium, and high) are nearly the same; 

therefore, their datasets reflect projected 

surface temperatures into the 

foreseeable future (a 20–year average 

centered on 2050). Upon calculating the 

J-J-A mean historical and projected 

surface temperatures at a mean 

elevation of the temperature gridcell 

(Column 2 in Table 1), NOAA (2009, pp. 

26-27) performed a simple calculation 

using lapse rates (the change in 

temperature with changes in elevation) 

to determine the projected temperatures 

at the mean elevation to the actual 

minimum and maximum elevation of 

pika observations (Column 3 in Table 1) 

used in the analysis. 

TABLE 1. HISTORICAL (1950 – 1999) CLIMATOLOGY AND J-J-A PROJECTIONS FOR AVERAGE DAILY TEMPERATURE AT

ELEVATION FOR 22 HISTORICAL AMERICAN PIKA STUDY AREAS. 

Temperature range of minimum and maximum elevation sites in each study area based on a simple lapse rate adjustment is shown in parentheses. Bold text indicates that the locations in the study area at the elevation of the gridcell used in the temperature analysis by NOAA, or 

at the minimum or maximum elevations, may be at higher risk from increased J-J-A temperature. Measure of risk is equal to or greater than 

16.2 °C (61.2 °F). Multi-model average projections shown here. The NOAA study (NOAA 2009) also considers high- and low- end model 

projections. 

SITE Mean Elevation of 

Temperature Analysis (ft) 

Range of Pika 

Observations (ft) 

Historical J-J-A Mean 

Surface Temperature (°C) 

Projected J-J-A Mean 

Surface Temperature (°C) 

O. p. fenisex 

Crater Lake 7,121 6,436 – 7,660 10.6 (12.0 - 9.6) 13.2 (14.5 – 12.1) 

Mt. Hood/Three Sisters 8,062 6,242 – 7,621 9.85 (13.5 – 10.7) 12.4 (16.0 – 13.3) 

Mt. St. Helens 3,691 3,000 – 4,200 13.3 (14.3 – 12.5) 15.7 (16.7 – 14.9) 

North Cascades/Mt. Baker 5,237 3,800 – 7,210 10.0 (12.9 – 6.1) 12.5 (15.4 – 8.6) 

O. p. princeps 

Bighorn Mtns 12,048 * 7.2 (NA) 10.2 (NA) 

Clearwater Mtns 8,141 * 11.1 (NA) 14.1 (NA) 

Gallatin National Forest 9,167 9,180 10.4 (NA) 13.4 (NA) 

Glacier National Park 6,158 4,574 – 8,337 11.0 (14.1 – 6.7) 13.7 (16.9 – 9.4) 

N. Wasatch Mtns 9,755 8,472 – 10,800 13.2 (15.7 – 11.1) 16.5 (19.0 – 14.4) 

Ruby Mtns 9,676 8,664 – 10,413 14.1 (16.1 – 12.6) 17.4 (19.4 – 15.9) 

Sawtooth Range 9,085 6,857 – 8,382 11.3 (15.7 – 12.7) 14.4 (18.8 – 15.8) 

Wind River/Bridger-Teton 12,154 * 6.3 (NA) 9.6 (NA) 

O. p. saxatilis 

Sangre de Cristo Mtns 11,197 7,562 – 12,263 9.8 (17.0 – 7.7) 12.7 (19.9 – 10.6) 

Southern Rockies 10,781 9,715 – 14,000 12.1 (14.2 – 5.7) 15.2 (17.3 – 8.8) 

O. p. uinta 

Eastern Uintas 11,916 9,810 – 12,076 7.5 (11.6 – 7.2) 10.8 (15.0 – 10.5) 

O. p. schisticeps 

Bodie Mtns 8,841 8,530 – 8,635 12.3 (12.9 – 12.7) 15.2 (15.8 – 15.6) 

SE Oregon 7,600 5,800 – 7,925 12.8 (16.4 – 12.2) 15.9 (19.4 – 15.2) 

Monitor Hills 8,250 8,105 – 8,822 13.0 (13.3 – 11.9) 16.0 (16.3 – 14.8) 

Sierras/Yosemite 10,270 9,657 – 11,160 9.0 (10.2 – 7.2) 11.8 (13.0 – 10.0) 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6451 

TABLE 1. HISTORICAL (1950 – 1999) CLIMATOLOGY AND J-J-A PROJECTIONS FOR AVERAGE DAILY TEMPERATURE AT

ELEVATION FOR 22 HISTORICAL AMERICAN PIKA STUDY AREAS.—Continued 

Temperature range of minimum and maximum elevation sites in each study area based on a simple lapse rate adjustment is shown in parentheses. Bold text indicates that the locations in the study area at the elevation of the gridcell used in the temperature analysis by NOAA, or 

at the minimum or maximum elevations, may be at higher risk from increased J-J-A temperature. Measure of risk is equal to or greater than 

16.2 °C (61.2 °F). Multi-model average projections shown here. The NOAA study (NOAA 2009) also considers high- and low- end model 

projections. 

SITE Mean Elevation of 

Temperature Analysis (ft) 

Range of Pika 

Observations (ft) 

Historical J-J-A Mean 

Surface Temperature (°C) 

Projected J-J-A Mean 

Surface Temperature (°C) 

S. Wasatch Mtns 10,520 8,472 – 10,800 12.9 (16.9 – 12.3) 16.0 (20.0 – 15.4) 

Toiyabe Mtns 9,092 7,896 – 11,023 12.4 (14.8 – 8.6) 15.5 (17.9 – 11.7) 

Warner Mtns 7,326 5,429 – 8,267 14.8 (18.6 – 13.0) 17.8 (21.5 – 15.9) 

* Local summit chosen as a representative site. Range of pika observations not available. NA = Not Available. 

The resulting 2050 J-J-A projections 

for surface temperatures are consistently 

higher than the recent climatology by 

approximately 3 °C (5.4 °F), which is 

consistent with a projected increase in 

temperature on a west-wide United 

States basis (NOAA 2009, p. 29). The 

low model projections are in most cases 

higher than the 90th percentile of recent 

climatology, which suggests that the 

coolest summers of the mid-21st century 

at the 22 pika sites will be warmer than 

the hottest summer of the recent past 

(NOAA 2009, p. 19). The NOAA states 

that the set of projections for surface 

temperatures in 2050 are statistically 

different from the historical climatology. 

Based on NOAA’s calculations 

(NOAA 2009, p. 20), we compared past 

versus projected climatology for each of 

the 22 pika sites chosen to represent 

habitats for the five subspecies 

(Ochotona princeps princeps, O. p. 

saxatilis, O. p. fenisex, O. p. schisticeps, 

and O. p. uinta) across the range of the 

species. 

Chronic heat-stress (e.g., recent 

average summer (J-J-A) subsurface 

temperatures) was identified as the best 

predictor of pika extirpations (Beever et 

al. 2009, p. 18). Pika-extirpated sites 

from the Great Basin had warmer belowtalus temperatures than pika-extant sites 

from time periods 1945-1975, 1976- 

2006, and 2005-2006 (Beever et al. 2009, 

Table 1), with the strongest predictive 

ability of heat stress metrics being based 

on recent climate during 2005-2006 

(Beever et al. 2009, pp. 13, 18). For the 

most recent time period, below-talus 

(0.8 m (2.6 ft) subsurface) temperatures 

from extirpated sites had a mean 

temperature of 17 °C (62.6 °F) plus or 

minus one standard error of 0.8 °C (1.4 

°F) when compared to a mean 

temperature of 12.4 °C (54.3 °F) plus or 

minus one standard error of 1.0 °C (1.8 

°F) for extant sites. Therefore, we 

assumed that warmer below-talus 

temperatures increase the risk of 

extirpation to American pikas. 

The following discussion analyzes the 

effects on pika populations of: (1) 

Historical mean summer surface 

temperatures; (2) projected mean 

summer surface temperatures; and (3) 

estimated subsurface temperatures. As 

stated previously, below-talus 

temperatures from extirpated sites had a 

mean temperature of 17 °C (62.6 °F) 

when compared to a mean temperature 

of 12.4 °C (54.3 °F) for extant sites 

(Beever et al. 2009, Table 1). However, 

we were unable to convert historical 

and projected average summer surface 

temperatures to below-talus 

temperatures at the 22 pika sites used in 

NOAA’s analysis. Relationships 

between surface and subsurface 

temperatures at the 22 pika sites are not 

known. The relationship between 

surface and subsurface temperatures is 

not linear and is site-specific, making it 

impossible to generalize across the 

range of a subspecies or the species as 

a whole. Therefore, we used a mean 

surface temperature of 16.2 °C (61.2 °F), 

which is equal to 17 °C (62.6 °F) minus 

one standard error of 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), as 

a conservative indicator of increased 

risk to pika populations used in 

NOAA’s report (2009). We determined 

that any pika site that was projected to 

experience a surface temperature 

(realizing that below-talus temperatures 

can be substantially cooler than surface 

temperatures in the summer) of greater 

than or equal to 16.2 °C (61.2 °F) would 

be at increased risk of extirpation as a 

result of stress from climate change. The 

sites that exceed our measure of risk are 

represented by the bold numbers in 

Table 1 above. This temperature should 

not be considered deterministic, but 

only a starting point, based on current 

best available science, for identifying a 

temperature range that represents 

increased risk to pikas. 

Table 1 above uses our conservative 

measure of potential risk and shows that 

historical climatology (J-J-A mean for 

1950 to 1999) at the mean elevation for 

NOAA’s climate projections, and at 

higher elevations (J-J-A mean for 1950 to 

1999 at maximum elevations) known to 

harbor pikas, suggests that all sites (22 

of 22) across the range of species were 

not at risk from average summer surface 

temperatures of greater than or equal to 

16.2 °C (61.2 °F) from 1950 to 1999. 

However, historical climatology at 

minimum elevations (J-J-A mean 1950 to 

1999 at minimum elevations) 

demonstrate that lower elevation pika 

sites (4 of 18) were at higher risk of 

experiencing adverse effects as a result 

of increased average summer 

temperatures from 1950 to 1999. Pika 

sites at relatively low elevations from 

the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, 

mountains of southeastern Oregon, 

southern Wasatch Mountains, and 

Warner Mountains were at risk from 

high average summer temperatures 

(Table 1 above). In fact, extirpations 

occurred at low elevations in areas 

adjacent to the Warner Mountains, in 

the mountains of southeastern Oregon, 

and southern Wasatch Mountains 

(Beever et al. 2003, p. 43; Oliver 2007, 

p. 5; Wilkening 2007, p. 58). We are not 

aware of any extirpations from the 

Sangre de Cristo Mountains; however, 

we have no historical information to 

compare back to recent survey data. 

Corroboration of findings between 

NOAA’s report and other recent reports 

of extirpations or higher risk areas in the 

Great Basin suggests mean summer 

temperature is a useful variable for 

predicting the relative risk of increased 

temperatures to pika populations. 

We do not anticipate the species to be 

adversely affected on a range-wide basis 

by increased summer temperatures. In 

our climate change risk assessment, we 

determine that no pika site would be at 

risk across its entire range of elevation, 

but some mid- to low-elevation areas 

that contain pikas would be at risk from 

increased summer surface temperature 

(Table 1 above). This determination, 

paired with the fact there is a significant 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6452 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

amount of habitat not at risk from 

climate change, prevents the species 

from being threatened or endangered 

from climate change. The relatively low 

elevations within pika sites that would 

be at risk were distributed among four 

of five subspecies, with Ochotona 

princeps uinta not containing any 

populations that would be at risk. These 

relatively low-elevation, at-risk areas do 

not represent a substantial amount of 

pika habitat, especially since pikas 

primarily occupy high-elevation talus 

habitat. Therefore, we conclude the 

entire species would not be at risk from 

increased summer surface temperatures 

now or in the foreseeable future. Our 

next analysis focuses on a climate 

change risk assessment at the subspecies 

level as discussed below. 

We determine that portions of the 

Sierra Nevada subspecies, Ochotona 

princeps schisticeps, may be at risk of 

extirpation due to potential impacts 

from recent and future climate change. 

In general, the populations of O. p 

schisticeps that would be at highest risk 

of extirpation represent the lower 

elevation sites in the Great Basin with 

correspondingly higher mean 

temperatures. Populations at mid- to 

high elevations at most sites, which are 

projected to be cooler than 16.2 °C (61.2 

°F), should not be at risk of extirpation 

as a result of exposure to increased 

summer temperatures. We expect at 

least portions (primarily lower 

elevations) of five of seven sites for O. 

p. schisticeps (Table 1 above) to be at 

risk from increased summer 

temperatures by the year 2050. 

Pika populations in the Bodie 

Mountains and the Sierra Nevada Range 

are not at risk of extirpation. 

Populations in the Sierra Nevada Range 

are not at risk due to the preponderance 

of high-elevation habitats (2,943 to 

3,402 m (9,657 to 11,160 ft)) and 

correspondingly cooler environments. 

This conclusion is consistent with 

available literature (Beever et al. 2003, 

pp. 43, 45; Smith 2009, p. 5), which 

suggests that lower elevation sites, 

particularly along the southern edge of 

the species’ range, are at a higher risk of 

being extirpated from increased 

temperatures. 

We also determine that portions of the 

Northern Rocky Mountain subspecies, 

Ochotona princeps princeps, may be at 

risk of extirpation due to potential 

impacts from future climate change. We 

anticipate higher risks of extirpation for 

low to medium elevation (below 

approximately 3,048 m (10,000 ft)) of O. 

p. princeps populations in the Northern 

Wasatch Mountains of Utah, Ruby 

Mountains of Nevada, lower elevations 

of Glacier National Park, and Sawtooth 

Range in Idaho. These higher risks are 

due to projected mean surface 

temperatures above our 16.2 °C (61.2 °F) 

measure of elevated risk (Table 1 above). 

We do not anticipate an increase in 

mean summer temperature by 2050 will 

have an adverse affect on the majority 

of O. p. princeps populations found in 

Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana; 

specifically in the Bighorn Mountains, 

Clearwater Mountains, Gallatin National 

Forest, mid- to high elevations of 

Glacier National Park, Wind River 

Range, and Bridger-Teton National 

Forest. Average summer surface 

temperature for these areas is projected 

to be below 16.2 °C (61.2 °F). The 

NOAA was unable to generate surface 

temperature projections for 2050 at 

minimum and maximum elevations of 

occupied pika sites in the Bighorn 

Mountains, Clearwater Mountains, 

Gallatin National Forest, Wind River 

Range, and Bridger-Teton National 

Forest. Specific locations (latitude and 

longitude coordinates) for pika 

populations, which are necessary in 

order to generate temperature 

projections at elevation, were not 

available for these five areas. While 

temperature projections are not 

available for these five areas, it is 

possible that at least some lower 

elevation pika sites will be at increased 

risk of extirpation as a result of 

exposure to summer temperatures at or 

above 16.2 °C (61.2 °F). Mid- to highelevation sites, where pikas are usually 

more common in the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Range, should be at a lower 

risk of extirpation or experience no risk, 

because summer temperatures will be 

cooler. Therefore, we anticipate the 

majority of O. p. princeps populations 

will not be at risk from increased 

summer temperature. 

We also determine that portions of the 

Coast Mountain and Cascade Range 

subspecies, Ochotona princeps fenisex, 

may be adversely affected by climate 

change. We anticipate risks to pika 

populations occurring at lower 

elevations (approximately 914 m (3,000 

ft or less)) at Mt. St. Helens. Pika 

populations occurring above 

approximately 914 m (3,000 ft) at Mt. St. 

Helens would likely experience a 

reduced risk of extirpation from 

increased summer temperature. 

Projections for 2050 summer surface 

temperature are below our measure of 

increased risk (16.2 °C (61.2 °F)) at 

Crater Lake, near Mt. Baker in the North 

Cascades Mountain Range, and the Mt. 

Hood/Three Sisters Mountains; 

therefore, we do not anticipate any risks 

to pika populations in these areas (Table 

1 above). Of the 69 unique pika 

observations used to generate an 

elevation range of O. p. fenisex, we do 

not anticipate risks (temperature 

approximately greater than or equal to 

16.2 °C (61.2 °F)) from increased 

summer temperatures occurring at 98 

percent (68 of 69) of the observation 

points. Therefore, we determined that 

the majority of O. p. fenisex populations 

would not be at a high risk of 

extirpation from increased summer 

temperatures by 2050. Because a 

sufficient amount of the habitat for O. p. 

fenisex is not at risk, we determined that 

future climate change does not threaten 

or endanger the subspecies. 

We do not anticipate populations of 

Ochotona princeps uinta to be at risk 

from the effects of increased summer 

temperatures; all projected surface 

temperatures remain below our measure 

of elevated risk (16.2°C (61.2°F)) (Table 

1 above). Therefore, we do not 

anticipate adverse population-level 

effects from increased summer 

temperatures to occur in populations of 

this subspecies. 

We do not anticipate an increase in 

mean summer temperature by 2050 to 

have an adverse effect on the majority 

of Ochotona princeps saxatilis 

populations, because the majority (76% 

in Colorado) of pika populations in the 

Southern Rocky Mountains occur at 

higher elevations where temperatures 

will remain below our 16.2 °C (61.2 °F) 

measure of elevated risk (Table 1 above; 

CDOW 2009, p. 21). Lower elevation 

populations of O. p. saxatilis in the 

Sangre de Cristo Mountains of northern 

New Mexico and Southern Rocky 

Mountains in Colorado are at higher risk 

of extirpation than populations 

occurring at mid- to high elevations in 

the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and 

Southern Rocky Mountains, again due 

to higher mean summer temperatures 

(Table 1 above). The majority of the pika 

populations in the Sangre de Cristo 

Mountains of New Mexico and Southern 

Rocky Mountains of Colorado occur at 

elevations near or greater than 3,353 m 

(11,000 ft) (CDOW 2009, p. 16; USFS 

2009, pp. 2-6). We expect lower risks of 

extirpation at these sites as a result of 

populations being exposed to relatively 

lower average summer temperatures 

(below 16.2 °C (61.2 °F)). 

As previously discussed, the 

subsurface temperatures of occupied 

habitats are a better predictor of the 

temperatures experienced by individual 

pikas and of the persistence of 

populations (Beever et al. 2009, pp. 9- 

10; Millar and Westfall 2009, p. 21). In 

addition to presenting comparisons of 

average summer surface temperatures, 

we reviewed below-surface (0.8 m (2.6 

ft) below talus surface) temperatures as 

a variable to compare extant to 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6453 

extirpated sites (Beever et al. 2009, 

Table 1). 

Summer microclimate in below-talus 

interstices is significantly cooler, as 

much as 24 °C (43.2 °F) during the 

hottest times of day (Finn 2009a, pers. 

comm.), at pika-extant sites compared to 

pika-extirpated sites (Beever et al. 2009, 

Table 1). Millar and Westfall (2009, p. 

20) discovered that within-rock matrix 

(interstitial spaces between boulders) 

temperatures at Sierra Nevada pika sites 

are as much as 4 to 7 °C (7.2 to 12.6 °F) 

lower than adjacent bedrock or mineral 

soil. Below-talus (0.8 m (2.6 ft)) 

temperatures from five Great Basin pika 

sites were on average 6 °C (10.8 °F) 

cooler than those recorded from the 

surface during the hottest time of the 

day (Finn 2009a, pers. comm.), which is 

the time of day when pikas retreat to 

subsurface areas to escape thermally 

stressful conditions (at least at lower 

elevations sites). 

Based on these data, it is evident that 

conditions below the talus-surface are 

site-specific and likely are specific to 

several other factors at a finer scale. 

These data suggest that pikas can persist 

in relatively warm surface environments 

if temperatures below the talus-surface 

contain favorable thermal conditions for 

survival (Millar and Westfall 2009, p. 

21). 

Comparisons between below-talus 

summer temperatures and surface 

summer temperatures indicate that our 

risk assessment for climate change may 

be overly conservative because risk 

estimates for pika sites were based on 

projections for summer surface 

temperatures. Because below-talus 

microclimate provides pikas with cool 

habitat during the hottest time of day 

during the summer, and pikas are 

dependent on these subsurface 

environments for survival, heat-stress 

levels experienced by pikas may be less 

than expected. The actual risk levels for 

pika populations at these sites are likely 

to be lower than we estimate above. 

In summary, we anticipate that the 

majority of Ochotona princeps princeps, 

O. p. fenisex, O. p. schisticeps, and O. 

p. saxatilis populations are not now or 

will not be at risk of extirpation due to 

increased summer temperatures 

resulting from climate change in the 

foreseeable future. Our analysis also 

shows that no portions of the O. p. uinta 

populations are at risk of extirpation 

now or in the foreseeable future due to 

climate change. Increased summer 

temperatures have the potential to 

adversely impact some lower and midelevation pika populations of O. p. 

princeps, O. p. fenisex, O. p. schisticeps, 

and O. p. saxatilis in the foreseeable 

future; however, this does not equate to 

a significant portion of the suitable 

habitat for any of these subspecies or the 

species collectively. American pika can 

tolerate a wider range of temperatures 

and precipitation than previously 

thought (Millar and Westfall 2009, p. 

17). The American pika has 

demonstrated flexibility in its behavior 

and physiology that can allow it to 

adapt to increasing temperature (Smith 

2009, p. 4). Based on all these lines of 

evidence, we determine that climate 

change is not a threat at the specieslevel or the subspecies-level now or in 

the foreseeable future. 

Livestock Grazing 

In general, pikas forage within 50 m 

(164 ft) of talus. The potential for 

interactions between pika and livestock 

in the immediate vicinity of talus (i.e., 

within 50 m (164 ft)) depends on the 

site-specific conditions. In some areas, 

steep terrain or rock formations may 

largely prevent livestock from accessing 

talus margins (Beever et al. 2003, p. 50); 

in other areas, if livestock have access 

to the talus edge, effects to pikas from 

livestock presence may not be through 

competition for food, but rather an 

indirect influence of trampling of soils 

or vegetation affecting vegetative growth 

(Beever et al. 2003, p. 49). Livestock 

grazing also could reduce vegetation 

close to talus habitat and subsequently 

cause pikas to forage farther from the 

protective cover of talus, thus increasing 

energy demands and risk of predation 

(Beever et al. 2003, p. 49). However, 

Beever et al. (2003, p. 50) noted the 

presence of an active haypile directly 

under a well-traveled horse trail and 

several haypiles near other trails in 

Nevada, suggesting that livestock may 

not affect foraging activities. Livestock 

generally avoid crossing rocky talus 

slopes, preventing direct interactions 

between livestock and pikas (Beever et 

al. 2003, p. 50). If interactions are 

happening between pika and livestock 

that result in a negative impact, we 

believe that these impacts occur 

primarily on a local scale within few 

pika habitats and are not a threat to 

overall pika populations. 

There are few studies regarding the 

effects of grazing on pika populations. 

Within the range of Ochotona princeps 

schisticeps, extirpations at 6 of 25 sites 

in the Great Basin occurred primarily in 

livestock-grazed areas (Beever et al. 

2003, p. 43). A modeling revealed that 

grazing was one of the top three 

predictors of the probability of pika 

extirpation (Beever et al. 2003, pp. 45, 

46, 49). However, the authors stated 

their methods were not sufficient to 

determine whether a cause-and-effect 

relationship existed (Beever et al. 2003, 

p. 47), and they subsequently withdrew 

their conclusion due to errors in the 

analysis (Beever 2009c, pers. comm.). 

Reanalysis showed that grazing 

occurrence at pika sites in the Great 

Basin was no longer in the top models 

to predict the probability of population 

extirpation (Beever 2009c, pers. comm.), 

showing there is not a significant 

correlation between pika extirpations 

that have occurred in the Great Basin 

and livestock grazing. 

Additionally, it also is possible that 

livestock do not affect the generalist diet 

of pikas. In North America, pika diet 

changes in the face of changing 

nutrition values in available plant 

species by shifting to an increase in 

sedges and forbs, especially in late 

summer when grasses become less 

nutritious. In general, cattle and horses, 

as ruminants, prefer grasses 

(graminoids) over forbs or shrubs 

(Shipley 1999, pp. 20-21) and can be 

considered specialist foragers relative to 

American pikas, which are generalist 

foragers. Furthermore, Wilkening (2007, 

p. 39) found that the relative amount of 

forb cover, not graminoids, was the 

single greatest predictor of persistence 

for Ochotona princeps schisticeps in the 

Great Basin. We conclude that the 

potential competition for forage between 

pikas and livestock is low. 

In summary, the potential for 

interactions between pika and livestock 

in the immediate vicinity of talus where 

pikas forage depends on the site-specific 

conditions. In some areas, steep, rocky 

terrain may largely prevent livestock 

from accessing talus margins (Beever et 

al. 2003, p. 50). If livestock have access 

to the talus edge, effects to pikas may be 

indirectly influenced by trampling of 

soils or vegetation (Beever et al. 2003, p. 

49). However, livestock generally avoid 

crossing rocky talus slopes, preventing 

direct interactions between livestock 

and pikas (Beever et al. 2003, p. 50). 

Thus, livestock may not affect foraging 

activities (Beever et al. 2003, p. 50). 

Pikas are generalist foragers while 

livestock specialize in foraging on 

graminoids (grasses), reducing the 

potential competition for forage. If 

interactions are happening between pika 

and livestock that result in negative 

impacts, we believe that these impacts 

occur primarily on a local scale within 

few pika habitats and are not a threat to 

overall pika populations. We conclude 

that livestock grazing is not a significant 

threat to any of the five subspecies of 

the American pika and, therefore, is not 

a threat to the species now or in the 

foreseeable future. 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6454 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Native Plant Succession 

Changes in vegetation, such as conifer 

encroachment into subalpine or alpine 

meadows, could potentially affect 

available forage for the American pika. 

Altitudinal treeline in the western North 

America has rarely moved more than 

100 m (330 ft) vertically during the 

Holocene period, even during prolonged 

warm periods (Rochefort et al. 1994 

cited in Farge 2003, p. 267). Although 

there is no clear evidence of uniform 

upward altitudinal treeline movement, 

tree establishment in subalpine 

meadows has been documented across 

the range of the American pika in areas 

like Glacier National Park in Montana 

(Bekker et al. 2000 cited in Farge 2003, 

p. 267), Mount Rainer National Park 

(Franklin et al. 1971, p. 215) and the 

Olympic Mountains (Woodward et al. 

1995, p. 217) in Washington, the central 

Sierra Nevada mountain range in 

California (Millar et al. 2004, p. 181), 

the White Mountains of south-central 

New Mexico (Dyer and Moffett 1999, p. 

444) and the Uinta Mountains in Utah 

(Dyer and Moffett 1999, p. 452). 

Tree establishment in subalpine 

meadows may affect pikas for a number 

of reasons. Trees near pika territories 

could obstruct a pika’s ability to 

visually detect predators, and trees 

could provide perches for avian 

predators (Wilkening 2007, pp. 42-43). 

Tree presence in meadows also alters 

vegetation composition that could 

potentially affect pika foraging behavior 

or forage availability. Relative tree cover 

is negatively correlated with Ochotona 

princeps schisticeps occupancy in the 

Great Basin (Wilkening 2007, p. 42). 

However, O. p. schisticeps sites in Lava 

Beds National Monument in northern 

California that have a low ratio of grass 

(graminoids) to forbs, shrubs, and trees 

are more likely to be used by pikas (Ray 

and Beever 2007, p. 45). O. p. 

schisticeps sites recently discovered on 

the Klamath National Forest in northern 

California found pikas occurring in talus 

sites surrounded by mixed conifer 

forests at approximately 1,800 m (6,000 

ft) in elevation and haypiles at those 

sites that included conifer branches 

(Hoyer and Fleissner 2009, pers. 

comm.). Studies also have documented 

pika foraging on tree saplings, which 

may prevent the establishment of trees 

near talus areas occupied by pikas 

(Krear 1965 and Simpson 2001 cited in 

Wilkening 2007, p. 42). 

Studies on Ochotona princeps 

schisticeps in the Great Basin have 

demonstrated that vegetation factors, 

specifically relative forb cover, 

influence pika persistence (Wilkening 

2007, p. 39) and are a strong predictor 

of occupancy (Ray and Beever 2007, p. 

1). Relative forb cover is negatively 

correlated with mean summer 

temperature and average daily summer 

highs (Wilkening 2007, p. 39). 

Wilkening’s (2007, p. 40) analysis is 

based on only two years of temperature 

data collected at extant and extirpated 

sites and may not represent conditions 

pikas experienced when extirpations 

occurred. It also is too short of a time 

period to document temperature 

variability, and it may not be 

representative of what pikas may 

experience in the future. 

Meadow invasions during the 20th 

century are correlated with climate 

change and other abiotic factors (Dyer 

and Moffett 1999, pp. 444, 452; Millar 

et al. 2004, p. 181). Precipitation (snow 

depth or snow pack) (Rochefort and 

Peterson 1996, p. 52; Farge et al. 2003, 

p. 263) and snow-free periods in 

subalpine meadows (Franklin et al. 

1971, p. 215) are critical variables 

regulating conifer expansion. Tree 

encroachment also is influenced locally 

by vegetation type, topographic 

variation, landscape position (Rochefort 

and Peterson 1996, p. 58), aspect (Dyer 

and Moffett 1999, p. 453), and warmer 

minimum temperatures (Millar et al. 

2004, p. 193) making uniform 

predictions difficult across the range of 

the American pika. However, in general, 

tree and shrub distributions in North 

America are likely to shift northward 

and upward in elevation in response to 

future climate change and species 

ranges (Shafer et al. 2001, p. 213). 

One example of a study investigating 

vegetative response to climate change 

occurs within the range of Ochotona 

princeps saxatilis in Colorado. This 

study shows increased warming 

expected under an atmosphere with a 

concentration of carbon dioxide twice 

that of pre-industrial levels could 

change the dominant vegetation of 

meadow habitat from forbs to shrubs 

like Artemisia tridentata (sagebrush) 

and Pentaphylloides floribunda 

(shrubby cinquefoil) (Harte and Shaw 

1995, p. 876). However, Dearing (1996, 

p. 474) found both of these plant species 

in abundance in pika haypiles in 

Colorado. While climate change has 

historically and may continue to affect 

sagebrush and shrubby cinquefoil 

distribution in Colorado in the future, it 

appears that pikas are adapting locally 

to these vegetative changes and utilizing 

these plant species in their haypiles. 

Although we have data to support that 

climate change has the potential to 

influence vegetative species distribution 

in the future, the resolution at which the 

simulations are made is very coarse (25 

km (15.5 mi) grids in Shafer et al. 2001 

(p. 202)). Very coarse data are difficult 

to apply to the American pika. All 

species have inherent spatial bounds on 

their life histories which can very 

extremely among species. Considering 

all vertebrates, American pikas are close 

to the smaller end of this spectrum. A 

typical pika can live its entire life 

within a 0.8 km (0.5 mi) diameter circle, 

which, ecologically, is bounded by the 

extent of a talus patch and a narrow 

buffer surrounding it. Conversely, 

climate models are often initially 

constructed at much coarser resolution 

– as much as 60 x 60 km (37.3 x 37.3 

mi) resolution. For each climatic 

parameter (average temperature, average 

precipitation) there is only one value for 

each pixel (i.e., 60 x 60 km (37.3 x 37.3 

mi) cell) despite the known ecological 

variation present in this pixel. Several 

techniques are available to ‘downscale’ 

climate models and downscaled maps 

are available (e.g., Shafer et al. 2001). 

However, factors such as topography, 

landform, geology, and soil properties 

can modify climate properties at finer 

resolutions. Whereas modelers have 

high confidence in coarse resolution 

climate models downscaled climate 

model interpretations becomes less 

reliable especially when applied to an 

ecological response (i.e., pika behavior) 

acting at fine resolution. Using plant 

species distribution models from Shafer 

et al. (2001) as an example, there may 

be fine-resolution factors (e.g., soil 

properties) affecting plant species 

distributions that were not accounted 

for. That may be acceptable when 

tracking common species range shifts 

but not necessarily useful to evaluate 

threats to a population inhabiting a 

small fraction of a pixel, such as in the 

case of the American pika. 

Additionally, projections of vegetative 

changes from Shafer et al. (2001) are for 

a 10–year period around 2090, a time 

period in which we think drawing any 

conclusions would be too speculative. 

Pikas have a generalist diet and 

manipulate vegetative species 

composition and growth rates in areas 

where they forage. As a result of these 

life history characteristics, we anticipate 

pikas will likely be able to adapt the 

level of changes happening to vegetative 

communities as a result of climate 

change. We have no clear trends to 

indicate that native plant succession as 

a result of climate change represents a 

significant threat to the American pika’s 

ability to forage. 

In summary, the relationship between 

pikas and their associated vegetative 

communities are complex, multifaceted 

and not well understood (Wilkening 

2007, p. 40). Potential changes in native 

vegetative plant communities, including 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6455 

tree encroachment of meadows, in 

American pika habitat could affect 

foraging. Pikas do not forage far from 

talus areas, and they manipulate the 

vegetative species composition and 

growth rates where they forage, 

suppressing plant succession. There are 

no clear trends showing that native 

vegetative changes are occurring at the 

scale that would affect pika foraging 

habitat and there is no evidence to 

suggest that native plant succession is a 

threat to pikas. We do not believe that 

this represents a significant threat to any 

of the five subspecies of the American 

pika and is not a threat to the species 

as a whole now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Invasive Plant Species 

Nonnative plant invasions vary 

according to climate, elevation, soils, 

and topography, as well as natural or 

human-mediated disturbance (Parks et 

al. 2005, p. 151). Several studies in 

North America indicate a negative 

correlation between elevation and 

nonnative species’ richness or 

abundance. Invasive species richness 

may decline with increasing elevation 

because fewer species (native as well as 

nonnative) thrive in the shorter growing 

seasons, cooler temperatures, and 

generally more stressful environment of 

subalpine and alpine ecosystems than at 

lower elevations (Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 

28). Parks et al. (2005, pp. 149, 154) 

synthesized much of the available 

information on the patterns of invasive 

plant diversity within the northwest 

mountain regions of the United States 

and found that alpine and subalpine 

plant communities (including 

wilderness areas and national parks) are 

still relatively unaffected by invasive 

plants. This condition is due in part to 

the remoteness of these areas and 

limited human access to these sites. 

However, Parks et al. (2005, p. 149) 

found that hay hauled into wilderness 

areas to support horses and mules for 

hunting and pack trips is a major source 

of noxious weeds, but the nonnative 

plant distribution along trails decreased 

sharply within a few meters (feet) of the 

trails, indicating that wilderness areas 

are not ideal habitats for nonnative 

plants. 

Fire can result in nonnative plant 

invasions at high elevations. Fire 

increases resource availability for 

invading plants, exposes mineral soils, 

reduces native species dominance and 

vigor, and could accelerate invasions 

(Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 28). Within the 

forests of the western United States, the 

greatest increases in wildfire frequency 

have been in the northern Rocky 

Mountains followed by the Sierra 

Nevadas, and the southern Cascade 

Mountains and the Coast Ranges of 

northern California and southern 

Oregon (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 941). 

This increase in fire frequency has 

occurred between 1,680 and 2,590 m 

(5,512 and 8,497 ft) in elevation and 

with the greatest increase centered 

around 2,130 m (6,988 ft) (Westerling et 

al. 2006, p. 941). Reduced winter 

precipitation, early spring snow melt, 

warmer spring and summer 

temperatures, longer dry summers, and 

drier vegetation all played a role in the 

increased wildfire activity (Westerling 

et al. 2006, p. 943). Whether the changes 

observed in wildfire are the result of 

greenhouse gas-induced climate change 

or normal climatic variability, climate 

model projections indicate that warmer 

springs and summers will occur in the 

coming decades creating conditions 

favoring the occurrence of large 

wildfires in forested areas (Westerling et 

al. 2006, p. 943) which would 

potentially affecting the spread of 

invasive plant species. 

However, the pioneering nonnative 

species most favored in recent burns are 

unlikely to persist in high-elevation 

environments (Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 

28). This outcome has been confirmed 

in fire effects studies conducted in 

wilderness and national parks along the 

crest of the Cascade Mountains that 

have not found nonnative plants 

(Douglas and Ballard 1971, pp. 1061- 

1062; Miller and Miller 1976 and 

Hemstrom and Franklin 1982 cited in 

Parks et al. 2005, p. 145); whether this 

absence is due to lack of seed source or 

environmental barriers to establishment 

is unknown. Therefore, we conclude 

that fire occurrences at high elevations 

in alpine and subalpine areas are not 

likely to increase nonnative plant 

invasions and this factor does not 

represent a significant threat to pika 

foraging. 

When we reviewed the State WAPs in 

the range of the American pika, we 

found that invasive plants are listed as 

threats in some pika habitat, but not in 

the species’ primary alpine habitat. New 

Mexico’s WAP acknowledged that wet 

meadow habitat can be manipulated to 

replace native vegetation with pasture 

species (NMDGF 2006, p. 183). 

California’s WAP (Bunn et al. 2006, p. 

272) listed invasive plants as a threat to 

the Modoc plateau (for example, 

Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and 

Lepidium virginicum (pepper weed)), 

but stated that subalpine and alpine 

plant communities in the Sierra Nevada 

and Cascades are relatively intact, with 

few invasive plants (Schwartz et al. 

1996 cited in Bunn et al. 2006, p. 299). 

Similarly, Nevada’s WAP (NDOW 2005, 

p. 159) did not list invasive plants as a 

threat to alpine and subalpine habitats. 

Utah’s WAP (Sutter et al. 2005, pp. 5- 

7, 8-7) listed invasive plants (cheatgrass 

and noxious weeds) as a threat to the 

American pika’s secondary habitat of 

mountain shrub. Alpine habitats that are 

the primary habitat for the American 

pika are not identified as a key habitat 

by the State of Utah and, therefore, 

threats to this habitat are not listed in 

the Utah WAP (Sutter et al. 2005, pp. 5- 

8). 

The invasion of the American West by 

Bromus tectorum has caused 

widespread modifications in the 

vegetation of semi-arid ecosystems 

(Rowe and Brown 2008, p. 630) 

replacing native vegetation with a 

monoculture of nonnative annual grass. 

Additionally, invasions of B. tectorum 

and other nonnative grass species alter 

fuel loads, alter fuelbed flammability, 

and increase fire frequency and 

intensity (Zouhar et al. 2008, pp. 38-39), 

further promoting the spread of B. 

tectorum. Generally this invasion is 

occurring at or below 2,000 m (6,562 ft) 

in elevation; however, B. tectorum has 

been documented in Rocky Mountain 

National Park up to 2,750 m (9,022 ft) 

in elevation (Rowe et al. 2007, p. 45), 

suggesting that B. tectorum may be a 

future invader of higher elevations. 

Bromus tectorum is a relatively 

nutritious food plant for herbivores in 

its earliest stages, but as the grass 

matures it presents mechanical 

difficulties for digestion and has low 

nutritional value for herbivores 

(Klemmedson and Smith 1964, p. 249). 

Additionally, the period that B. 

tectorum is palatable and nutritious for 

herbivore consumption is considerably 

shorter than for most native herbaceous 

plants (Klemmedson and Smith 1964, p. 

250). Studies have documented B. 

tectorum in haypiles at Ochotona 

princeps princeps sites in central Idaho 

(Elliot 1980, p. 208). At sites in the 

Great Basin, B. tectorum was the fourth 

or fifth most abundant plant species in 

Ochotona princeps schisticeps haypiles 

(Beever et al. 2008, pp. 11, 14). Even 

though pikas are haying B. tectorum, 

studies have not documented pikas 

grazing on B. tectorum nor has the 

nutritional value and digestibility of B. 

tectorum for pikas been investigated 

(Wilkening 2007, p. 10; Beever et al. 

2008, p. 12). 

Bromus tectorum seeds can germinate 

even after the mature plant is uprooted 

or its stem is cut, or after seeds pass 

through an herbivore’s digestive system. 

Thus, pikas may alter the dynamics of 

the spread of B. tectorum at local spatial 

scales (Beever et al. 2008, p. 12). The 

pika’s consumption and digestibility of 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6456 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

seeds is unknown; thus, the potential 

for seed redistribution also is unknown. 

At this time, there is no data that 

indicate that B. tectorum presence in 

pika habitat represents a significant 

threat to the species or any of the five 

subspecies. 

In summary, invasions of nonnative 

plants could change the composition of 

meadows used for foraging by the 

American pika. However, subalpine and 

alpine ecosystems are relatively intact 

and free from invasive species. Bromus 

tectorum (cheatgrass) has been 

documented in pika habitat below 2,750 

m (9,022 ft) in elevation. Ochotona 

princeps schisticeps and O. p. princeps 

have been documented to use this 

species, but the nutritional value and 

digestibility of B. tectorum for pikas is 

poorly understood. At this time, we 

have no evidence indicating that 

invasive plant species pose a significant 

threat to any of the five subspecies of 

the American pika and, therefore 

invasive plant species are not a threat to 

the species now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Fire Suppression 

Fire is considered an important factor 

in creating and maintaining meadow 

areas, and the microclimate of the firecreated openings determines whether or 

how fast trees reinvade (Franklin et al. 

1971, p. 221). For example, many 

subalpine meadows in the Olympic 

Mountains in Washington were 

probably created by fire (Woodward et 

al. 1995, p. 218). 

Human suppression of wildfires could 

allow for the establishment of trees in 

subalpine meadows. However, in 

general, human wildfire suppression 

efforts focus on protection of urban 

areas first and foremost. Pikas typically 

occur in remote areas far from urban 

settings where human access for 

suppression is sometimes difficult due 

to the remoteness of the area and steep 

terrain. Additionally, in most cases, 

pika occur in wilderness areas, national 

parks, and other federally protected 

areas with specific management goals 

and objectives that implement 

Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics 

(MIST). The MIST emphasize 

suppressing wildland fire with the least 

impact to the land and use the 

minimum amount of fire-fighting 

resources necessary to effectively 

achieve the fire management protection 

objectives consistent with land and 

resource management objectives 

(National Wildfire Coordinating Group 

2003, p. 1). Implementation of MIST in 

areas where pikas occur on federally 

protected lands minimizes the potential 

for humans interfering with the process 

of wildfires limiting tree encroachment 

and creating or maintaining alpine 

meadows. Additionally, implementation 

of MIST reduces the possibility of 

humans acting as vectors for 

introduction of invasive plants. We 

conclude that there is no evidence that 

indicates that human fire suppression 

efforts represent a significant threat to 

pikas. 

In summary, fire is considered an 

important factor in creating and 

maintaining meadow areas. Human 

suppression of wildfires could allow for 

the establishment of trees in subalpine 

meadows or possible invasions from 

nonnative plants in pika habitat. 

However, pikas typically occur in 

remote areas and in most cases, are 

occurring in federally protected areas 

with specific management goals and 

objectives that implement MIST. We 

conclude that there is no evidence to 

indicate that human fire suppression 

efforts are a significant threat to any of 

the five subspecies of the American 

pika; therefore, fire suppression is not a 

threat to the species now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Summary of Factor A 

In our analysis of Factor A, we 

identified and evaluated the following 

risks to habitat of the five subspecies of 

the American pika and the species as a 

whole: (1) Climate change; (2) livestock 

grazing; (3) native plant succession; (4) 

invasive plant species; and (5) fire 

suppression. 

Increased summer temperatures as a 

result of climate change may have the 

potential to adversely affect some lower 

and mid-elevation pika populations of 

Ochotona princeps princeps, O. p. 

fenisex, O. p. schisticeps and O. p. 

saxatilis in the foreseeable future; 

however, this does not equate to a 

significant portion of the suitable 

habitat for any of the five subspecies or 

the species collectively. American pika 

can tolerate a wider range of 

temperatures and precipitation than 

previously thought (Millar and Westfall 

2009, p. 17). The American pika has 

demonstrated flexibility in its behavior, 

such as using cooler habitat below the 

surface to escape hotter summer 

daytime temperatures, and physiology 

that can allow it to adapt to increasing 

temperature (Smith 2009, p. 4). Cooler 

temperatures below the talus surface 

can provide favorable thermal 

conditions for pika survival in relatively 

warm surface environments. Based on 

all these lines of evidence, we have 

determined that climate change is not a 

threat at the species or the subspecieslevel now or in the foreseeable future. 

The potential for interactions between 

pika and livestock where pikas forage 

depends on the site-specific conditions. 

If interactions are happening between 

pika and livestock that result in negative 

impacts, we believe that these impacts 

occur primarily on a local scale within 

a few pika habitats and are not a threat 

to overall pika populations. We 

conclude that livestock grazing is not a 

significant threat to any of the five 

subspecies of the American pika and, 

therefore, it is not a threat to the species 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

Potential changes in native vegetative 

plant communities, including tree 

encroachment of meadows, in American 

pika habitat could affect foraging. Pikas 

do not forage far from talus areas, and 

they manipulate the vegetative species 

composition and growth rates where 

they forage, suppressing plant 

succession. There are no clear trends 

showing that native vegetative changes 

are occurring at the scale that would 

affect pika foraging habitat and there is 

no evidence to suggest that native plant 

succession is a threat to pikas. We do 

not believe that native plant succession 

represents a significant threat to any of 

the five subspecies of the American pika 

and, therefore, it is not a threat to the 

species now or in the foreseeable future. 

Invasions of nonnative plants could 

change the composition of meadows 

used for foraging by the American pika. 

However, studies document that 

subalpine and alpine ecosystems are 

relatively intact and free from invasive 

species. Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) 

has been documented in pika habitat 

below 2,750 m (9,022 ft) in elevation. 

Ochotona princeps schisticeps and O. p. 

princeps have been documented to use 

this species, but the nutritional value 

and digestibility of B. tectorum for pikas 

is poorly understood. At this time, we 

have no evidence indicating that 

invasive plant species pose a significant 

threat to any of the five subspecies of 

the American pika, and, therefore, 

invasive plants are not a threat to the 

species now or in the foreseeable future. 

Fire is considered an important factor 

in creating and maintaining meadow 

areas. Human suppression of wildfires 

could allow for the establishment of 

trees in subalpine meadows or possible 

invasions from nonnative plants in pika 

habitat. However, pikas typically occur 

in remote areas and in most cases, are 

occurring in federally protected areas 

with specific management goals and 

objectives that implement MIST. We 

conclude that there is no evidence to 

indicate that human fire suppression 

efforts are a significant threat to any of 

the five subspecies of the American pika 

and, therefore, these efforts are not a 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6457 

threat to the species now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Based on our review of the best 

available information, we find that the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

American pika’s habitat or range is not 

a threat to the five subspecies or the 

species as a whole now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

During our review of the available 

information, we found no evidence of 

risks from overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes affecting any of 

the five subspecies of the American pika 

populations. Therefore, based on the 

best available scientific information, we 

conclude that the American pika is not 

threatened by overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease 

Pikas are known to be infected by 

coccidian parasites (Duszynski 1974, p. 

94; Hobbs and Samuel 1974, p. 1079; 

Lynch et al, 2007 p. 1230); however, no 

information indicates these parasites 

affect the persistence of the species. 

Nematodes (Murielus spp.) (Hoberg 

2005, pp. 358, 360-362) and pinworms 

(Labiostomum spp.) (Hoberg 2009 et al, 

pp. 490-491, 497) also are known to 

infect pikas. Galbreath (2009, pp. 98- 

100) describes seven helminth parasite 

species collected from pika (Ochotona 

princeps) that represent five distinct 

genera that including tapeworms 

(Schizorchis), oxyurid nematodes 

(Cephaluris, Labiostomum), and 

strongylid nematodes (Graphidiella, 

Murielus). Bot fly larvae (Cuterebra 

spp.) infestation and pulmonary fungus 

(Haplosporangium parvum) also have 

been reported in pikas, but these are 

likely extremely unusual cases 

(Carmichael 1951, pp. 606, 613, 616; 

Baird and Smith 1979, p. 553). 

Pikas are hosts to Rocky Mountain 

wood ticks (Dermacentor andersoni) 

(James et al. 2006, pp. 21-22) and fleas 

(Megabothris abantis, Meringis 

hubbardi) (Bossard 2006, pp. 261, 264, 

266). Fleas and ticks are potential 

vectors of disease and pathogens that 

may affect the health of pikas. However, 

during our review of the best available 

information, we only found one record 

of a disease-related mortality in pika. 

Plague was reported in an individual 

pika found in 1989 at Lava Beds 

National Monument in northern 

California (Bonkrude 2009, pers. 

comm.), in the subspecies Ochotona 

princeps schisticeps. 

In summary, based on the best 

available scientific information, we 

conclude that disease does not pose a 

significant threat to the five subspecies 

of the American pika and, therefore, 

disease is not a significant threat to the 

species. 

Predation 

While pikas may be prey for 

numerous species, no information 

indicates that predation presents a 

threat to the species. Potential predators 

across the range of pikas include 

coyotes (Canis latrans), long-tailed 

weasels (Mustela frenata), short-tailed 

weasels (M. erminea), pine martens 

(Martes americana), raptors, and corvids 

(Broadbooks 1965, pp. 327, 329; Lutton 

1975, p. 234; Marti and Braun 1975, p. 

213; Ivins and Smith 1983, pp. 277-284; 

Smith and Weston 1990, p. 5; Forsman 

et al. 2004, p. 218; Quick 1951 and 

Murie 1961 in Gustafson 2007, p. 12). 

Pikas averaged less than one percent of 

northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 

caurina) prey found in pellets collected 

from 1970 to 2003 throughout Oregon 

(Forsman et al. 2004, p. 219) within the 

range of the subspecies Ochotona 

princeps fenisex. However, in Colorado 

within the ranges of O. p. princeps and 

O. p. saxatilis, pika was the most 

frequent mammalian prey collected near 

one nest and several roost sites of 

prairie falcons (Falco mexicanus) (Marti 

and Braun 1975, p. 213). 

Ivins and Smith (1983, p. 277) 

investigated the response of Ochotona 

princeps saxatilis to martens and 

weasels in Rocky Mountain National 

Park in Colorado. Weasels have been 

identified as the most effective predator 

of pikas because of their ability to hunt 

within talus interstices (rocky slopes) 

(Ivins and Smith 1983, p. 279). Ivins 

and Smith (1983, p. 277) found that 

adult pikas use alarm calls to broadcast 

the presence of predators, warning kin 

and other pikas of the presence of a 

predator in the area. This may be one 

mechanism that has allowed pikas to 

persist in Rocky Mountain National 

Park in the presence of this effective 

predator. Another potential persistence 

factor is that pikas have a relatively high 

reproductive rate giving birth to average 

litter sizes of 2.34 to 3.68 young twice 

a year (Smith and Weston 1990, p. 4). 

We have considered the best available 

information on predation and conclude 

that predation is not a significant threat 

to any of the five subspecies of 

American pika, and, therefore, 

predation is not a significant threat to 

the species as a whole. 

Summary of Factor C 

In conclusion, we found that while 

pikas are hosts to several species of 

internal parasites, as well as species of 

fleas and ticks, only one record exists of 

a disease-related morality of a single 

pika from plague in northern California. 

Additionally, we note that while pikas 

may be prey for numerous species, no 

information indicates that predation has 

an overall adverse effect on the species. 

We find that neither disease nor 

predation is a threat to any of the five 

subspecies of the American pika, and, 

therefore, neither disease nor predation 

is a threat to the species now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

To determine if existing regulatory 

mechanisms protect the five subspecies 

of the American pika, we evaluated 

existing international and United States 

conventions, agreements, and laws for 

the specific protection of the American 

pika or their habitats. 

United States 

Federal Laws and Regulations 

The Wilderness Act 

The USFS, NPS, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), and the Service all 

own lands designated as wilderness 

areas under the Wilderness Act of 1964 

(16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). Within these 

areas, the Wilderness Act states the 

following: (1) New or temporary roads 

cannot be built; (2) there can be no use 

of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, 

or motorboats; (3) there can be no 

landing of aircraft; (4) there can be no 

other form of mechanical transport; and 

(5) no structure or installation may be 

built. As shown in Table 2 below, a 

large amount of suitable pika habitat 

occurs within Federal wilderness areas 

in the United States (Wilderness.net 

2009). As such, a large proportion of 

existing pika habitat is protected from 

direct loss or degradation by the 

Wilderness Act’s prohibitions. Where 

human activity and threats are 

increasing in wilderness areas that 

contain pika habitat, we have no 

evidence to suggest that pikas are being 

affected or will be affected in the 

foreseeable future (see Factor E). 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6458 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2. AMOUNT (PERCENT) OF AMERICAN PIKA HABITAT ACROSS LAND OWNERSHIP BY SUBSPECIES AND SPECIES (FINN

2009B, PERS. COMM.). MEASUREMENTS ARE GIVEN IN ACRES, [HECTARES], AND (PERCENT OF TOTAL) WITHIN RANGE

O. p. schisticeps O. p. uinta O. p. fenisex O. p. princeps O. p. saxatilis Species-wide 

BLM* 96,002 

[38,852] 

(15.08%) 

106,803 

[43,222] 

(25.98%) 

16 

[6] 

(0.01%) 

29,457 

[11,921] 

(1.70%) 

54,644 

[22,114] 

(6.00%) 

286,922 

[116,116] 

(7.18%) 

DOD* 3,903 

[1,580] 

(0.61%) 

2 

[1] 

(<0.01%) 

9 

[4] 

(<0.01%) 

23 

[9] 

(<0.01%) 

0 3,937 

[1,593] 

(0.10%) 

NPS* 134,150 

[54,290] 

(21.07%) 

26,664 

[10,791] 

(6.49%) 

82,531 

[33,400] 

(27.50%) 

88,028 

[35,624] 

(5.07%) 

58,175 

[23,543] 

(6.39%) 

389,547 

[157,648] 

(9.75%) 

USFS* 370,580 

[149,972] 

(58.20%) 

237,520 

[96,123] 

(57.77%) 

213,163 

[86,266] 

(71.03%) 

1,515,056 

[613,135] 

(87.26%) 

711,626 

[287,991] 

(78.18%) 

3,047,945 

[1,233,486] 

(76.31%) 

Service* 2,253 

[912] 

(0.35%) 

0 0 63 

[26] 

(<0.01%) 

66 

[27] 

(0.01%) 

2,382 

[964] 

(0.06%) 

Misc. Fed.* 0 0 0 151 

[61] 

(0.01%) 

0 151 

[61] 

(<0.01%) 

Tribal Lands 3,883 

[1,571] 

(0.61%) 

4,885 

[1,977] 

(1.19%) 

549 

[222] 

(0.18%) 

44,392 

[17,965] 

(2.56%) 

108 

[44] 

(0.01%) 

53,817 

[21,780] 

(1.35%) 

Private 8,405 

[3,401] 

(1.32%) 

22,581 

[9,138] 

(5.49%) 

3,058 

[1,238] 

(1.02%) 

52,016 

[21,050] 

(3.00%) 

81,849 

[33,124] 

(8.99%) 

167,909 

[67,952] 

(4.20%) 

County 16,971 

[6,868] 

(2.67%) 

0 0 3 

[1] 

(>0.01%) 

0 16,974 

[6,869] 

(0.42%) 

State 607 

[246] 

(0.10%) 

12,678 

[5,130] 

(3.08%) 

777 

[314] 

(0.26%) 

6,996 

[2,831] 

(0.40%) 

3,723 

[1,506] 

(0.41%) 

24,780 

[10,028] 

(0.62%) 

Total 636,755 

[257,686] 

411,133 

[166,380] 

300,104 

[121,448] 

1,736,186 

[702,610] 

910,189 

[368,340] 

3,994,367 

[1,616,498] 

Total Wilderness 

Within Above 

Federal Land 

295,962 

[119,774] 

(46.48%) 

19,558 

[7,915] 

(4.76%) 

192,754 

[78,006] 

(64.23%) 

514,726 

[208,307] 

(29.65%) 

178,118 

[72,083] 

(19.57%) 

1,201,118 

[486,086] 

(30.07%) 

*Federal land 

National Environmental Policy Act 

All Federal agencies are required to 

adhere to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) for projects they fund, 

authorize, or carry out. The Council on 

Environmental Quality’s regulations for 

implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500- 

1518) state that agencies shall include a 

discussion on the environmental 

impacts of the various project 

alternatives (including the proposed 

action), any adverse environmental 

effects which cannot be avoided, and 

any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources involved (40 

CFR 1502). The NEPA itself is a 

disclosure law, and does not require 

subsequent minimization or mitigation 

measures by the Federal agency 

involved. Although Federal agencies 

may include conservation measures for 

pika as a result of the NEPA process, 

any such measures are typically 

voluntary in nature and are not required 

by the statute. Table 2 above shows the 

amount of pika habitat occurring on 

Federal lands; additionally, activities on 

non-Federal lands are subject to NEPA 

if there is a federal nexus. 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act 

The BLM’s Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

1701 et seq.), as amended, states that the 

public lands shall be managed in a 

manner that will protect the quality of 

scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, 

environmental, air and atmospheric, 

water resource, and archeological 

values, and that where appropriate, 

BLM will preserve and protect certain 

public lands in their natural condition, 

and provide food and habitat for 

wildlife (BLM and SOL 2001, p. 8). 

Pikas and pika habitat occur on BLM 

lands in Oregon, California, Nevada, 

Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. 

Table 2 above shows the amount of pika 

habitat occurring on BLM lands. We are 

unaware of any BLM-specific 

regulations, policies, or guidance that 

directly manages threats to pikas. 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6459 

National Forest Management Act 

Under the USFS’ National Forest 

Management Act of 1976, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 1600-1614), the USFS shall 

strive to provide for a diversity of plant 

and animal communities when 

managing national forest lands. 

Individual national forests may identify 

species of concern which are significant 

to each forest’s biodiversity. It is 

unknown what level of protection, if 

any, each of the individual national 

forests offer for pika. In many of the 10 

States in which pikas are found, pikas 

occur in wilderness areas and are thus 

protected under the Wilderness Act. 

Outside of wilderness but still on USFS 

lands, pikas occur mainly in alpine 

areas, which are sensitive to negative 

habitat alterations. Their habitat is 

generally offered more protections from 

harvest or road building than would 

otherwise be the case in lowland areas. 

Table 2 above shows the amount of pika 

habitat occurring on USFS lands. 

National Park Service Organic Act 

The NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 

U.S.C. 1 et seq.), as amended, states that 

the NPS ‘‘shall promote and regulate the 

use of the Federal areas known as 

national parks, monuments, and 

reservations ... to conserve the scenery 

and the national and historic objects 

and the wildlife therein and to provide 

for the enjoyment of the same in such 

manner and by such means as will leave 

them unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

future generations.’’ Where pikas occur 

in National Parks, they and their 

habitats are protected from large-scale 

loss or degradation due to the Park 

Service’s mandate to ‘‘...conserve 

scenery... and wildlife...[by leaving] 

them unimpaired.’’ Table 2 above shows 

the amount of pika habitat occurring on 

NPS lands. 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 

The National Wildlife Refuge Systems 

Improvement Act (NWRSIA) of 1997 

(Pub. L. 105-57) amends the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.). 

The NWRSIA directs the Service to 

manage the Refuge System land and 

waters for conservation. The NWRSIA 

also requires monitoring of the status 

and trends of refuge fish, wildlife, and 

plants. The NWRSIA requires 

development of a comprehensive 

conservation plan for each refuge and 

management of each refuge consistent 

with the plan. Where pikas occur on 

National Wildlife Refuge lands (see 

Table 2 above), they and their habitats 

are protected from large-scale loss or 

degradation due to the Service’s mission 

to ‘‘to administer a national network of 

lands... for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats.’’ 

Sikes Act 

The Sikes Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 670a 

et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of 

Defense to develop cooperative plans for 

conservation and rehabilitation 

programs on military reservations and to 

establish outdoor recreation facilities, 

and it provides for the Secretaries of 

Agriculture and the Interior to develop 

cooperative plans for conservation and 

rehabilitation programs on public lands 

under their jurisdiction. The Sikes Act 

Improvement Act of 1997 required 

Department of Defense (DOD) 

installations to prepare integrated 

natural resources management plans 

(INRMPs). Consistent with the use of 

military installations to ensure the 

readiness of the Armed Forces, INRMPs 

provide for the conservation and 

rehabilitation of natural resources on 

military lands and incorporate, to the 

maximum extent practicable, ecosystem 

management principles and provide the 

landscape necessary to sustain military 

land uses. Table 2 above shows the 

amount of pika habitat occurring on 

DOD lands. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 

The petitioner claims that the 

American pika is threatened by a lack of 

regulatory mechanisms to curb 

greenhouse gases that contribute to 

global temperature rises (Wolf et al. 

2007, p. 50). However, as stated earlier 

under Factor A, our status review did 

not reveal information that increased 

summer temperatures are a significant 

threat to the five subspecies or species 

range-wide now or in the foreseeable 

future. Nonetheless, we acknowledge 

that no regulatory mechanisms 

adequately address global climate 

change. 

The Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 

7401 et seq.), as amended, requires the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to develop and enforce regulations to 

protect the general public from exposure 

to airborne contaminants that are known 

to be hazardous to human health. In 

2007, the Supreme Court ruled that 

gases that cause global warming are 

pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and 

that the EPA has the authority to 

regulate carbon dioxide and other heattrapping gases (Massachusetts et al. v. 

EPA 2007 [Case No. 05-1120]). The EPA 

published a regulation to require 

reporting of greenhouse gas emissions 

from fossil fuel suppliers and industrial 

gas suppliers, direct greenhouse gas 

emitters and manufacturers of heavyduty and off-road vehicles and engines 

(74 FR 56260; October 30, 2009). The 

rule, effective December 29, 2009, does 

not require control of greenhouse gases; 

rather it requires only that sources 

above certain threshold levels monitor 

and report emissions (74 FR 56260; 

October 30, 2009). On December 7, 

2009, the EPA found under section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act that the 

current and projected concentrations of 

six greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 

threaten public health and welfare. The 

finding itself does not impose 

requirements on any industry or other 

entities but is a prerequisite for any 

future regulations developed by the 

EPA. At this time, it is not known what 

regulatory mechanisms will be 

developed in the future as an outgrowth 

of the finding or how effective they 

would be in addressing climate change. 

Secretarial Order Number 3289 

Department of the Interior Secretarial 

Order Number 3289, issued September 

14, 2009 (Department of the Interior 

(DOI) 2009), provides guidance to 

bureaus and offices within DOI to work 

‘‘...with other federal, state, tribal and 

local governments, and private 

landowner partners to develop 

landscape-level strategies for 

understanding and responding to 

climate change impacts.’’ The DOI 

bureaus and offices also shall 

‘‘...[c]onsider and analyze potential 

climate change impacts when 

undertaking long-range planning 

exercises, setting priorities for scientific 

research and investigations, developing 

multi-year management plans, and 

making major decisions regarding 

potential use of resources under the 

Department’s purview.’’ The DOI land 

management plans and NEPA 

documents are subject to this Order. 

This Secretarial Order requires that 

Federal agencies consider the future 

potential impacts of climate change in 

their planning process. However, as 

stated earlier under Factor A, our status 

review did not reveal information that 

increased summer temperatures are a 

significant threat to the species rangewide now or in the foreseeable future. 

State Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategies (CWCS) and 

State Environmental Policy and 

Protection Acts 

The pika receives some protection 

under State laws in Washington, 

Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, 

Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New 

Mexico. Each State’s fish and wildlife 

agency has some version of a CWCS in 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6460 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

place. These strategies, while not state 

or national legislation, can help 

prioritize conservation actions within 

each State. Named species and habitats 

within each CWCS may receive focused 

attention during State Environmental 

Protection Act (SEPA) reviews as a 

result of being included in a State’s 

CWCS. However, only Washington, 

California, and Montana appear to have 

SEPA-type regulations in place. In 

addition, each State’s fish and wildlife 

agency often specifically names or 

implies protection of pikas in their 

hunting and trapping regulations. See 

below for an overview of pertinent 

regulations for each state in the range of 

the American pika. 

Washington 

The Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife’s (WDFW) hunting 

regulations name the pika as ‘‘protected 

wildlife,’’ meaning it is illegal to hunt, 

kill, possess, or control pikas in 

Washington (WDFW 2009, p. 65). This 

designation offers adequate protection 

to individual pikas from direct harm but 

offers no protection to pika habitat. 

The WDFW does not include the pika 

in its CWCS. However, protection of 

talus (considered a rare habitat type) is 

identified as a conservation action 

under the CWCS (WDFW 2005, p. 293). 

Conservation actions are those actions 

necessary to improve the conservation 

status of the species or habitat in the 

next 10 years. Implementation of these 

actions will likely require the 

cooperation of partners (private, State, 

Federal, and so forth) and landowners. 

Oregon 

The Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (ODFW) does not include the 

pika in its CWCS. However, their 

hunting regulations name the pika as a 

‘‘protected mammal,’’ making it illegal to 

be taken without a permit (ODFW 2009, 

p. 82). This designation protects 

individual pikas from direct harm, but 

does not offer protection to pika habitat. 

California 

The California Fish and Game Code, 

Section 2000, states that it is illegal ‘‘...to 

take any bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or 

amphibian except as provided in the 

code or regulations made pursuant 

thereto.’’ Pikas are considered a 

nongame mammal in California 

(California Fish and Game Code, Section 

4150), and as such are protected from 

taking or possessing. This designation 

protects pikas from direct harm, but 

does not offer protection to pika habitat. 

A major component of the California 

WAP (Bunn et al. 2007) is the 

identification of species of greatest 

conservation need in the State. The 

California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG) uses the Special Animal List, 

which includes Species of Special 

Concern (SSC), as the primary source 

list of these species. Revisions to the 

WAP will include threat assessments for 

current SSCs and their habitats, and will 

change conservation actions and 

priorities accordingly (Bunn et al. 2007, 

p. 19). The pika is listed as an SSC 

under California’s WAP (CDFG 2009, p. 

46). 

Being designated as an SSC is an 

administrative label only and carries no 

formal legal status. The California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

(California Public Resources Code secs. 

21000-21177) requires State agencies, 

local governments, and special districts 

to evaluate and disclose impacts to SSCs 

from projects in the State. Section 15380 

of the CEQA Guidelines clearly 

indicates that SSCs should be included 

in an analysis of project impacts if they 

can be shown to meet the criteria of 

sensitivity outlined therein. Sections 

15063 and 15065 of the CEQA 

Guidelines guide managers in assigning 

‘‘impact significance’’ to populations of 

non-listed species. Analysts are to 

consider factors such as populationlevel effects, proportion of the taxon’s 

range affected by a project, regional 

effects, and impacts to habitat features. 

Because SSC designation carries no 

legal status, it does not require 

mitigation where impacts are found to 

occur and as such would not protect 

pika habitat with certainty. 

Idaho 

Under the Idaho CWCS, pikas are 

considered to be secure, common, and 

widespread based on NatureServe’s 

conservation status (IDFG 2005, App. A, 

p. 18), and are not a species of greatest 

conservation need in that State. Pikas 

are designated as ‘‘protected nongame 

wildlife’’ under Idaho’s upland game 

hunting regulations. They may not be 

hunted, taken, or possessed (IDFG 2008, 

p. 9). This designation protects pikas 

from direct harm, but does not offer 

protection to pika habitat. 

Nevada 

Nevada Administrative Code 

(503.030) designates the pika as a 

protected mammal. As such it is illegal 

to hunt them in Nevada. This 

designation protects individual pikas 

from direct harm, but does not offer 

protection to pika habitat. 

Pikas are designated as a vulnerable 

species as well as a species of 

conservation priority in Nevada’s WAP, 

with a declining population (WAP Team 

2006, pp. 405, 291). Nevada’s 

conservation approach is to determine 

population viability, analyze 

demographics, confirm trends, identify 

suitable unoccupied habitat, and 

evaluate the potential for 

reintroduction. Talus slopes are 

identified as key elements of alpine and 

tundra habitat of importance to pika 

(WAP Team 2006, p. 154). Nevada’s 

WAP Team has identified priority 

research needs focused on pikas, 

including determining: the effects of 

recreation; minimum viable population 

size; population demographics; factors 

contributing to pika extirpation in 

Nevada; and long-term responses of 

alpine and tundra communities to 

global climate change. They also intend 

to model viability of individual 

populations and refine population trend 

estimates and factors. 

Utah 

Under Utah’s CWCS, pikas are a Tier 

III species (Sutter et al. 2005, pp. 5-7). 

The primary action for Tier III species 

is to gather more information regarding 

their status and any threats to them or 

their habitats. The UDWR considers 

pika to be a sensitive mammal species 

and SSC due to limited distribution 

(Messmer et al. 1998, p. 57). The UDWR 

administrative rules designate pikas as 

nongame mammals. A Utah certificate 

of registration is required in order to 

take nongame mammals (UDWR 2007). 

Usually such certificates pertain to 

banding, collection, salvage, 

depredation, fishing events, dog trials, 

or possession of live birds or certain 

ungulates. We do not know how likely 

it is that an applicant would be 

approved to kill or possess pikas. This 

designation protects pikas from direct 

harm, but does not offer protection to 

pika habitat. 

Montana 

Pikas are considered to be a nongame 

animal (MCA 2009 87-5-102), as they 

are not a nuisance animal (MCA 2009 

80-7-1101) or expressly otherwise 

named in Montana’s hunting regulations 

(MFWP 2009). It is illegal to take, 

possess, transport, export, sell, or offer 

them for sale (MCA 2009 87-5-106). This 

designation protects pikas from direct 

harm, but does not offer protection to 

pika habitat. 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

(MFWP) has identified pika as a species 

with greatest inventory need (MFWP 

2005, p. 410) in their CWCS. They are 

not on Montana’s Animal Species of 

Concern list (MNHP 2009), which is the 

list MFWP refers to when implementing 

their CWCS. Pikas are designated as a 

Tier 3 species in Montana, meaning they 

have a lower conservation need because 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6461 

they are either abundant and 

widespread or they have adequate 

conservation already in place (MFWP 

2005, pp. 32, 444). 

Wyoming 

Pikas are not listed as a species of 

concern under Wyoming’s CWCS 

(Wyoming Department of Game and 

Fish 2005). Wyoming’s Nongame 

Wildlife Regulations (WGFD 1998, p. 

20) consider pikas as ‘‘protected 

animals’’ which means they may only be 

taken after the issuance of a scientific or 

educational permit. This designation 

protects pikas from direct harm, but 

does not offer protection to pika habitat. 

Colorado 

The Colorado Division of Wildlife has 

designated pika as nongame wildlife 

and ‘‘protected’’ (CDOW 2009, p. 17). 

Their harassment, taking, or possession 

is prohibited unless permitted under a 

license from the State. This designation 

protects pikas from direct harm, but 

does not offer protection to pika habitat. 

Pikas are not mentioned in Colorado’s 

CWCS. 

New Mexico 

New Mexico’s CWCS lists the Goat 

Peak pika (was Ochotona princeps 

nigrescens, now included in O. p. 

saxatilis) as a species of greatest 

conservation need as well as vulnerable 

and State sensitive (NMDGF 2006, pp. 

55 and 57). 

The New Mexico Department of Game 

and Fish has designated pika as a 

‘‘protected species’’ (19 NMAC 36.2). As 

such, take of pikas is prohibited without 

a permit or license from the State. This 

designation protects pikas from direct 

harm, but do not offer protection to pika 

habitat. 

Summary of Factor D in the United 

States 

In summary, American pika habitat 

that occurs in the United States on 

public land is protected by several laws 

including the Wilderness Act of 1964; 

the National Forest Management Act of 

1976, as amended; the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976, as 

amended; the NPS Organic Act of 1916; 

the Sikes Act of 1960; and the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997. Additionally, the American 

pika receives some protection under 

State laws in Washington, Oregon, 

California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, 

Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New 

Mexico. Each State’s fish and wildlife 

agency has some version of a CWCS in 

place. All of these States have 

regulations that protect pikas from 

direct harm, but do not offer protection 

to pika habitat. 

Canada 

National Regulations 

Parks Canada is committed to 

protecting the natural heritage of their 

parks and ensuring that they remain 

healthy and whole (Parks Canada 2002). 

Hunting is prohibited in all Canadian 

National Parks, Regional District Parks, 

National Wildlife Areas, and Migratory 

Bird Sanctuaries unless a special 

Federal permit is granted or notices to 

the contrary are posted. Numerous 

Provincial and National Parks occur 

within the range of O. p. princeps in 

Canada, and overlap a large portion of 

the known occupied pika habitat there 

(BritishColumbia.com 2009; 

Government of Alberta 2009c). Where 

pikas occur in National Parks in Canada, 

their habitat is likely to be protected 

from loss or degradation due to the 

manner in which Parks are managed, 

and individual pikas would be 

protected from direct harm. Currently, 

the pika has no status under Canada’s 

Species at Risk Act (Government of 

Canada 2002). 

Provincial Regulations 

British Columbia 

In British Columbia, all native species 

of animals in the province (excluding 

invertebrates and fish) as well as several 

nonnative species have been designated 

as wildlife, giving them full protection 

under the Wildlife Act (Ministry of 

Environment British Columbia 1996, 

Chapter 488). These species may not be 

hunted, killed, captured, kept as pets, or 

used for commercial purposes unless 

specifically allowed by regulation or by 

authority of a permit from the Ministry 

of Environment. This designation 

protects individual pikas from direct 

harm, but does not offer protection to 

pika habitat. 

Under British Columbia’s Forest and 

Range Practices Act (Ministry of Forests 

and Range 2008), it is illegal for 

individuals to cause environmental 

damage. Updated regulations define 

environmental damage to include any 

change to soil that adversely alters an 

ecosystem. Under the new provision, 

individuals found to have caused 

environmental damage may be fined or 

jailed or both. This law applies on 

Crown lands as well as on private lands. 

This law helps to protect pika habitat 

within British Columbia’s portion of the 

Ochotona princeps fenisex and 

Ochotona princeps princeps subspecies. 

Alberta 

In Alberta, it is illegal to hunt or trap 

pika because they are a nongame 

species, which are illegal to hunt or trap 

without a special collection permit. 

American pika are not listed by name in 

either Alberta’s hunting or trapping 

regulations (Government of Alberta 

2009a, 2009b). 

Summary of Factor D in Canada 

In summary, individual pikas in 

Canada are protected from humancaused direct mortality, and the 

majority of habitat is protected as well. 

No threats have been documented to be 

occurring to pikas in Canada. Therefore, 

we find that the level of protection in 

Canada appears to be sufficient to 

protect the portions of the two 

American pika subspecies (Ochotona 

princeps fenisex and O. p. princeps) that 

occur within Canada. 

Summary of Factor D 

As described under Factor A, a factor 

potentially affecting four out of the five 

subspecies is loss of lower elevation 

habitat due to increased summer surface 

temperatures. While the Clean Air Act 

of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), as 

amended, requires the EPA to develop 

and enforce regulations to protect the 

general public from exposure to 

airborne contaminants that are known to 

be hazardous to human health, the EPA 

does not have regulations in place to 

control the emissions of greenhouse 

gases. The EPA’s December 7, 2009 

endangerment finding signals that 

regulations might be developed in the 

future; however, the contents and 

effectiveness of any such regulation is 

uncertain. Therefore, there are no 

known existing regulatory mechanisms 

currently in place at the local, State, 

national, or international level that 

effectively address these types of 

climate-induced threats to pika habitat. 

However, we determined in Factor A 

that climate change would not adversely 

affect the American pika at the species 

or subspecies level now or within the 

foreseeable future. Therefore, any 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to address the threat of 

climate change do not now or will not 

result in adverse impacts to the five 

subspecies or species as a whole within 

the foreseeable future. 

Based on our analysis of the existing 

regulatory mechanisms, we have found 

a diverse network of laws and 

regulations that provide varied 

protections to the American pika and its 

habitat rangewide. Specifically, 

American pika habitat that occurs in the 

United States on public land is 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6462 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

protected by the Wilderness Act of 

1964; the National Forest Management 

Act of 1976, as amended; the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976, as amended; the NPS Organic Act 

of 1916; the Sikes Act of 1960; and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. Additionally, 

the American pika receives some 

protection under State laws in 

Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, 

Nevada, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, 

Colorado, and New Mexico. Each State’s 

fish and wildlife agency has some 

version of a CWCS in place, and all of 

these States have regulations that 

protect pikas from direct harm, but do 

not offer protection to pika habitat. Two 

American pika subspecies (Ochotona 

princeps fenisex and O. p. princeps) 

occur in Canada, and individual pikas 

are protected from human-caused direct 

mortality, and the majority of habitat is 

protected as well. No threats have been 

documented to be occurring to pikas in 

Canada. Therefore, based on our review 

of the best available scientific 

information, we conclude that adequate 

regulatory mechanisms are in place to 

protect the species, including the five 

subspecies, now and in the foreseeable 

future. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

Roads 

Pika habitats, such as alpine and 

subalpine areas, may be sensitive to 

disturbance from roads and the 

activities which occur on them. 

Disturbance from roads may have a 

permanent impact on the landscape and 

negative impact on pika population 

persistence (Beever et al. 2003, p. 45). 

Roads may destroy or isolate habitat, 

prevent dispersal and migration, and 

interfere with necessary behavior. 

However, a study in the Great Basin 

shows proximity to roads does not play 

a substantial role in pika extirpations 

when compared to other factors, such as 

elevation and maximum daily air 

temperatures (Beever 2009c, pers. 

comm.). 

Road construction can create habitat 

for pikas due to placement of rubble as 

road grades and riprap for armoring 

waterways. Pikas have established 

colonies in human-made rock structures 

where none existed before in Oregon 

(Fontaine 2009, pers. comm.) and 

Washington State (Bruce 2009, pers. 

comm.; Wagner 2009, pers. comm.). 

Pikas were found to inhabit mine 

tailings and a rock wall in the Sierra 

Nevada and Great Basin Mountains 

(Millar et al. 2008, p. 1). A total of 55 

sites (or 32 percent of the sites 

surveyed) were in areas of moderate 

human visitation (Millar et al. 2008, p. 

1), many accessed by roads. Within 

Colorado, 44 percent of historic pika 

locations are within 100 m (328 ft) of a 

jeep or hiking trail; only one of these 

sites is currently unoccupied (CDOW 

2009, p. 12), although the cause of 

unoccupancy is unknown. Therefore, 

while it is possible that there could be 

some localized impacts at pika sites 

near roads, we have no evidence to 

suggest that roads constitute a 

significant threat to any subspecies of 

pika or the American pika species as a 

whole. 

In summary, we have documentation 

of pikas occurring in human-made 

settings and occupying sites in areas of 

moderate human use, and we have a 

study showing that presence of roads 

does not play a substantial role in pika 

extirpations at sites in the Great Basin. 

Therefore, we conclude that the 

presence of roads and their related 

human disturbance do not constitute a 

significant threat to the continued 

existence of the pika at either the 

species or subspecies level now or in 

the foreseeable future. 

Off-Highway Vehicles and Off-Road 

Vehicles 

We determined that off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) and off-road vehicle 

(ORV) use does not appear to be a 

significant threat to any subspecies of 

pika or the pika species now or in the 

foreseeable future. We used four lines of 

evidence to support this decision. As 

discussed in the 90–day finding, there is 

little evidence to support the hypothesis 

that human influence in alpine 

communities constitutes a range wide 

threat to the American pika, because the 

probability of direct human disturbance 

to population locations remains quite 

low. Sensitive habitats, where pikas 

often occur, are considered during the 

Federal land management planning 

process (70 FR 68264-68291, 16 U.S.C 

1131-1136). Federal agencies monitor 

sensitive habitats and close roads to 

protect areas containing sensitive 

habitat (70 FR 68264-68291, 16 U.S.C 

1131-1136). Vehicle restrictions are 

enforced under the National OHV Policy 

(36 CFR 212, 251, 261), Wilderness Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1131-1136), and local 

regulations (e.g., Okanogan Land and 

Resource Management Plan (USDA 

1989, pp. 4-8) and the Wenatchee Land 

and Resource Management Plan (USDA 

1990, pp. IV-90-91) in Washington). 

Trails 

Many hikers rely on trails to enter 

higher, more isolated areas inhabited by 

pikas. Trails can increase human 

activity near pika sites, with potential 

effects related to habitat disturbance and 

noise. However, Millar et al. (2008, pp. 

1-2) found that of 173 occupied pika 

sites within the range of Ochotona 

princeps schisticeps in the Great Basin 

and Sierra Nevada mountain ranges: (1) 

3 sites (2 percent) were on human-made 

structures; (2) 55 (32 percent) were in 

areas moderately impacted by human 

visitation; and (3) 3 of the occupied sites 

(2 percent) were within 1 m of wellused trails. Subsequent surveys revealed 

a total of 28 of 420 sites (7 percent) were 

within 1 m (3 ft) of active trails, and all 

28 sites were occupied (Millar and 

Westfall 2009, p. 10). 

Also, as discussed above, 27 of 62 

historical sites (44 percent) were within 

100 m (328 ft) of a jeep or hiking trail; 

only one of these sites was unoccupied 

(CDOW 2009, p. 12). Since access and 

disturbance by human activity does not 

correlate with extirpation of pika 

colonies, we conclude that disturbance 

by humans using trails is not a 

significant threat to pika at either the 

species or subspecies level now or in 

the foreseeable future. 

Recreational Shooting 

Shooting of pika is prohibited 

throughout most of its range. 

Disturbance, including construction 

activities and trash dumping, occurred 

at three out of seven sites and evidence 

of recreational shooting at only a single 

site, Smith Creek, Nevada (Beever et al. 

2003, p. 45). The authors mention no 

evidence of pika mortality, only the 

presence of shell casings at a single site. 

We are not aware of any other 

information on recreational shooting of 

pika. Therefore, we conclude that while 

recreational shooting may occur on 

occasion, it is not a significant threat to 

the pika at either the species or 

subspecies level now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Summary of Factor E 

In summary, we assessed the potential 

risks to pika populations from other 

natural or manmade factors associated 

with nearness to roads, nearness to 

trails, proximity to OHV/ORV use, and 

recreational shooting, and we find that 

there is no evidence that indicates these 

activities significantly threaten the 

continued existence of American pika, 

at either the species or subspecies level, 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

Finding 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five factors in assessing whether the 

species is threatened or endangered 

throughout all or a significant portion of 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6463 

its range. We have carefully examined 

the best scientific and commercial 

information available regarding the past, 

present, and future threats faced by the 

species. We reviewed the petition, 

information available in our files, other 

available published and unpublished 

information, and other information 

provided to us after the 90–day finding 

was published. We also consulted with 

recognized American pika experts and 

other Federal, State, and tribal agencies. 

In our analysis of Factor A, we 

identified and evaluated the risks of the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

habitat or range of the five subspecies of 

the American pika, and the species as a 

whole, from: (1) Climate change; (2) 

livestock grazing; (3) native plant 

succession; (4) invasive plant species; 

and (5) fire suppression. We determine 

that increased summer surface 

temperature from climate change is not 

a significant threat to the species as a 

whole. In our climate change risk 

assessment, we determined that no pika 

site would be adversely affected across 

the species’ entire range of elevation, 

but some mid- to low elevations that 

contain pikas would be at risk from 

increased summer temperature (see 

Table 1 above). These relatively low 

elevations within pika sites that would 

be at risk were distributed among four 

of five subspecies (Ochotona princeps 

princeps, O. p. fenisex, O. p. schisticeps 

and O. p. saxatilis), with O. p. uinta not 

containing any populations that would 

be at risk. These relatively low elevation 

at-risk areas do not represent a 

significant portion of the subspecies’ 

habitat (and, therefore, the species’ 

habitat as a whole), especially since 

pikas primarily occupy high-elevation 

talus habitat. Therefore, we conclude 

the five subspecies and the entire 

species are not at risk from increased 

summer temperatures now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Actual risk levels from increased 

summer surface temperatures of pika 

populations at pika sites may be lower 

than we estimated in Factor A. Results 

from comparisons between below-talus 

summer temperatures and surface 

summer temperatures indicate that our 

risk assessment for climate change may 

be overly conservative because risk 

estimates for pika sites were based on 

projections for summer surface 

temperatures. Because below-talus 

microclimate provides pikas with cool 

habitat during the hottest time of day 

during the summer, and pikas are 

dependent on these subsurface 

environments for survival, heat-stress 

levels experienced by pikas may be less 

than expected and are likely to be lower 

than we estimated. There is also 

evidence indicating the American pika 

can tolerate a wider range of 

temperatures and precipitation than 

previously thought (Millar and Westfall, 

p. 17). The American pika demonstrates 

flexibility in its behavior and 

physiology that allows it to adapt to the 

degree of increasing temperature that we 

expect within the foreseeable future. We 

have evidence that suggests the five 

American pika subspecies have 

persisted through climatic oscillations 

in the past (Hafner 1994, p. 375; 

Grayson 2005, p. 2103), which indicates 

that the species-wide pool of genetic 

diversity should not be greatly 

diminished by ongoing climate change. 

We investigated the potential effects 

to the American pika and its habitat 

from interactions with domestic 

livestock, native plant succession, 

nonnative plant invasions and human 

fire suppression. We concluded that 

interactions with domestic livestock, 

native plant succession, nonnative plant 

invasions, and human fire suppression 

do not represent a significant threat to 

any of the five subspecies of the 

American pika and, therefore, these are 

not a threat to the species now or in the 

foreseeable future. Based on our review 

of the best available information, we 

find that the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the American pika’s 

habitat or range is not a threat to the five 

subspecies or the species as a whole 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

During our review of the available 

information, we found no evidence of 

risks from overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

education affecting any of the five 

subspecies of the American pika 

populations or the species as a whole. 

Therefore, we conclude that the 

American pika is not threatened by 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

We found that while pikas are hosts 

to several species of internal parasites as 

well as species of fleas and ticks, only 

one record exists of a disease-related 

morality of a single pika from plague in 

northern California. Additionally, we 

note that, while pikas may be prey for 

numerous species, no information 

indicates that predation has an overall 

adverse effect on the species. We find 

that neither disease nor predation is a 

threat to any of the five subspecies of 

the American pika and, therefore, 

neither disease nor predation is a 

significant threat to the species now or 

in the foreseeable future. 

Based on our analysis of the existing 

regulatory mechanisms, we have found 

a diverse network of laws and 

regulations that provide protections to 

the American pika and its habitat on 

Federal lands in the United States. 

There are no known existing regulatory 

mechanisms currently in place at the 

local, State, national, or international 

level that effectively address climateinduced threats to pika habitat. 

However, we determined that climate 

change would not adversely affect the 

American pika at the species or 

subspecies level now or within the 

foreseeable future. Additionally, the 

American pika receives some protection 

under State laws in Washington, 

Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, 

Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New 

Mexico. Each State’s fish and wildlife 

agency has some version of a CWCS in 

place, and all of these States have 

regulations that protect pikas from 

direct harm, but do not offer protection 

to pika habitat. Two American pika 

subspecies (Ochotona princeps fenisex 

and O. p. princeps) occur in Canada, 

and individual pikas are protected from 

human-caused direct mortality, and the 

majority of habitat is protected as well. 

No threats have been documented to be 

occurring to pikas in Canada. Therefore, 

based on our review of the best available 

scientific information, we conclude that 

adequate regulatory mechanisms are in 

place to protect the species and the five 

subspecies now and in the foreseeable 

future. 

We also assessed the potential risks to 

pika populations from other natural or 

manmade factors associated with 

nearness to roads, trails, and OHV/ORV 

use, and associated with recreational 

shooting, and we find that there is no 

evidence that indicates these activities 

significantly threaten the continued 

existence of American pika, at either the 

species or subspecies level, now or in 

the foreseeable future. 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

pertaining to the five factors does not 

support the assertion that there are 

threats of sufficient imminence, 

intensity, or magnitude as to cause 

substantial losses of population 

distribution or viability of the American 

pika or any of its five subspecies. 

Therefore, we do not find that the 

American pika is in danger of extinction 

(endangered), nor is it likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future (threatened) throughout its range. 

As a result, we determine that listing the 

American pika at the species or 

subspecies level, as endangered or 

threatened under the Act is not 

warranted at this time. 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6464 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Distinct Vertebrate Population 

Segments (DPSs) 

After assessing whether the species 

and subspecies are endangered or 

threatened throughout their range, we 

next consider whether any DPS of 

American pika meets the definition of 

endangered or is likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future 

(threatened). In this case, because we 

have determined that portions of the 

Ochotona princeps fenisex subspecies, 

O. p. princeps, O. p. saxatilis 

subspecies, and portions within the 

Great Basin of the O. p. schisticeps 

subspecies are likely to experience 

increased extirpations of pika within the 

forseeable future, we analyzed whether 

any of these areas meet the definition of 

a DPS. 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 

Under the Service’s Policy Regarding 

the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments Under the 

Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722, 

February 7, 1996), three elements are 

considered in the decision concerning 

the establishment and classification of a 

possible DPS. These are applied 

similarly for an addition to or a removal 

from the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. These elements 

include: (1) The discreteness of a 

population in relation to the remainder 

of the taxon to which it belongs; (2) the 

significance of the population segment 

to the taxon to which it belongs; and (3) 

the population segment’s conservation 

status in relation to the Act’s standards 

for listing, delisting (removal from the 

list), or reclassification (i.e., whether the 

population segment is endangered or 

threatened). 

In our analysis of Factor A, we 

partnered with NOAA to assess 

historical and future temperature 

projections for the western United 

States. In the assessment, 22 pika sites 

were identified for analysis representing 

the five subspecies across the range of 

the species. We determined that certain 

populations of Ochotona princeps 

schisticeps, O. p. fenisex, O. p. princeps, 

and O. p. saxatilis are currently at risk 

or would be at risk in the foreseeable 

future from the threat of increased 

summer temperature (see Table 1 

above). These subpopulation include: 

(1) Southeastern Oregon, Monitor Hills, 

southern Wasatch Mountains, Toiyabe 

Mountains, and Warner Mountains for 

Ochotona princeps schisticeps; (2) Mt. 

St. Helens for O. p. fenisex; (3) Glacier 

National Park, Northern Wasatch 

Mountains, Ruby Mountains, and 

Sawtooth Mountain Range for O. p. 

princeps; and (4) Sangre de Cristo 

Mountains and Southern Rockies for O. 

p. saxatilis. Because we have identified 

climate change as being a potential 

factor that may influence the future 

distribution of the four subspecies listed 

above, we analyzed these areas to 

determine whether they meet our DPS 

policy. 

Discreteness 

Under the DPS policy a population 

segment of a vertebrate taxon may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

one of the following conditions: (1) It is 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors. 

Quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation; and 

(2) It is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. We begin our 

analysis of discreteness by addressing 

the first condition listed above 

(markedly separate). 

Ochotona princeps schisticeps in 

southeastern Oregon, Monitor Hills, 

southern Wasatch Mountains, Toiyabe 

Mountains, and Warner Mountains 

American pikas are distributed across 

a subset of Great Basin mountain ranges, 

including the mountains of southeastern 

Oregon, Monitor Hills, southern 

Wasatch Mountains, Toiyabe 

Mountains, and Warner Mountains 

(hereafter, O. p. schisticeps 

subpopulation or Great Basin 

subpopulation) and typically found at 

high elevations within this geographic 

area. Geographical features, such as 

broad desert valleys, are effective at 

isolating these patches and serve as 

barriers to gene flow between pika 

metapopulations belonging to the same 

subspecies (Meredith 2002, pp. 47-48, 

53; Grayson 2005, p. 2104). In the 

numerous ‘‘sky islands’’ of the Great 

Basin, American pikas are isolated 

(greater than the maximum estimated 

individual dispersal distance (10 to 20 

km; 6.2 to 12.4 mi) of the species from 

the nearest extant population by these 

geographic barriers (Hafner 1994, pp. 

376-378). These barriers eliminate 

dispersal of pikas between and among 

mountain ranges. Because temperatures 

in these valleys often exceed the 

physiological constraints of pikas (e.g., 

valley temperatures often are greater 

than or equal to 28 °C (82.4 °F)), pikas 

are unable to disperse to other mountain 

ranges and are now confined to a subset 

of ranges within the Great Basin. 

We would expect a higher probability 

of long-distance dispersal in suitable 

habitat containing favorable climate 

conditions within mountain ranges 

occupied by the O. p. schisticeps 

subpopulation. Within cool habitat, 

such as high elevation talus slopes, 

populations separated by less than 20 

km (12.4 mi) might experience 

occasional contact (Hafner 1993, p. 378; 

Hafner 1994, p. 380). Unsuitable, lowelevation habitat ranging from 3 to 8 km 

(1.9 to 5.0 mi) can act as a complete 

barrier to gene flow in Great Basin pika 

populations (Meredith 2002, p. 54). In 

low elevations, distances of as little as 

300 m (984 ft) can be effective barriers 

to pika dispersal (Smith 1974a, p. 1116). 

Therefore, given the current distribution 

and the physiological and physical 

limitations of the species, we expect few 

successful dispersal events from 

populations within the O. p. schisticeps 

subpopulation to adjacent habitats 

outside of this subpopulation. 

Analyses of genetic similarity among 

pikas of increasing geographic 

separation demonstrate that 

metapopulations are separated by 

somewhere between 10 and 100 km 

(Hafner and Sullivan 1995, p. 312). 

More substantial gene flow occurs 

within mountain ranges containing 

continuous or semi-continuous habitat 

than between mountain ranges that may 

be separated by geographical barriers to 

dispersal (Peacock 1997, p. 346; 

Meredith 2002, p. 48). Genetic 

substructure within subspecies and 

discontinuity among metapopulations is 

evident within the American pika. 

However, the genetic distinctiveness of 

population segments below the 

subspecies level is not necessarily 

correlated with biological and ecological 

significance, especially when it is not 

clear which populations contain 

relatively higher genetic variability. 

Geneticists have suggested resolution of 

genetic structure and connectivity 

below the subspecies level is required 

before management at finer scales below 

the subspecies level is warranted 

(Galbreath et al. 2009b, p. 33). Great 

Basin pika populations separated by 

geographic barriers to dispersal can 

develop distinct genetic signatures 

(Meredith 2002, pp. 37, 44, 46). 

Analyses of genetic distance 

demonstrate population differentiation 

as well (Hafner and Sullivan 1995, p. 

306). Additionally, we have genetic 

information that provides evidence of 

this separation, such as the Great Basin 

subpopulation having mitochondrial 

deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) 

haplotypes (a combination of forms of a 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6465 

gene at multiple specific locations on 

the same chromosome) that are different 

from other O. p. schisticeps populations 

(Galbreath et al. 2009a, Figures 1 and 2; 

Galbreath et al. 2009b, p. 19, Figures 1, 

4, and 5). These lines of genetic 

evidence indicate that the Great Basin 

O. p. schisticeps subpopulation is 

markedly separated from other O. p. 

schisticeps populations. 

In summary, physical barriers to 

dispersal within the Great Basin O. p. 

schisticeps subpopulation, such as 

warmer valleys, and physiological 

factors limit the connectivity of pikas 

between and among isolated sites. 

Genetic analyses demonstrate that 

geographic barriers to dispersal can 

isolate pikas and cause populations to 

form distinct genetic signatures over 

ecological time. Therefore, we 

determined that the Great Basin O. p. 

schisticeps subpopulation under threat 

of climate change is markedly separate 

from other O. p. schisticeps populations 

as a consequence of physical, 

physiological, and ecological factors. 

We also have genetic information that 

demonstrates evidence of this 

separation, although we believe it is of 

limited use with respect to its 

correlation with biological and 

ecological significance for the 

subpopulation. We conclude that the O. 

p. schisticeps subpopulation is discrete 

under the Service’s DPS policy. 

Ochotona princeps fenisex at Mt. St. 

Helens 

Similar physical, physiological, and 

ecological factors that we determined 

markedly separate the Great Basin O. p. 

schisticeps subpopulation from other O. 

p. schisticeps populations also play a 

role in separating the Mt. St. Helens 

subpopulation from other O. p. fenisex 

populations. These factors include: (1) 

Physical barriers to dispersal; (2) 

physiological restraints, such as 

sensitivity to high temperatures, that 

limit dispersal; and (3) the patchy 

nature of the subspecies’ distribution 

typically at high elevations. 

Additionally, we have genetic 

information that provides evidence of 

this separation, such as the Mt. St. 

Helens subpopulation having 

mitochondrial DNA haplotypes that are 

different from other O. p. fenisex 

populations (Galbreath et al. 2009a, 

Figures 1 and 2; Galbreath et al. 2009b, 

p. 19, Figures 1, 4, and 5). 

We determined that the Mt. St. Helens 

subpopulation under threat of climate 

change is markedly separate from other 

Ochotona princeps fenisex populations 

as a consequence of physical, 

physiological, and ecological factors. 

We also have genetic information that 

demonstrates evidence of this 

separation, although we believe it is of 

limited use with respect to its 

correlation with biological and 

ecological significance for the 

subpopulation. We conclude that the 

Mt. St. Helens subpopulation is discrete 

under the Service’s DPS policy. 

Ochotona princeps princeps in Glacier 

National Park, Northern Wasatch 

Mountains, Ruby Mountains, and 

Sawtooth Mountain Range 

Similar physical, physiological, and 

ecological factors that we determined 

markedly separate the Great Basin 

Ochotona princeps schisticeps 

subpopulation from other O. p. 

schisticeps populations also play a role 

in separating the Glacier National Park, 

Northern Wasatch Mountains, Ruby 

Mountains, and Sawtooth Mountain 

Range population segment (here after, 

O. p. princeps subpopulation) from 

other O. p. princeps populations. These 

factors include: (1) Physical barriers to 

dispersal; (2) physiological restraints, 

such as sensitivity to high temperatures, 

that limit dispersal; and (3) the patchy 

nature of the subspecies’ distribution 

typically at high elevations. 

Additionally, we have genetic 

information that provides evidence of 

this separation, such as the Ruby and 

Northern Wasatch Mountains 

populations having mitochondrial DNA 

haplotypes that are different from other 

O. p. princeps populations (Galbreath et 

al. 2009b, p. 19, Figures 1, 2, and 5). 

We determined that the Ochotona 

princeps princeps subpopulation under 

threat of climate change is markedly 

separate from other O. p. princeps 

populations as a consequence of 

physical, physiological, and ecological 

factors. We also have genetic 

information that demonstrates evidence 

of this separation, although we believe 

it is of limited use with respect to its 

correlation with biological and 

ecological significance for the 

subpopulation. We conclude that the O. 

p. princeps subpopulation is discrete 

under the Service’s DPS policy. 

Ochotona princeps saxatilis in the 

Sangre de Cristo Mountains and 

Southern Rockies 

Similar physical, physiological, and 

ecological factors that we determined 

markedly separate the Great Basin 

Ochotona princeps schisticeps 

subpopulation from other O. p. 

schisticeps populations also play a role 

in separating the Sangre de Cristo 

Mountain and Southern Rockies 

subpopulation (here after, O. p. saxatilis 

subpopulation) from other O. p. 

saxatilis populations. These factors 

include: (1) Physical barriers to 

dispersal; (2) physiological restraints, 

such as sensitivity to high temperatures, 

that limit dispersal; and (3) the patchy 

nature of the subspecies’ distribution 

typically at high elevations. 

Additionally, we have genetic 

information that provides evidence of 

this separation, such as the Sangre de 

Cristo Mountains and Southern Rocky 

Mountains populations having 

mitochondrial DNA haplotypes that are 

different from other O. p. saxatilis 

populations (Galbreath et al. 2009b, p. 

19, Figure 1, 2 and 5). 

We determined that the Ochotona 

princeps saxatilis subpopulation under 

threat of climate change is markedly 

separate from other O. p. saxatilis 

populations as a consequence of 

physical, physiological, and ecological 

factors. We also have genetic 

information that demonstrates evidence 

of this separation, although we believe 

it is of limited use with respect to its 

correlation with biological and 

ecological significance for the 

subpopulation. We conclude that the O. 

p. saxatilis subpopulation is discrete 

under the Service’s DPS policy. 

Significance 

If a population segment is considered 

discrete under one or more of the 

conditions described in the Service’s 

DPS policy, its biological and ecological 

significance will be considered in light 

of Congressional guidance that the 

authority to list DPSs be used 

‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the 

conservation of genetic diversity. In 

making this determination, we consider 

available scientific evidence of the 

discrete population segment’s 

importance to the taxon to which it 

belongs. Since precise circumstances are 

likely to vary considerably from case to 

case, the DPS policy does not describe 

all the classes of information that might 

be used in determining the biological 

and ecological importance of a discrete 

population. However, the DPS policy 

describes four possible classes of 

information that provide evidence of a 

population segment’s biological and 

ecological importance to the taxon to 

which it belongs. As specified in the 

DPS policy (61 FR 4722), this 

consideration of the population 

segment’s significance may include, but 

is not limited to, the following: 

(1) Persistence of the discrete 

population segment in an ecological 

setting unusual or unique to the taxon; 

(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete 

population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of a taxon; 

(3) Evidence that the discrete 

population segment represents the only 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6466 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

surviving natural occurrence of a taxon 

that may be more abundant elsewhere as 

an introduced population outside its 

historic range; or 

(4) Evidence that the discrete 

population segment differs markedly 

from other populations of the species in 

its genetic characteristics. 

A population segment needs to satisfy 

only one of these conditions to be 

considered significant. Furthermore, 

other information may be used as 

appropriate to provide evidence for 

significance. 

Persistence of the population segment in 

an ecological setting that is unusual or 

unique for the taxon 

We evaluated all discrete population 

segments (described as subpopulations 

under Discreteness) to determine if any 

population segment persists in an 

ecological setting this is unusual or 

unique for the species. Our analysis for 

each subpopulation is provided below. 

Pikas occupying habitat in the 

Ochotona princeps schisticeps 

subpopulation in the Great Basin are 

found in what has been described as 

talus or rockslides (Smith and Weston 

1990, p. 4), where talus can be more 

specifically described as rock-ice or 

non-rock-ice features (Millar and 

Westfall 2009, pp. 6, 18). Talus fields 

are typically fringed by suitable 

vegetation for foraging. Great Basin pika 

sites have been associated with diverse 

vegetation associations (Millar and 

Westfall 2009, p. 10) and a pika’s 

generalist diet can include a wide 

variety of plant material (Huntly et al. 

1986, p.143; Beever et al. 2008, p. 14). 

Pika populations in the Great Basin not 

only occur adjacent to alpine meadow 

habitat, but also have been documented 

at relatively lower elevations persisting 

under a diet consisting of plants that 

commonly include Elymus cinereus 

(Great Basin wild rye), Artemisia 

tridentata (sagebrush), Rosa woodsii 

(wild rose), and Bromus tectorum 

(cheatgrass) (Beever et al. 2008, p. 14; 

Collins 2009 pers. comm.). 

Pikas inhabiting the Mt. St. Helens 

subpopulation of Ochotona princeps 

fenisex are found in talus, rockslides, or 

in the case of 2 of 8 populations, they 

can be found in log piles (Bevers 1998, 

pp. 68, 70-71). The studies on Mt. St. 

Helens suggest that pikas are more 

opportunistic in habitat use than has 

been previously described (Bevers 1998, 

p. 72). Populations from Mt. St. Helens 

were associated with forage items that 

include forbs, trees, and ferns (Bevers 

1998, p. 75). 

Pikas inhabiting the Ochotona 

princeps princeps subpopulation are 

found in talus or rockslides generally at 

high elevations (Meredith 2002, p. 8; 

UDWR 2009, p. 8; USFS 2009b, pp. 2- 

6). We do not have information to the 

specific type of ecological setting that is 

occupied by the populations inhabiting 

these segments, but we expect the 

habitats to contain features that have 

been previously described for the 

species. 

Pikas inhabiting the Ochotona 

princeps saxatilis subpopulation are 

described as occupying talus slopes 

situated in cool, moist habitats of the 

alpine tundra and subalpine forests 

(Fitzgerald et al. 1994 cited in CDOW 

2009, p. 3). We do not have information 

to the specific type of ecological setting 

that is occupied by this subpopulation, 

but we expect the habitats to contain 

features that have been previously 

described for the species. 

For the purposes for determining 

significance in a DPS analysis, we look 

at whether the settings occupied in the 

area under consideration are unique or 

unusual to the taxon in question, and 

whether the persistence of the 

population in the unique or unusual 

ecological setting may provide a 

behavioral or physiological adaptation 

that would be significant to the taxon as 

a whole. Thus, for this analysis, we 

analyzed whether the discrete 

population segments constitute an 

unusual or unique ecological setting for 

each of the four subspecies of the pika 

under consideration. Pikas select habitat 

that includes topographical features 

characterized by rocks or other surface 

features, such as log piles, large enough 

to provide necessary interstitial spaces 

for subsurface movement and 

microclimate conditions suitable for 

pika survival by creating cooler refugia 

in summer months and insulating 

individuals in colder, winter months 

(Beever 2002, p. 27; Millar and Westfall 

2009, pp. 19-21). Pikas also select 

habitats that contain forage vegetation 

that is accessible within distances 

comparable to dimensions of home 

ranges (Beever 2002, p. 28). Occupied 

habitats within the population segments 

under consideration do not constitute 

an unusual or unique setting for the 

pika because they fall within the 

species’ typical ecological niche, and 

there does not appear to be any 

behavioral or physiological differences 

in these population segments that result 

from ecological pressures in their 

specific geographic areas. Additionally, 

the food resources used by pika in these 

areas are similar to those found 

elsewhere throughout the range. No 

information indicates that American 

pika habitat in the four population 

segments under consideration 

constitutes an unusual or unique 

ecological setting for the species. 

Evidence that loss of the discrete 

population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of taxon 

We evaluated all discrete population 

segments (described as subpopulations 

under Discreteness) to determine if loss 

of any population segment would result 

in a significant gap in the range of the 

subspecies to which the population 

segment belongs. Our analysis for each 

subpopulation is provided below. 

Ochotona princeps schisticeps or Great 

Basin Subpopulation 

Pika sites potentially at risk of 

extirpation in the foreseeable future 

from increased summer surface 

temperatures from climate change 

within the O. p. schisticeps 

subpopulation (see Table 1 above) occur 

at relatively low elevations. Pika sites 

within this same subpopulation at 

higher elevations, where pikas more 

typically occupy suitable talus habitat, 

are not at risk from climate change now 

or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, 

within the subpopulation, not all pika 

sites are potentially at risk from the 

effects of climate change, and results 

from comparisons between below-talus 

summer temperatures and surface 

summer temperatures indicate that our 

risk assessment for climate change may 

be conservative because risk estimates 

for pika sites were based on projections 

for summer surface temperatures. As 

stated under Discreteness, in the 

numerous ‘‘sky islands’’ of the Great 

Basin, American pikas are isolated 

(greater than the maximum estimated 

individual dispersal distance (10 to 20 

km, or 6.2 to 12.4 mi of the species from 

the nearest extant population) by these 

geographic barriers (Hafner 1994, pp. 

376-378). These barriers eliminate 

dispersal of pikas between and among 

mountain ranges. Because temperatures 

in these valleys often exceed the 

physiological constraints of pikas (e.g., 

valley temperatures often exceed greater 

than or equal to 28 °C (82.4 °F)), pikas 

are unable to disperse to other mountain 

ranges and are now confined to a subset 

of ranges within the Great Basin, 

thereby creating many gaps between 

pika populations in the Great Basin. 

Because there is no opportunity for 

populations to interact between these 

barriers, the loss of a pika site 

potentially at risk from increased 

summer surface temperatures may 

potentially create an additional gap in 

the range of the subspecies, however, 

we have determined that the possible 

loss of the pika occurrence would not 

result in the creation of a significant gap 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6467 

in the range of the subspecies. Our basis 

for this determination is that loss of the 

pika occurrence would not result in a 

gap that is biologically significant for 

subspecies since they are already highly 

fragmented throughout the Great Basin. 

Additionally, the amount of suitable 

habitat and number of pika populations 

in the O. p. schisticeps subpopulation is 

small when compared to the Sierra 

Nevada Mountain Range in the 

remainder of the range of the 

subspecies. 

Therefore, the contribution of the 

Ochotona princeps schisticeps 

subpopulation to the subspecies as a 

whole is small, and loss of the 

population segment would not result in 

a significant gap in the range of the 

subspecies. 

Ochotona princeps fenisex or Mt. St. 

Helens Subpopulation 

One out of a total of eight known pika 

populations on Mt. St. Helens (Bevers 

1998, pp. 68, 70-71) is potentially at risk 

of extirpation from increased summer 

surface temperatures from climate 

change within the O. p. fenisex 

subpopulation in the foreseeable future 

(see Table 1 above) and occurs at 

relatively low elevations. Pika sites 

within this same subpopulation at 

higher elevations, where pikas more 

typically occupy suitable talus habitat, 

are not at risk from climate change now 

or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, 

within the subpopulation, not all pika 

sites are potentially at risk from the 

effects of climate change, and results 

from comparisons between below-talus 

summer temperatures and surface 

summer temperatures indicate that our 

risk assessment for climate change may 

be conservative because risk estimates 

for pika sites were based on projections 

for summer surface temperatures. 

Of the 69 unique pika observations 

used to generate an elevation across the 

range of O. p. fenisex, we do not 

anticipate risks from increased summer 

temperatures occurring at 98 percent (68 

of 69) of the observation points. As 

such, the amount of suitable habitat in 

the Mt. St. Helens subpopulation 

segment when compared to the rest of 

the range of the subspecies is small. 

Therefore, the contribution of the Mt. 

St. Helens subpopulation to the 

subspecies as a whole is small and 

provides a nominal contribution 

ecologically and biologically to the 

subspecies, such that loss of the 

population segment would not result in 

a significant gap in the range of the 

subspecies. 

Ochotona princeps princeps 

Subpopulation 

Pika sites potentially at risk of 

extirpation in the foreseeable future 

from increased summer surface 

temperatures from climate change 

within the O. p. princeps subpopulation 

(see Table 1 above) occur at relatively 

low elevations. Pika sites within this 

same subpopulation at mid- to higher 

elevation talus habitat, where pikas 

currently occupy suitable talus habitat, 

are not at risk from climate change now 

or in the foreseeable future. Best 

available information suggests that pikas 

more frequently occupy the highest 

elevation talus slopes in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains, and based on the 

NOAA projected surface temperatures 

(see Table 1 above), these habitats are 

not at risk from climate change now or 

in the foreseeable future. Therefore, 

within the subpopulation, not all pika 

sites are potentially at risk from the 

effects of climate change and results 

from comparisons between below-talus 

summer temperatures and surface 

summer temperatures indicate that our 

risk assessment for climate change may 

be conservative because risk estimates 

for pika sites were based on projections 

for summer surface temperatures. 

Therefore, the contribution of the 

Ochotona princeps princeps 

subpopulation to the subspecies as a 

whole is small and provides a nominal 

contribution ecologically and 

biologically to the subspecies, such that 

loss of the subpopulation would not 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of the subspecies. 

Ochotona princeps saxatilis 

Subpopulation 

Pika sites potentially at risk of 

extirpation in the foreseeable future 

from increased summer surface 

temperatures from climate change 

within the O. p. saxatilis subpopulation 

(see Table 1 above) occur at relatively 

low elevations. Pika sites within this 

same subpopulation at mid- to higher 

elevation talus habitat, where pikas 

currently occupy suitable talus habitat, 

are not at risk from climate change now 

or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, 

within the subpopulation, not all pika 

sites are potentially at risk from the 

effects of climate change and results 

from comparisons between below-talus 

summer temperatures and surface 

summer temperatures indicate that our 

risk assessment for climate change may 

be conservative because risk estimates 

for pika sites were based on projections 

for summer surface temperatures. Pikas 

inhabiting the Ochotona princeps 

saxatilis subpopulation in the Southern 

Rockies in Colorado are described as 

occupying talus slopes situated in cool, 

moist habitats of the alpine tundra and 

subalpine forests at or above 3,000 m 

(10,000 ft) (Fitzgerald et al. 1994 cited 

in CDOW 2009, p. 3). These habitats are 

extensive in Colorado and the 

topography of Colorado is described as 

follows: ‘‘Roughly three quarters of the 

Nation’s land above 10,000 feet altitude 

lies within its borders. The State has 59 

mountains 14,000 feet or higher, and 

about 830 mountains between 11,000 

and 14,000 feet in elevation’’ (Doesken 

et al. 2003 cited in CDOW 2009, p. 3). 

Therefore, the contribution of the 

Ochotona princeps saxatilis 

subpopulation to the subspecies as a 

whole is small and provides a nominal 

contribution ecologically and 

biologically to the subspecies, such that 

loss of the population segment would 

not result in a significant gap in the 

range of the subspecies. 

Evidence that the discrete population 

segment represents the only surviving 

natural occurrence of a taxon that may 

be more abundant elsewhere as an 

introduced population outside its 

historical range 

The American pika survives naturally 

throughout much of British Columbia, 

Alberta, and the western United States. 

As such, this consideration is not 

applicable to any population segment of 

the American pika or the subspecies 

under consideration in the finding. 

Evidence that the discrete population 

segment differs markedly from other 

populations of the species in its genetic 

characteristics 

A recent extensive genetic analysis 

has determined there are five major 

genetic lineages of American pikas 

(Galbreath et al. 2009b, p. 7), which 

have since been interpreted as 

subspecies (Hafner and Smith 2009, p. 

16). Galbreath et al. (2009b, p. 18) 

determined it is unlikely that additional 

deeply divergent lineages (i.e., 

subspecies) of American pika remain to 

be identified. Minor differences in 

genetic signatures can occur within each 

subspecies. For example, 

metapopulations separated by 

geographic barriers to dispersal can 

develop distinct genetic signatures 

(Meredith 2002, pp. 37, 44, 46). 

Additionally, as discussed under the 

Discreteness section above, 

mitochondrial DNA haplotypes are 

unique to each American pika 

population (Galbreath et al. 2009b, p. 

19). However, each of the smaller 

genetic units (i.e., populations) can be 

linked back to one of five major genetic 

lineages. Geneticists have suggested 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6468 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

resolution of genetic structure and 

connectivity below the subspecies level 

is required before management at finer 

scales below the subspecies level is 

warranted (Galbreath et al. 2009b, p. 

33). 

Genetic substructure within 

subspecies and discontinuity among 

metapopulations is evident within the 

American pika. However, the genetic 

distinctiveness of population segments 

below the subspecies level is not 

necessarily correlated with biological 

and ecological significance, especially 

when it is not clear which populations 

contain relatively higher genetic 

variability. We consider genetic 

differences among subspecies to be 

markedly different. However, as 

indicated by Galbreath et al. (2009b, p. 

33), information concerning the utility 

of genetic differences at the subspecific 

level for pika are lacking for use in 

conservation management actions. As a 

consequence, even though we have used 

the information that demonstrates 

apparent genetic discontinuity between 

the different population segments to 

support our arguments for discreteness 

under the DPS policy, for the reasons 

stated above, we believe that this 

information is of limited use with 

respect to its correlation with biological 

and ecological significance for the 

population and therefore the taxon as a 

whole and, hence, conservation value. 

We determine, based on review of the 

best available information, that no 

population segment below the 

subspecies level is significant in relation 

to the remainder of the taxon. Therefore, 

no population segments (as described 

previously under Discreteness) qualify 

as a DPS under our 1996 DPS policy and 

none are a listable entity under the Act. 

Because we found that the Ochotona 

princeps schisticeps, O. p. fenisex, O. p. 

princeps, and O. p. saxatilis 

subpopulations do not meet the 

significance criterion of the DPS policy, 

we need not proceed with an evaluation 

of the threats to pikas in any of the 

population segments. 

Significant Portion of the Range 

Analysis 

Having determined that the American 

pika at the species and subspecies level 

do not meet the definition of an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act and no populations qualify 

under our policy, we must next consider 

whether there are any significant 

portions of the range where the species 

is in danger of extinction or is likely to 

become endangered in the foreseeable 

future. 

The Act defines an endangered 

species as one ‘‘in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range,’’ and a threatened species as 

one ‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The term ‘‘significant portion 

of its range’’ is not defined by the 

statute. For the purposes of this finding, 

a significant portion of a species’ range 

is an area that is important to the 

conservation of the species because it 

contributes meaningfully to the 

representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy of the species. The 

contribution must be at a level such that 

its loss would result in a decrease in the 

ability to conserve the species. 

In determining whether a species is 

endangered or threatened in a 

significant portion of its range, we first 

identify any portions of the range of the 

species that warrant further 

consideration. The range of a species 

can theoretically be divided into 

portions an infinite number of ways. 

However, there is no purpose to 

analyzing portions of the range that are 

not reasonably likely to be significant 

and endangered or threatened. To 

identify only those portions that warrant 

further consideration, we determine 

whether there is substantial information 

indicating that: (1) The portions may be 

significant, and (2) the species may be 

in danger of extinction there or likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future. 

In practice, a key part of this analysis is 

whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated in some way. If the threats 

to the species are essentially uniform 

throughout its range, no portion is likely 

to warrant further consideration. 

Moreover, if any concentration of 

threats applies only to portions of the 

species’ range that are not significant, 

such portions will not warrant further 

consideration. 

If we identify portions that warrant 

further consideration, we then 

determine whether the species is 

endangered or threatened in this portion 

of its range. Depending on the biology 

of the species, its range, and the threats 

it faces, the Service may address either 

the significance question or the status 

question first. Thus, if the Service 

considers significance first and 

determines that a portion of the range is 

not significant, the Service need not 

determine whether the species is 

endangered or threatened there. 

Likewise, if the Service considers status 

first and determines that the species is 

not endangered or threatened in a 

portion of its range, the Service need not 

determine if that portion is significant. 

However, if the Service determines that 

both a portion of the range of a species 

is significant and the species is 

endangered or threatened there, the 

Service will specify that portion of the 

range as endangered or threatened 

under section 4(c)(1) of the Act. 

The terms ‘‘resiliency,’’ ‘‘redundancy,’’ 

and ‘‘representation’’ are intended to be 

indicators of the conservation value of 

portions of the range. Resiliency of a 

species allows the species to recover 

from periodic disturbance. A species 

will likely be more resilient if large 

populations exist in high-quality habitat 

that is distributed throughout the range 

of the species in such a way as to 

capture the environmental variability 

found within the range of the species. A 

portion of the range of a species may 

make a meaningful contribution to the 

resiliency of the species if the area is 

relatively large and contains particularly 

high-quality habitat, or if its location or 

characteristics make it less susceptible 

to certain threats than other portions of 

the range. When evaluating whether or 

how a portion of the range contributes 

to resiliency of the species, we evaluate 

the historical value of the portion and 

how frequently the portion is used by 

the species, if possible. In addition, the 

portion may contribute to resiliency for 

other reasons—for instance, it may 

contain an important concentration of 

certain types of habitat that are 

necessary for the species to carry out its 

life-history functions, such as breeding, 

feeding, migration, dispersal, or 

wintering. 

Redundancy of populations may be 

needed to provide a margin of safety for 

the species to withstand catastrophic 

events. This does not mean that any 

portion that provides redundancy is 

necessarily a significant portion of the 

range of a species. The idea is to 

conserve enough areas of the range such 

that random perturbations in the system 

act on only a few populations. 

Therefore, each area must be examined 

based on whether that area provides an 

increment of redundancy that is 

important to the conservation of the 

species. 

Adequate representation ensures that 

the species’ adaptive capabilities are 

conserved. Specifically, the portion 

should be evaluated to see how it 

contributes to the genetic diversity of 

the species. The loss of genetically 

based diversity may substantially 

reduce the ability of the species to 

respond and adapt to future 

environmental changes. A peripheral 

population may contribute meaningfully 

to representation if there is evidence 

that it provides genetic diversity due to 

its location on the margin of the species’ 

habitat requirements. 

We evaluated the American pika’s 

current range in the context of the most 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6469 

significant factor(s) affecting the species 

(in this case, only climate change) to 

determine if there is any apparent 

geographic concentration of potential 

threats. As identified under the threats 

assessment in Table 1 above, the threat 

of recent, current, and future increased 

summer surface temperature from 

climate change is primarily 

concentrated in portions of the range of 

Ochotona princeps schisticeps, O. p. 

fenisex, O. p. princeps and O. p. 

saxatilis. We defined the portion of the 

range for these subpopulation to 

include: (1) The lower elevation 

portions of southeastern Oregon, 

Monitor Hills, southern Wasatch 

Mountains, and Toiyabe Mountains, and 

the low- and mid-elevations of the 

Warner Mountains for O. p. schisticeps; 

(2) the low-elevation portion of Mt. St. 

Helens for O. p. fenisex; (3) the lowelevation portion of Glacier National 

Park and the Sawtooth Mountain Range, 

and low- to mid-elevation portion of the 

Northern Wasatch Mountains and Ruby 

Mountains for O. p. princeps; and (4) 

the low-elevation portion of the Sangre 

de Cristo Mountains and Southern 

Rockies for O. p. saxatilis. 

Ochotona princeps schisticeps 

As stated above, we defined the 

portion of the range for Ochotona 

princeps schisticeps as the lower 

elevation portions of the Great Basin in 

southeastern Oregon, Monitor Hills, 

southern Wasatch Mountains, and 

Toiyabe Mountains, and the low and 

mid-elevations of the Warner 

Mountains. As stated under 

Discreteness in the DPS section of this 

finding, in the numerous ‘‘sky islands’’ 

of the Great Basin, American pikas are 

isolated (greater than the maximum 

estimated individual dispersal distance 

(10 to 20 km; 6.2 to 12.4 mi) of the 

species from the nearest extant 

population) by these geographic barriers 

(Hafner 1994, pp. 376-378). These 

barriers eliminate dispersal of pikas 

between and among mountain ranges. 

Because temperatures in these valleys 

often exceed the physiological 

constraints of pikas (e.g., valley 

temperatures often exceed greater than 

or equal to 28 °C (82.4 °F)), pikas are 

unable to disperse to other mountain 

ranges and are now confined to a subset 

of ranges within the Great Basin, 

thereby creating many gaps between 

pika populations in the Great Basin. 

However, there are pika populations in 

suitable habitat at mid- to high 

elevations on the ‘‘sky islands’’ of the 

Great Basin that are not at risk of 

extirpation from increased summer 

temperatures from climate change, 

ensuring adequate redundancy and 

resiliency across the portion of the range 

under consideration. 

Additionally, the amount of suitable 

habitat and number of pika populations 

in the Great Basin portion when 

compared to the range of the rest of the 

subspecies in the Sierra Nevada 

Mountain Range is small. There are 

larger, contiguous blocks of suitable 

habitat in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 

none of which was identified as 

potentially at risk from climate change. 

Approximately 64 percent of the 

subspecies’ suitable habitat occurs in 

the Sierra Nevada (Finn 2009, pp. 1-2), 

ensuring adequate redundancy and 

resiliency across the subspecies. 

Galbreath et al. (2009b, pp. 20-21) 

demonstrated that three distinct 

mitochondrial DNA clades (genetically 

similar groups that share a common 

ancestor) are evident within Ochotona 

princeps schisticeps; however, 

Galbreath (2009, pers. comm.) also 

states there is not sufficient evidence at 

this point to distinguish among the 

three subregions of O. p. schisticeps as 

distinct evolutionary significant entities. 

Genetic substructure at the nuclear DNA 

level needs to be elucidated before 

northern (eastern Oregon/northern 

California), central (Sierra Nevada 

Range and central Nevada), and eastern 

(western Utah) subclades are evident. 

Therefore, at this point, there are no 

subclades (genetically different groups) 

associated with O. p. schisticeps 

(Galbreath et al. 2009b, p. 55, Figure 5). 

Hafner and Smith (2009, pp. 12-14) 

recently performed analyses of 

morphometric variation among 

American pikas, but did not make any 

conclusions about morphology 

differences between O. p. schisticeps 

populations. Therefore, based on the 

best available information, we have 

determined that this portion of the range 

does not contribute to the diversity of 

genetic, morphological, or physiological 

diversity of the subspecies, and there is 

adequate representation across the 

portion of O. p. schisticeps under 

consideration and the rest of the range 

of the subspecies. 

For these reasons, we conclude that 

no portions of the Ochotona princeps 

schisticeps’ range warrant further 

consideration as a significant portion of 

the range. We do not find that the O. p. 

schisticeps is in danger of extinction 

(endangered) now, nor is it likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future (threatened) 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

Ochotona princeps fenisex 

As stated above, we defined the 

portion of the range for Ochotona 

princeps fenisex as the low-elevation 

portion of Mt. St. Helens. One out of a 

total of eight known pika populations 

on Mt. St. Helens (Bevers 1998, pp. 68, 

70-71) is potentially at risk of 

extirpation from increased summer 

surface temperatures from climate 

change within the O. p. fenisex 

subpopulation in the foreseeable future 

(see Table 1 above) and occurs at 

relatively low elevations. Pika sites on 

Mt. St. Helens at higher elevations, 

where pikas more typically occupy 

suitable talus habitat, are not at risk 

from climate change now or in the 

foreseeable future, ensuring adequate 

redundancy and resiliency across the 

portion of the range under 

consideration. Therefore, not all pika 

sites on Mt. St. Helens are potentially at 

risk from the effects of climate change, 

and as stated under Factor A, results 

from comparisons between below-talus 

summer temperatures and surface 

summer temperatures indicate that our 

risk assessment for climate change may 

be conservative because risk estimates 

for pika sites were based on projections 

for summer surface temperatures. 

Of the 69 unique pika observations 

used in our analysis to generate an 

elevation across the range of O. p. 

fenisex, we do not anticipate risks from 

increased summer temperatures 

occurring at 98 percent (68 of 69) of the 

observation points. As such, the amount 

of suitable habitat in the Mt. St. Helens 

subpopulation segment when compared 

to the rest of the range of the subspecies 

is small. There are larger, contiguous 

blocks of suitable habitat in the Coast 

and Cascade Mountains, none of which 

was identified as potentially at risk from 

climate change, ensuring adequate 

redundancy and resiliency across the 

range of the subspecies. 

Galbreath et al. (2009b, p. 19) 

demonstrated Cascade Range 

populations also were closely related, 

though they did not form an 

unambiguous clade (group) descending 

from an ancestor. However, Galbreath 

(2009, pers. comm.) also states there is 

not sufficient evidence at this point to 

distinguish among O. p. fenisex as 

distinct evolutionary significant entities. 

Therefore, at this point, there are no 

subclades (genetically different groups) 

associated with O. p. fenisex (Galbreath 

et al. 2009b, Figure 5). Hafner and Smith 

(2009, pp. 12-14) recently performed 

analyses of morphometric variation 

among American pikas, but did not 

make any conclusions about 

morphology differences between O. p. 

fenisex populations. Therefore, based on 

the best available information, we have 

determined that this portion of the range 

does not contribute to the diversity of 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6470 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

genetic, morphological, or physiological 

diversity of the subspecies, and there is 

adequate representation across the 

portion of O. p. fenisex under 

consideration and the rest of the range 

of the subspecies. 

For these reasons, we conclude that 

no portions of the Ochotona princeps 

fenisex’s range warrant further 

consideration as a significant portion of 

the range. We do not find that the O. p. 

fenisex is in danger of extinction 

(endangered) now, nor is it likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future (threatened), 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

Ochotona princeps princeps 

As stated above, we defined the 

portion of the range for Ochotona 

princeps princeps as the low-elevation 

portion of Glacier National Park and 

Sawtooth Mountain Range, and low- to 

mid-elevation portion of the Northern 

Wasatch Mountains and Ruby 

Mountains. Pika sites at higher 

elevations on the same mountains, 

where pikas more typically occupy 

suitable talus habitat, are not at risk 

from climate change now or in the 

foreseeable future, ensuring adequate 

redundancy and resiliency across the 

portion of the range under 

consideration. Therefore, not all pika 

sites in this portion under consideration 

are potentially at risk from the effects of 

climate change, and results from 

comparisons between below-talus 

summer temperatures and surface 

summer temperatures indicate that our 

risk assessment for climate change may 

be conservative because risk estimates 

for pika sites were based on projections 

for summer surface temperatures. 

This portion of the range includes the 

southwestern and parts of the central 

portion of the subspecies’ range. 

However, the amount of suitable habitat 

in this portion of the range when 

compared to the rest of the range of the 

subspecies that will not be at risk from 

climate change in the foreseeable future 

is small. There are larger, contiguous 

blocks of suitable habitat in the northern 

Rocky Mountains, none of which was 

identified as potentially at risk from 

climate change, ensuring adequate 

redundancy and resiliency across the 

range of the subspecies. 

The Ochotona princeps princeps 

lineage is partitioned into northwestern 

and southeastern genetic phylogroups 

(type of pika group) (Galbreath et al. 

2009b, pp. 19-20, 55). Pika populations 

in the Northern Wasatch and Ruby 

Mountains make up a portion of the 

southeastern phylogroup, and Glacier 

National Park and Sawtooth Range pika 

populations make up a small portion of 

the northwestern phylogroup. All 

suitable habitat in Wyoming and 

northern Colorado, which are not part of 

the portion of the range under 

consideration, make up a substantial 

portion of the southeastern phylogroup. 

Additionally, the majority of the 

northwestern phylogroup is made up of 

pika populations occurring outside the 

portion of the range at risk from climate 

change. 

Although there are some genetic 

(mitochondrial DNA) differences 

between phylogroups, there is not 

sufficient evidence at this point to 

distinguish among O. p. fenisex as 

distinct evolutionary significant entities 

beyond the subspecies level (Galbreath 

et al. 2009b, Figure 5). Hafner and Smith 

(2009, pp. 12-14) recently performed 

analyses of morphometric variation 

among American pikas, but did not 

make any conclusions about 

morphology differences between O. p. 

princeps populations. Therefore, based 

on the best available information, we 

have determined that this portion of the 

range does not contribute to the 

diversity of genetic, morphological, or 

physiological diversity of the 

subspecies, and there is adequate 

representation across the portion of O. 

p. princeps under consideration and the 

rest of the range of the subspecies. 

For these reasons, we conclude that 

no portions of the Ochotona princeps 

princeps’ range warrant further 

consideration as a significant portion of 

the range. We do not find that the O. p. 

princeps is in danger of extinction 

(endangered) now, nor is it likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future (threatened), 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

Ochotona princeps saxatilis 

As stated above, we defined the 

portion of the range for Ochotona 

princeps saxatilis as the low-elevation 

portion of the Sangre de Cristo 

Mountains and Southern Rockies. Pika 

sites at higher elevations where there 

are larger, contiguous blocks of suitable 

habitat, where pikas more typically 

occupy suitable talus habitat, are not at 

risk from climate change now or in the 

foreseeable future, ensuring adequate 

redundancy and resiliency across the 

portion of the range under consideration 

and the range of the subspecies. 

Therefore, not all pika sites in this 

portion under consideration are 

potentially at risk from the effects of 

climate change, and as stated under 

Factor A, results from comparisons 

between below-talus summer 

temperatures and surface summer 

temperatures indicate that our risk 

assessment for climate change may be 

conservative because risk estimates for 

pika sites were based on projections for 

summer surface temperatures. 

Galbreath et al. (2009b, pp. 20-21) 

demonstrated populations south of the 

Colorado River were closely related 

genetically, although sites closer to the 

Colorado River exhibited some 

morphological similarities to pikas 

north of the Colorado River, which is 

the dividing line between Ochotona 

princeps saxatilis and O. p. princeps. 

However, Galbreath et al. (2009b, Figure 

5) also states there is not sufficient 

evidence at this point to distinguish 

among O. p. saxatilis as distinct 

evolutionary significant entities. 

Therefore, based on the best available 

information, we have determined that 

this portion of the range does not 

contribute to the diversity of genetic, 

morphological, or physiological 

diversity of the subspecies, and there is 

adequate representation across the 

portion of O. p. saxatilis under 

consideration and the rest of the range 

of the subspecies. 

For these reasons, we conclude that 

no portions of the Ochotona princeps 

saxatilis’ range warrant further 

consideration as a significant portion of 

the range. We do not find that the O. p. 

saxatilis is in danger of extinction 

(endangered) now, nor is it likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future (threatened), 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

We request that you submit any new 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, this species to our Utah 

Ecological Services Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES section) whenever it 

becomes available. New information 

will help us monitor this species and 

encourage its conservation. If an 

emergency situation develops for this 

species or any other species, we will act 

to provide immediate protection. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Utah Ecological Services Field 

Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Utah Ecological 

Services Field Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 6471 

Dated: January 26, 2010. 

Signed: James W. Kurth, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2405 Filed 2–5–10; 16:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE S 


Cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2