https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/8729bd3f7566f58598b44e9af77b8ddc.pdf 6dd0534cdd72c9a0e4df3ff4dd996eb5 PDF Text Text American Pika (Ochotona princeps) 2015 Monitoring Survey Colorado Parks and Wildlife Photo credit: Toren Johnson Amy Seglund Species Conservation Coordinator Colorado Parks and Wildlife �2015 CPW pika survey Seglund INTRODUCTION Concern about American pika (Ochotona princeps, pika) populations stemmed from limited research linking climate change to population extirpations in the Great Basin and Sierra Nevada Mountains (Beever et al. 2003, Moritz 2007). In October 2007, the pika was petitioned to be listed under the Endangered Species Act (Center for Biological Diversity 2007). A 12-month status review was completed in February 2010 with a finding of not warranted. Currently the pika is listed as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in Colorado’s 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). The single conservation action outlined in the SWAP to manage the species is the implementation of a longterm monitoring program to detect changes in distribution. It was emphasized in the SWAP that data collected during monitoring surveys should allow managers to correlate changes in distribution with vegetation, anthropogenic and/or weather stress parameters. From 2008-2012, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) worked to assess the statewide status of the pika (Seglund 2012). We revisited historical sites to evaluate current occupation, catalogued locations of pika presence across the state, and produced a Predictive Range Model that evaluates land ownership, management patterns and provides an estimate of potential habitat in the state. Survey efforts demonstrated that pika populations were well distributed in Colorado’s subalpine and alpine habitats and the majority of historical sites (93.5%) found populations persisting even at low elevation sites. In addition, connectivity between talus areas (primary habitat for the species) appears to be sufficient to maintain a healthy metapoulation structure that will allow populations to persist despite some local declines or extirpations. Anthropogenic disturbances were found to be limited with the majority of available pika habitat occurring in high elevation public lands and many acres within U.S. Forest Service (USFS) designated wilderness areas. CPW has developed and implemented two long-term monitoring survey efforts. The first effort was completed in 2010 using NRCS snow telemetry (SNOTEL) automated data collection sites (http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/snotel-data.html) overlaid on the Predicted Range Model (Figure 1) to identify three talus patches per SNOTEL site for occupancy sampling (Seglund 2012). Patches selected for occupancy surveys were within a 3 km radius of the SNOTEL site, were along the same aspect and did not vary more than 300 m elevation from the automated site. Having occupancy surveys for pika near SNOTEL sites will help correlate distribution changes with annual temperature, precipitation and snow depth. A total of 89 plots using this sampling frame were visited in 2010 resulting in an occupancy rate of 0.60 and a probability of detection of 0.99. This information formed the baseline for future survey efforts using this protocol. In an effort to enhance the long-term monitoring of pika statewide beyond the current SNOTEL site occupancy monitoring, in 2015 we produced an additional sampling frame by randomly selecting monitoring sites from a CPW database of pika locations. Sites were stratified by elevation and latitude. This survey protocol will lend itself to providing information as to whether pika populations are at more risk at certain elevations or locations in the state that may be experiencing different climatic patterns and anthropogenic impacts. 2 �2015 CPW pika survey Seglund Figure 1. Location of SNOTEL sites with predicted pika habitat selected for occupancy sampling in Colorado in 2010. METHODS From 2008-2011, CPW collected over 858 locations of pika and entered them into a database.   2008 - 57 pika locations were collected during revisits to known historical locations. 166 pika locations were opportunistic detections gathered from CPW and other agency personnel working in pika habitat. 2009 - 62 pika locations were opportunistic detections collected during ground truthing of the Predictive Range Model for pika 3 �2015 CPW pika survey   Seglund 2010 - 121 pika locations were opportunistic detections collected during yellow-bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris) surveys and from the pika monitoring project surrounding SNOTEL Sites. 2011 - 452 pika locations were opportunistic detections during statewide white-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura) surveys. All 858 pika locations were separated into 3 elevation zones and divided geographically into three strata: those sites north of Interstate 70 (Stratum 1), sites between Interstate70 and Highway 50 (Stratum 2) and sites south of Hwy 50 (Stratum 3). Zone 1 (≤ 11,000’): Zone 2 (11,001’-12,000’): Zone 3 (≥ 12,001’): 233 pika locations 317 pika locations 308 pika locations Table 1. Three strata and elevation zones used to select sampling points: Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3 Zone 1 161 40 32 Zone 2 152 94 71 Zone 3 57 167 84 We randomly selected 135 points for sampling across the state (Figure 2). We selected 15 points in each elevation zone for each of the three strata to total 45 points to be sampled per stratum. 4 �2015 CPW pika survey Seglund Figure 2. Known pika sites randomly selected from CPW’s range-wide database for long-term monitoring based on three strata and three elevation zones. Data Collection at Points Pika location data were buffered using a circular plot with a 500 m radius. The buffer was incorporated to allow for any errors associated with multiple observers providing data to the CPW pika database and to provide a larger framework in which to assess the potential extinction and colonization of isolated talus patches. Each original UTM coordinate and the associated circular plot were entered into GPS units for navigation. Once field observers navigated to the original UTM coordinate, they proceeded to looked for potential pika habitat (i.e., talus and boulder fields). Observers could search anywhere within 5 �2015 CPW pika survey Seglund the circular plot to find potential pika habitat. Once a talus patch was found, surveys were initiated to look for pika by listening for distinct vocalizations, visually detecting an animal, looking for haystacks and/or detecting urine/fecal stations to determine presence at a site. A UTM coordinate was collected where a pika or pika sign was observed. If the first habitat patch surveyed was found to be unoccupied, all other areas of appropriate talus habitat within the circular plot were surveyed. If the site was found to be occupied, no additional surveys were conducted. A second visit was completed at plot locations where pika were not detected on the first visit. All sites surveyed were characterized and data sheets completed. Weather information, time of day, and length of survey effort were recorded as covariates. Surrounding vegetation, presence of water, depth and stability of talus were collected to help characterize sites. In addition, the area of talus surveyed was measured using rangefinders. All other species of interest were noted on data sheets. RESULTS One hundred and twelve sites were visited in 2015 (Table 3). Pika occurred at 98.2 % of sites surveyed that contained presence of talus or boulder fields. Of the 112 sites surveyed, five were unoccupied. Two of the unoccupied sites contained appropriate habitat while the other three sites found to be unoccupied did not contain appropriate habitat at the original UTM location or within 500 m radius around the point. Sites lacking talus habitat were not considered in the percent occupancy estimate and were removed from future survey efforts. At the two unoccupied sites with talus habitat, old pika sign consisting of old haystacks, urine stains and scat was found. The talus patches at these two sites were small measuring 10x10 m and 60x80 m. The two unoccupied sites were within 1 km of each other and were located at the lowest elevation zone in Stratum 3. Table 3. Number of pika sites surveyed within three strata and elevation zones in 2015. Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Stratum 1 16 11 11 Stratum 2 10 13 12 Stratum 3 10 15 14 CONCLUSIONS Pika populations in Colorado appear to be stable and maintaining distribution in all elevation zones and across the state. The two sites found to be unoccupied were small and in suboptimal habitat where we would expect to see periodic extinction and colonization as populations fluctuate. We do recommend continued monitoring of pika every five years to evaluate the status of the species as climate change and additional stressors impact the subalpine and alpine habitat in Colorado. This long-term monitoring should include both designs developed by CPW to better assess potential weather and statewide threats. CPW is currently coordinating with other states within the pika range including New Mexico, Utah, California and Nevada, to standardize survey efforts and provide a more comprehensive assessment of pika populations range-wide. 6 �2015 CPW pika survey Seglund LITERATURE CITED Beever, E.A., P.F. Brussard and J. Berger. 2003. Patterns of apparent extirpation among isolated populations of pikas (Ochotona princeps) in the Great Basin. Journal of Mammalogy 84: 37-54. Center for Biological Diversity. 2007. Before the Secretary of the Interior petition to list the American pika (Ochotona princeps) as threatened or endangered under the United States Endangered Species Act. Submitted to USFWS 1 October 2007. Moritz, C. 2007. Final Report: A Re-survey of the Historic Grinnell-Storer Vertebrate Transect in Yosemite National Park, California. Sierra Nevada Network Inventory & Monitoring Program, Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks,47050 Generals Highway, Three Rivers, CA 93271. Seglund. A. 2012. American pika surveys 2008-2012. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Internal Report. 33pp. 7 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Reports Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource American pika (<em>Ochotona princeps</em>) 2015 monitoring survey Description An account of the resource Concern about American pika (<em>Ochotona princeps</em>, pika) populations stemmed from limited research linking climate change to population extirpations in the Great Basin and Sierra Nevada Mountains (Beever et al. 2003, Moritz 2007). In October 2007, the pika was petitioned to be listed under the Endangered Species Act (Center for Biological Diversity 2007). A 12-month status review was completed in February 2010 with a finding of not warranted. Currently the pika is listed as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in Colorado’s 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). The single conservation action outlined in the SWAP to manage the species is the implementation of a long- term monitoring program to detect changes in distribution. It was emphasized in the SWAP that data collected during monitoring surveys should allow managers to correlate changes in distribution with vegetation, anthropogenic and/or weather stress parameters. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Seglund, Amy Subject The topic of the resource American pika <em>Ochotona princeps</em> Endangered Species Act Occupancy surveys Population Extent The size or duration of the resource. 7 pages Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2015 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-NC/1.0/">No Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Only</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource English Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Colorado Parks and Wildlife