[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69074-69098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21477]



[[Page 69074]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0083; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BF84


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Lassics Lupine and Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(Act), as amended, for the Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei), a plant 
species native to northern California. We also designate critical 
habitat for the species. In total, approximately 512 acres (207 
hectares) in Humboldt and Trinity Counties, California, fall within the 
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. This rule extends the 
protections of the Act to this species and its designated critical 
habitat.

DATES: This rule is effective November 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and on the Service's website at https://www.fws.gov/species/lassics-lupine-lupinus-constancei. Comments and 
materials we received are available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0083.
    Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials we used 
in preparing this rule, such as the species status assessment report, 
are available on the Service's website at https://www.fws.gov/species/lassics-lupine-lupinus-constancei, at https://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0083, or both. For the critical habitat 
designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps 
are generated are included in the decision file for this critical 
habitat designation and are available at the same locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tanya Sommer, Field Supervisor, Arcata 
Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521; 
telephone 707-822-7201. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, 
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. 
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services 
offered within their country to make international calls to the point-
of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants 
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or 
a threatened species (likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list 
the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the 
Lassics lupine meets the definition of an endangered species; 
therefore, we are listing it as such and finalizing a designation of 
its critical habitat. Both listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species and designating critical habitat can be completed 
only by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act 
rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. This rule lists the Lassics lupine as an 
endangered species, and designates critical habitat for the species, 
under the Act.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that the Lassics lupine is 
endangered primarily due to woody vegetation encroachment, pre-
dispersal seed predation, fire, and reduced soil moisture due to 
drought associated with ongoing climate change.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to 
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act 
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on 
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to 
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special 
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is 
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of 
the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration 
the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other 
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the October 6, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 60612) 
for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning the 
Lassics lupine.

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Lassics lupine. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in 
consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a 
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available 
concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, 
present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting 
the species.
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing and recovery actions under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we 
solicited independent scientific review of the information contained in 
the SSA report. As discussed in the proposed rule (87 FR 60612; October 
6, 2022), we sent the SSA report to four independent peer reviewers and 
received four responses. The peer reviews can be found at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/species/lassics-lupine-lupinus-constancei. In preparing the proposed rule, we incorporated the 
results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which 
serves as the foundation for the proposed rule and this final rule. A 
summary of the peer review comments and our responses can be found 
under Summary of Comments and Recommendations, below.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Since the October 6, 2022, proposed rule was published, additional 
monitoring data were collected and analyzed. We incorporated these

[[Page 69075]]

population surveys into the SSA report and added the new information to 
this final rule. To assess the current condition of the two populations 
of Lassics lupine, we now use the most recent 7 years of data (instead 
of 5 years of data). Numbers in two of four analysis units increased in 
2021 relative to 2020, while two of four analysis units declined in 
2022 relative to 2021. Overall, the average number of plants rangewide 
declined from 1,000 to 800 between 2020 and 2022 (Carothers 2022, 
entire). Under Available Conservation Measures, below, we both (1) 
clarify which types of vegetation management would not result in a 
violation of section 9, and (2) remove mention of herbicide use, given 
that we conclude that herbicide use could impact the species.
    We have otherwise made minor editorial corrections, but no 
substantive changes, to the October 6, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 
60612) in this final rule.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on October 6, 2022 (87 FR 60612), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by December 5, 2022. We also contacted appropriate Federal and 
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. 
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the 
Times-Standard. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. 
All substantive information we received during the comment period has 
either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is 
addressed below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed in Peer Review, above, we received comments from four 
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we 
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new 
information regarding the information contained in the SSA report. The 
peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions 
with two exceptions (addressed below in our response to comments). They 
also offered suggestions and clarifications to improve our descriptions 
of the species' ecology and threats, and our assessments of current and 
future conditions. We incorporated all feedback we received from the 
peer reviewers to improve the accuracy and readability of the final SSA 
report. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary 
and were incorporated into the SSA report as appropriate.
    (1) Comment: Two reviewers thought that our categories describing 
canopy cover were not accurate and did not capture the nuance of 
individual needs between sites.
    Our response: We revised the description for each condition 
category to better reflect this nuance. Some sites need higher canopy 
cover to protect from higher amounts of solar insolation, while other 
sites need less canopy cover based on localized orographic shade. 
Instead of categorizing canopy cover as qualitative, we instead use a 
more quantitative description suggested by one peer reviewer.
    (2) Comment: One reviewer thought our future scenario assessments 
might be overly optimistic given recent mild weather conditions and 
changes to canopy cover that might not have been fully realized in 
current population trends. Another reviewer indicated that given what 
we know about the correlation of climate and demographic rates, there 
would be lower population growth rates, meaning we were overly 
optimistic in our characterization of future scenarios.
    Our response: We considered these comments and revisited our future 
scenario analysis. We changed the future condition categories to better 
reflect the plausible future conditions. This resulted in all four 
population conditions for future scenario 1 being lower than in the 
previous version (for example, the condition of the Red Lassic 
decreased from low to very low).
    (3) Comment: One reviewer asked why we had not included a future 
scenario that includes representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5 
and caging continued at current levels. This reviewer also requested 
more information in general on how we selected our scenarios.
    Our response: The future scenarios are meant to capture the range 
of plausible future conditions, bounded by the most optimistic 
plausible scenario and the most pessimistic plausible scenario, with 
the idea being that all plausible future conditions would be captured 
in that range. The scenarios we selected for the SSA report meet those 
criteria. The combination of RCP 8.5 and current caging levels is 
captured in the range of future scenarios chosen.

Comments From Tribes, States, and Federal Agencies

    We did not receive any comments during the October 6, 2022, 
proposed rule's comment period from Tribes or from State or Federal 
agencies.

Public Comments

    We received six public comments during the October 6, 2022, 
proposed rule's comment period; five of these are directly related to 
the proposed rule. All five of the comments related to the proposed 
rule support our proposed listing and critical habitat designation for 
the Lassics lupine. We reviewed all comments we received for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rule. 
None of the comments we received include new information concerning the 
listing of, or the critical habitat designation for, the Lassics 
lupine. Because none of the public comments we received provide any new 
or substantial information or poses questions to be addressed, they do 
not warrant an explicit response in this rule.

I. Final Listing Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) is presented in the SSA report 
(version 1.2; Service 2023, pp. 11-18).
    The following species description is largely paraphrased from the 
original species description and the Jepson Manual, 2nd edition (Nelson 
and Nelson 1983, entire; Baldwin et al. 2012, pp. 772-775). Lassics 
lupine is a tap-rooted, herbaceous perennial that grows to a height of 
less than 15 centimeters (cm) (6 inches (in)) from a short, slightly 
woody stem. The leaves and stem are covered in relatively long, shaggy 
hairs, and the plant is cespitose (growing close to the ground). Like 
other plants in the genus Lupinus, the leaves are palmately compound 
and generally clustered around the base.
    Like other flowers of the family Fabaceae (legumes), the flowers of 
Lassics lupine are pea-like and composed of five unique petals. The 
flowers are pink and white with some variation between the individual 
petals. The flowers are arranged in a dense inflorescence called a 
raceme, meaning individuals flowers emerge on short stalks (pedicel) 
along a central axis. Mature plants can produce up to 20 or more 
inflorescences (clusters of flowers), but they typically produce fewer. 
Lassics lupine flowers develop into a fruit called a legume that splits 
in two halves (pods) that produce between one and five seeds, with an 
average of two seeds per fruit (Kurkjian 2012b, p. 5).
    Lassics lupine reproduction occurs entirely through seed, and like 
many

[[Page 69076]]

members of the legume family, they exhibit seed dormancy, meaning there 
is a physical barrier that prevents moisture from entering seeds (i.e., 
an impermeable seed coat) (Guerrant 2007, p. 13). This seed coat 
prevents germination and allows the plant to form a persistent seed 
bank. This seed coat appears relatively robust upon inspection, and 
germination trials suggest that scarification (intentionally damaging 
the seed coat) is necessary for germination to occur in laboratory 
conditions (Guerrant 2007, p. 14). This suggests that abrasion or other 
damage to the seed coat is necessary for germination in natural 
conditions.
    It is unknown exactly when the majority of Lassics lupine seeds 
typically germinate, but it is thought to occur shortly after snow has 
melted (which is typically between March and May) and temperatures 
begin to rise. Plants can flower and produce seed within their second 
year but more often, they take several years to reproduce (California 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2018, p. 13; Kurkjian 2012b, 
entire). Lassics lupine typically blooms from June to July but can 
start producing flowers as early as May (Baldwin et al. 2012, p. 772).
    Lassics lupine may be capable of self-pollination, based on 
evidence of partial fruit development in flowers that were 
experimentally hand-pollinated and excluded from pollinator visits 
(Crawford and Ross 2003, p. 3). However, Lassics lupine is also visited 
at high rates by three bee species: yellow-faced bumblebee (Bombus 
vosnesenskii), black-tailed bumblebee (Bombus melanopygus), and a mason 
bee species (Osmia spp.) (Crawford and Ross 2003, p. 2). All three of 
the bee species appear to be capable pollinators given that they are 
large enough to trigger the mechanism that releases pollen from the 
individual flowers, but no pollination experiments have taken place to 
quantify the rate or efficacy of these pollinator species (Crawford and 
Ross 2003, p. 3).
    Lassics lupine is documented to occur between 1,700-1,800 meters 
(m) (5,600-5,800 feet (ft)) in elevation around Mount Lassic and Red 
Lassic on the border of Humboldt and Trinity Counties, California. The 
species is currently described in two elemental occurrences, or 
populations, as delineated by the California Natural Diversity Database 
(CNDDB). CNDDB considers populations to be spatially explicit if they 
are separated by a 0.4-kilometer (km) (0.25-mile (mi)) interval.
    Lassics lupine occurs on or in the vicinity of serpentine soils in 
the Lassics Mountains, mainly on barren slopes with very shallow soil 
and low organic matter, or less commonly, near edges of Jeffrey pine 
(Pinus jeffreyi) forests. Most plants occur in areas with little to no 
tree overstory and can occur on flat or steep slopes with high 
proportions of gravel or cobble on the surface.
    Two populations comprise the total of Lassics lupine occurrences: 
the Red Lassic and Mount Lassic populations (see figure 1, below). Over 
the previous 7 years of monitoring, the Red Lassic population has 
ranged in size from 0 to 320 individuals, and the Mount Lassic 
population has ranged in size from 59 to 504 individuals. Rangewide 
totals of adult plants have ranged from fewer than 200 to approximately 
1,000 individuals over the previous 7 years of monitoring which 
includes plants in both populations as well as plants outside of those 
two populations.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 69077]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC23.057

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

[[Page 69078]]

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations 
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating 
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the 
same day, the Service also issued final regulations that, for species 
listed as threatened species after September 26, 2019, eliminated the 
Service's general protective regulations automatically applying to 
threatened species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies 
to endangered species (84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019).
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species 
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and 
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, 
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected 
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of 
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative 
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that 
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing 
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines 
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' 
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative 
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in 
the foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the 
Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the 
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the 
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable 
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means 
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the 
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to 
depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define the foreseeable 
future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable 
future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and 
should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and 
to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-
history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing 
the species' biological response include species-specific factors such 
as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be listed as an endangered or threatened 
species under the Act. However, it does provide the scientific basis 
that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further 
application of standards within the Act and its implementing 
regulations and policies.
    To assess Lassics lupine viability, we used the three conservation 
biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation 
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency is the 
ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic 
stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); redundancy 
is the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for 
example, droughts, large pollution events); and representation is the 
ability of the species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes 
in its physical and biological environment (for example, climate 
conditions, pathogen). In general, species viability will increase with 
increases in resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 
2018, p. 306) Using these principles, we identified the species' 
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the 
individual, population, and species levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over

[[Page 69079]]

time which we then used to inform our regulatory decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2022-0083 on https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fws.gov/species/lassics-lupine-lupinus-constancei.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability.

Individual Needs

    Individual Lassics lupines occur on gravelly, shallow serpentine or 
clastic soils that are relatively free of competing vegetation. It is 
unknown if soil microbes are necessary for germination of seeds, but 
increased germination success and plant vigor has been described in 
trials with native soil (presumably populated with soil microbes) from 
the Lassics (Guerrant 2007, pp. 14-15). Cross-pollination between 
Lassics lupine individuals is dependent on pollination by bees 
(Crawford and Ross 2003, entire).
    Plants need a sufficient amount of sunlight and moisture. A 
sufficient amount of insolation (the amount of solar radiation reaching 
a given area) is necessary for Lassics lupine to reproduce, with 
increased vigor being documented in areas with higher insolation. 
However, too much insolation leads to decreased soil moisture. Plants 
typically occur either on north aspects, which provide orographic 
shading (when an obstacle, in this case a mountain peak, blocks solar 
radiation for at least part of day based on aspect), or on south 
aspects with some shading from nearby trees. Available soil moisture 
throughout the growing season is important for Lassics lupine to 
reproduce and to avoid desiccation.
    In summary, individual Lassics lupine plants require native, 
shallow serpentine or clastic soils; a suitable range of solar 
insolation; sufficient moisture throughout the growing season; and 
access to pollinators (Service 2023, table 3.2).

Population Needs

    To be adequately resilient, populations of Lassics lupine need 
sufficient numbers of reproductive individuals so that they are able to 
withstand stochastic events (expected levels of variation in 
environmental or demographic characteristics). For example, populations 
must be large enough to withstand annual variation in moisture levels 
that may cause mortality to some individuals. A minimum viable 
population (MVP) has not yet been calculated for Lassics lupine. 
However, we do know that the current population sizes are too small to 
withstand current rates of seed predation without significant 
management efforts, based on negative population growth rates and high 
probabilities of quasi-extinction (a population collapse that is 
predicted to occur when the population size reaches some given lower 
density, defined as 10 or fewer adult plants for the Lassics lupine) 
across all sites without significant management efforts (Kurkjian et 
al. 2017, entire).
    In the SSA report, we estimated MVP for Lassics lupine by 
comparison to surrogate species (species with similar life histories). 
Based on our analysis (Service 2023, table 3.1), we suggest an 
estimated MVP in the intermediate range (250 to 1,500 individuals) 
would be a sufficient number to withstand stochastic events. This 
provisional MVP range will be revised in the future if accumulated data 
allow a more precise calculation.
    Sufficient annual seed production and seedling establishment is 
necessary to offset mortality of mature Lassics lupine plants within a 
population. Because large individuals produce more seed (Kurkjian 
2012a, entire), their loss could have detrimental effects on the 
overall population. Sensitivity analyses across all sites demonstrated 
that survival and growth of reproductive plants had the most influence 
on population growth rate, followed by vegetative plants and seeds, and 
then seedlings (Kurkjian et al. 2017, p 867). Cross-pollination between 
Lassics lupine individuals presumably contributes to genetic exchange 
within and between populations and subpopulations, and is dependent on 
sufficient abundance and diversity of pollinators (Crawford and Ross 
2003, entire).
    Gravelly or rocky habitat that is relatively free of forest 
encroachment and other vegetative competition is important for 
population persistence. Historically, these serpentine barrens were 
shaped by geologic forces and presumably kept free of forest and shrub 
encroachment by fire, perhaps both natural and anthropogenic. With a 
reduced fire frequency compared to historical levels, this habitat is 
susceptible to encroachment by native successional species such as 
Jeffrey pine, incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), and pinemat 
manzanita (Arctostaphylos nevadensis) (Carothers 2008, entire). Lassics 
lupine requires relatively open canopy and limited competition from 
other plants for the limited moisture available during the growing 
season (Imper 2012, p. 142).

Species Needs

    In order for the Lassics lupine to sustain itself in the wild over 
time, it should have a sufficient number (redundancy) of secure, 
sustainable populations (resiliency) that are well-distributed 
throughout its geographic range and throughout the variety of 
ecological settings in which the species is known to exist 
(representation). Suitable habitat must be available, and the number 
and distribution of adequately resilient populations must be sufficient 
for the species to withstand catastrophic events.
    The historical extent and distribution of Lassics lupine is not 
precisely known. The species was possibly more abundant and more 
widespread in the past, although historical population boundaries are 
unknown. A comparison of soils from areas occupied by Lassics lupine to 
nearby areas that appear similar, but are not occupied, indicated that 
there are few sites that meet the species' specific soil requirements 
(Imper 2012, p. 27). This suggests that the distribution was not 
significantly more widespread than it is now, although vegetation 
encroachment has affected areas adjacent to and edges of the extant 
populations and there has been retraction of population boundaries of 
up to 20-30 percent in recent years (Service 2023, figure 4.2; Imper 
and Elkins 2016, pp. 16-18). Given the specialized adaptations to the 
harsh environment it occupies currently, it is unlikely that Lassics 
lupine ever occurred in a diverse range of ecological requirements, and 
the current distribution is likely a reflection of complex geological 
processes that shaped the Lassics Range. Additionally, it is unclear 
whether the species maintains sufficient genetic variability to persist 
under changing environmental conditions.

Threats

    In this final rule, we discuss those threats in detail that could 
meaningfully impact the status of the species, including six threats 
analyzed in the SSA report for the Lassics lupine (Service 2023, 
entire): vegetation encroachment (Factor A), seed predation and 
herbivory (Factor C), fire (Factor A), climate change effects (Factor 
E), and invasive species (Factor A). We also evaluate existing 
regulatory

[[Page 69080]]

mechanisms (Factor D) and ongoing conservation measures.
    In the SSA, we also considered the following threats: 
overutilization due to commercial, recreational, educational, and 
scientific use (Factor B); disease (Factor C); and recreation (Factor 
E). We concluded that, as indicated by the best available scientific 
and commercial information, these threats are currently having little 
to no impact on the Lassics lupine, and thus their overall effect now 
and into the future is expected to be minimal. Therefore, we will not 
present summary analyses of those threats in this document, but we 
considered them in our overall assessment of impacts to the species. 
For full descriptions of all threats and how they impact the species, 
please see the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 22-33).
    We note that, by using the SSA framework (Service 2016, entire) to 
guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA 
report, we have not only analyzed individual effects on the species, 
but we have also analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We 
incorporate the cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we 
characterize the current and future condition of the species. To assess 
the current and future condition of the species, we undertake an 
iterative analysis that encompasses and incorporates the threats 
individually and then accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the 
factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and 
conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the 
presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence 
risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative 
effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects 
analysis.
Vegetation Encroachment
    Lassics lupine's density and vigor are highest in areas with 
sufficient insolation and when relatively free of competition for light 
and water (Imper 2012, p. 140). Since the 1930s, forest and chaparral 
vegetation communities in the range of the Lassics lupine have expanded 
in both distribution and density (Carothers 2017, entire; Service 2023, 
figures 4.1 and 4.2). On the north slope of Mount Lassic, Jeffrey pine 
and incense cedar have expanded; on the south slope of Mount Lassic, 
chaparral has matured and become more dense (Carothers 2017, p. 2). 
Increased distribution of the forest and chaparral communities in the 
areas surrounding Lassics lupine populations over the last 90 years may 
be due to fire suppression (Carothers 2017, entire). Based on suitable 
soil types and aspect, the north slope of Mount Lassic may have 
supported Lassics lupine in the past, connecting the three 
subpopulations that currently make up the Mount Lassic population.
    The effects of vegetation encroachment on Lassics lupine 
populations are twofold. There is a subsequent increase in canopy cover 
and leaf litter, which reduces habitat suitability. There is also an 
increase in seed predators, which decreases fecundity. With an increase 
in the distribution and density of trees on the north slope of Mount 
Lassic, there is a subsequent increase in canopy cover and reduced 
insolation. Available soil moisture has been shown to decrease more 
rapidly in forested areas in the spring and summer (Imper 2012, p. 
140). Additionally, these areas are now covered in a dense layer of 
leaf litter and forest duff, which may suppress the germination of 
Lassics lupine seeds and increase the risk of catastrophic fire by 
providing fuel in otherwise barren areas that likely burned at low 
severity in the past (Carothers 2017, p. 4; Imper 2012, pp. 139-140).
    Overall, vegetation encroachment influences fecundity, habitat 
quality, and survival throughout the range of the species and 
especially on the edges of the Mount Lassic population. Ultimately, 
vegetation encroachment has a strong influence on the amount of 
available habitat and limits current population sizes of the Lassics 
lupine. We expect that vegetation encroachment on occupied Lassics 
lupine habitat will continue to increase into the future.
Seed Predation and Herbivory
    Seed predation by small mammals is one of the most influential 
threats to Lassics lupine (Crawford and Ross 2003, p. 4; Kurkjian et 
al. 2017, p. 862). This threat has been observed and documented at 
significant levels since monitoring began in 2001. Pre-dispersal seed 
predation (removal of seeds while they are still attached to the plant, 
resulting in seed mortality) was first observed at high rates, with 72 
percent of observed inflorescences suffering from almost complete 
predation (n=67; Crawford and Ross 2003, p. 3). Seed predation has been 
shown to have severe impacts on small or rare plant populations, 
including Lassics lupine (Dangremond et al. 2010, p. 2261; Kurkjian et 
al. 2017, entire). Since 2005, monitoring of small mammal populations 
has been conducted annually. Several species have been identified as 
Lassics lupine seed consumers, primarily deer mice (Peromyscus spp.), 
chipmunks (Tamias spp.), and the California ground squirrel 
(Otospermophilus beecheyi).
    For other species, increased risk of seed predation has been 
demonstrated to be higher in areas close to vegetation (Myster and 
Pickett 1993, p. 384; Notman et al. 1996, p. 224; McCormick and Meiners 
2000, p. 11; Dangremond et al. 2010, entire). Over the past 20 years, 
research on Lassics lupine habitat has demonstrated that small mammal 
seed predators are most abundant in the chaparral habitat, followed by 
bare serpentine habitat, with the lowest abundance documented in the 
forest habitat (CDFW 2018, appendix B). There is a high probability of 
movement between the chaparral and serpentine communities and an 
intermediate probability of movement between the forest and serpentine 
communities (Cate 2016, pp. 36-40). The proximity of vegetated 
communities to the serpentine barrens likely provides shelter and food 
for seed predators, and there is an increased likelihood that seeds 
adjacent to chaparral habitats will be subject to increased pre-
dispersal seed predation (Kurkjian 2011, pp. 2-3). Studies of seed 
production in 2010 and 2011 estimated that only 2 to 5 percent of 
Lassics lupine seed escaped predation (Kurkjian 2012a, pp. 14-15).
    A population viability analysis (PVA) has shown that pre-dispersal 
seed predation has the potential to drive Lassics lupine to extinction 
(Kurkjian 2012b, entire; Kurkjian et al. 2017, entire). Without 
factoring in the potential effects of other threats or catastrophic 
events, the PVA estimates that the probability of quasi-extinction 
(defined as 10 or fewer adult plants) in the next 50 years is between 
68 and 100 percent and is very likely to occur within the first 20 
years. If all reproductive plants are caged, preventing seed predation, 
the probability of quasi-extinction is reduced to between 0.0 and 1.8 
percent over the next 50 years (Kurkjian et al. 2017, pp. 867-868). 
This research demonstrates the significant influence that pre-dispersal 
seed predation has on the species and emphasizes the importance of 
caging reproductive plants until seed predation can be addressed by 
other means. Post-fire small mammal monitoring and seed surrogate 
trials suggest that pre-dispersal seed predation risk decreased in the 
first 2 years following the 2015 Lassics Fire, as small mammal density 
declined in some areas. This effect appeared to be transient.
    After observations of unusually high pre-dispersal seed predation 
rates, Six Rivers National Forest and Service staff made the decision 
to start caging

[[Page 69081]]

reproductive Lassics lupine plants in 2003. Cages are generally 
deployed in May or June around accessible adult plants. Cages are 
constructed of various types of wire mesh and are designed to allow 
pollinators to access flowers, while simultaneously preventing seed 
predators and herbivores from accessing adult plants. Cages are removed 
after seeds are released and before winter snow prevents access to the 
site. Caging has occurred at various levels, and after severe 
population declines in 2015, it was expanded to include a majority of 
reproductive individuals. This expanded caging effort has been credited 
with the positive overall population trends since 2016 (Service 2023, 
figure 5.3).
    Herbivory of flowers and vegetation has also been observed during 
annual demographic monitoring and on cameras placed near plants to 
document the suite of predators; in some instances, herbivores consume 
entire plants or excavate the plant to a sufficient depth to cause 
death (CDFW 2018, p. 24). While the observation of these events has 
been rare, so are the opportunities to observe such events. In some 
years, there has been documentation of 1 to 3 plants per year being 
removed entirely through herbivory. Given the frequency of observed 
herbivory, the overall impact to populations is unknown.
    In summary, seed predation is affecting the reproduction of the 
Lassics lupine across its range, which in turn influences population 
size and viability. This is having species-level effects and is 
mitigated by annual efforts to cage individual Lassics lupine plants to 
prevent small mammal seed predators from accessing mature fruits (see 
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, below, for more 
information). Seed predation, likely influenced by vegetation 
encroachment, is a significant influence on Lassics lupine viability 
and may increase into the future as vegetation encroachment increases. 
However, the effects of seed predation are being reduced due to ongoing 
conservation efforts.
Fire
    Historical fire return intervals in the Lassics Range are unknown 
but have been estimated to be approximately every 12.7 years across the 
Mad River Ranger District of Six Rivers National Forest (Carothers 
2017, p. 4) and every 20 years across the range of Jeffrey pine, 
although they may be longer for relatively open stands with reduced 
fuels, such as serpentine barrens similar to where Lassics lupine 
populations occur (Munnecke 2005, p. 2). There is little recorded 
information regarding fire history prior to the 1900s, although prior 
to 1865, local Tribes in the general area used fire with some 
regularity to manage the understory (Carothers 2017, p. 4).
    A total of 18 fires have been recorded in the Lassics Botanical and 
Geologic Area between 1940 and 2014, with 71 percent under 5 acres (ac) 
(2 hectares (ha)) in size (Carothers 2017, p. 5). Most of these were 
caused by lightning and were largely fought by small crews using hand 
tools. A thorough analysis of historical and current fire regimes on 
National Forest lands in California demonstrated a significant decline 
in fire frequency in northwestern California since 1908 (Safford and 
Van de Water 2014, entire). Fire return intervals are estimated to have 
declined by 70 to 80 percent within the Lassics Botanical and Geologic 
Area (Carothers 2017, p. 7). These results indicate that fire intervals 
are shorter, and fire is less frequent in the Lassics Range than it was 
prior to fire suppression.
    The Lassics Fire, which was caused by lightning and centered on 
Mount Lassic, burned roughly 18,500 ac (7,490 ha) in August 2015. The 
fire burned at high severity through the chaparral on the south side of 
Mount Lassic and through the entire Red Lassic population. The forested 
area on the north side of Mount Lassic burned at mixed severity, and 
areas dominated by serpentine barrens burned at low severity. The 
Lassics Fire caused direct mortality of many individuals, killing all 
individuals at Red Lassic, and a portion of individuals at Mount 
Lassic. Additionally, at Red Lassic, the fire killed the Jeffrey pine, 
which appear critical to survival of Lassics lupine individuals there 
for the shade they provide (Imper 2012, pp. 138-139). As of 2019, these 
trees were still standing and providing some shade but are at risk of 
falling over, which would reduce shade and potentially cause direct 
mortality of plants beneath them. The fire did not burn at a high 
enough severity to reduce the density or distribution of Jeffrey pine 
in the forested area north of Mount Lassic. The chaparral area on the 
south side of Mount Lassic burned at high severity and reduced the 
canopy cover of these species temporarily; however, those areas have 
since resprouted and the vegetation is returning rapidly, along with an 
invasive grass that is known to follow fire.
    In 2016, the year following the fire, there was a substantial flush 
of Lassics lupine seedlings observed across all sites. Given the 
mortality of all adults in the Lassic Fire at Red Lassic, we know that 
all the seedlings at Red Lassic were the result of germination from the 
soil seed bank. Seed bank germination also contributed significantly to 
the population at Mount Lassic, where the fire effects were patchier. 
It is unknown what effect this level of germination had on the number 
of seeds remaining in the soil seed bank.
    In summary, future fires could have both positive and negative 
effects on Lassics lupine individuals and populations, depending on 
severity. Fires that eliminate or reduce encroaching vegetation could 
have positive effects due to a reduced abundance of small mammal seed 
predators and increased habitat suitability where insolation and 
available soil moisture are limited. Mixed and high severity fires have 
the potential to kill vegetative and adult plants and potentially 
reduce the seed bank. Fire is a significant influence on the viability 
of the Lassics lupine.
Climate Change
    Observed changes in the climate system indicate that the surface of 
the earth is getting warmer, and the amounts of snow and ice have 
diminished (International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014, p. 2). 
These changes have been occurring for decades, and the last three 
decades have been successively warmer than any prior decade since 1850 
(IPCC 2014, p. 2). The Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC reported 
with very high confidence that some ecosystems are significantly 
vulnerable to climate-related extremes such as droughts and wildfires 
(IPCC 2014, p. 8). Average annual temperatures in California have risen 
by approximately 2 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) in the last 100 years 
(Frankson et al. 2017, p. 4). Projections indicate that warming trends 
in the western United States will continue and likely increase while 
projections of future precipitation are less conclusive (Dettinger et 
al. 2015, p. 2088). Even if precipitation increases in the future, as 
many models indicate, temperature rises will decrease snowpack duration 
and increase the rate of soil moisture loss during dry spells, further 
reducing the water available in the soil (Kim et al. 2002, pp. 5-7; 
Frankson et al. 2017, p. 4). This is expected to increase not only the 
frequency and duration of droughts but also the frequency and severity 
of wildfires (Frankson et al. 2017, p. 4).
    Snowmelt date, summer precipitation, and late summer temperatures 
all appear to be affecting the distribution, mortality, reproduction, 
and recruitment of Lassics lupine (Imper 2012, entire). Survival of 
Lassics lupine

[[Page 69082]]

tends to be lower in years when snowpack melts early, particularly if 
it is not followed by summer rain (Imper 2012, p. 143). The average 
snow fall is projected to decrease with rising temperatures, reducing 
water storage in the snowpack (Frankson et al. 2017, p. 4). Desiccation 
is a common form of death for this plant that lives in shallow soils on 
exposed mountaintops. Low rainfall and high temperatures in the summer 
have detrimental effects at a population level.
    Climate data collected since 2005 at the Zenia Forest Service Guard 
Station, roughly 15 km (9.5 mi) southeast of the Lassics and 460-520 m 
(1,500-1,700 ft) lower in elevation, show that annual average 
temperatures have been increasing (California Data Exchange Center 
2021, unpaginated). This increase in annual temperature has the 
potential to negatively influence Lassics lupine by reducing the amount 
and duration of snowpack in the winter as well as increasing mortality 
due to desiccation during the summer.
    When extreme weather events occur, the entire species is affected 
due to its limited geographic range. Climate change increases the 
likelihood of such extreme events now and into the future. 
Additionally, because Lassics lupine already occurs on the highest 
peaks in the area, there is no habitat at higher elevations available 
for Lassics lupine to move into as climatic conditions at lower 
elevations become unsuitable, nor are there additional populations 
spread throughout the landscape to help the species recover from these 
events.
    Climate change is influencing individual survival and overall 
population sizes rangewide. Climate change, through increasing 
temperatures and reduced snowpack, is a significant influence on the 
viability of Lassics lupine.
Invasive Species
    Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is a highly invasive species that 
occurs throughout most of North America and is most prominent and 
invasive in the Rockies, Cascades, and Sierra Nevada mountain ranges 
(Zouhar 2003, unpaginated). It is well-adapted to frequent fires, often 
emerging as a strong competitor in a post-fire environment and can 
increase the frequency of fires by creating a highly flammable 
environment (Zouhar 2003, unpaginated). Another way cheatgrass alters 
the environment is by adding nitrogen and creating a positive feedback 
loop that promotes dominance of cheatgrass (Stark and Norton 2015, p. 
799). Additionally, input of nitrogen into serpentine ecosystems can 
alter the ability of the native plant community to resist invasion 
(Going et al. 2009, p. 846).
    Serpentine soils are more resistant to invasion by nonnative plant 
species than the communities found in adjacent matrix soils (Going et 
al. 2009, p. 843); however, nonnative plant species can become more 
prevalent on small patches of serpentine, particularly where patches of 
serpentine are small or fragmented (Harrison et al. 2001, p. 45). Thus, 
the presence of cheatgrass could make the Lassics lupine population at 
Mount Lassic more vulnerable to secondary invasions.
    Previously, nonnative, invasive plants have not been reported as a 
threat to Lassics lupine in monitoring reports provided by the U.S. 
Forest Service (USFS) (Carothers 2019 and Carothers 2020, entire), the 
petition to list (Imper et al. 2016, entire), or the status review 
conducted by CDFW (2018, entire). However, field observations made by 
Service staff indicate that cheatgrass is present adjacent to the Mount 
Lassic population and the invasion has increased in recent years 
(Service 2023, figure 4.4; Hutchinson 2020, field observation). Dense 
stands of cheatgrass were also noted in 2019 and 2020, in the vicinity 
of the Mount Lassic population, but not within the population itself 
(Hutchinson 2020, field observation). Other Bromus spp. have been 
documented on serpentine soils, with an increased prevalence along 
edges of small patches of serpentine (Harrison et al. 2001, p. 45).
    In general, nonnative, invasive plant species compete with native 
species for resources such as sunlight, water, and nutrients. While 
there is no evidence that cheatgrass is currently competing with 
Lassics lupine for these basic resource needs, the presence of this 
highly invasive species near the largest population is a concern 
because it could increase the frequency of fires in the area, add 
nitrogen to the soils, and increase the likelihood of invasion by other 
nonnative species. Currently, invasive species (particularly 
cheatgrass) are increasing in the areas adjacent to the Mount Lassic 
population and could influence fire severity but are not currently 
impacting Lassics lupine's viability. However, the impact of invasive 
species could increase in the future.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Lassics lupine was listed as endangered in 2019 by the 
California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC 2019, entire). State listing 
of the Lassics lupine ensures, among other things, that individuals 
conducting research that involves handling of the plant or plant 
material, including seeds, must be authorized under the California Fish 
and Game Code at section 2081(a). Additionally, projects that might 
impact the plant must be evaluated for significance under the 
California Environmental Quality Act. The California Native Plant 
Society (CNPS) categorizes this species as a California Rare Plant with 
a rank of 1B.1, meaning that it is rare, threatened, or endangered in 
California and elsewhere, and is seriously endangered in California. It 
has a State rank of S1, defined as critically imperiled or at very high 
risk of extinction due to extreme rarity, and a global rank of G1, 
meaning critically imperiled (CNPS 2021, unpaginated).
    Both the Red Lassic and Mount Lassic populations are within the 
Lassics Botanical and Geologic Area of Six Rivers National Forest. 
Management of unique botanical features is directed by the Special 
Interest Management Strategy with a goal of managing for rare species 
and the natural processes that support them (U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) 1998, entire). Additionally, the Mount Lassic 
population, and 2,833 ha (7,000 ac) of the Mount Lassic Range, is 
within the Mount Lassic Wilderness Area, part of the Northern 
California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-
362, October 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2064). Designation as wilderness 
affords protection from most direct anthropogenic threats except from 
trampling from foot traffic and illegal off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. 
Additionally, Lassics lupine is designated a sensitive species by the 
Six Rivers National Forest, meaning that management decisions made by 
the Forest will not result in a trend towards Federal listing or loss 
of viability (USDA 1997, entire).
    A conservation strategy has been signed by the Six Rivers National 
Forest and is focused on Lassics lupine monitoring and research, as 
well as potential conservation actions for the species. This strategy 
does not currently include a commitment to allocate funds for 
conservation actions, but does outline goals and objectives, documents 
studies and management efforts to date, and identifies key actions that 
should be initiated or continued. Management efforts proposed in the 
strategy include continued caging of reproductive plants, continued 
monitoring, investigating the role of fire in population viability, 
continued seed banking and propagation efforts, and experimental 
prescribed burning (USDA 2020a, entire). Caging of reproductive plants

[[Page 69083]]

currently requires a substantial commitment of time from Service staff, 
Six Rivers National Forest staff, and volunteers. Changes in staff and 
available resources mean that implementation has fluctuated in the past 
and this could continue into the future.
    Attempts to augment the populations or establish populations in 
nearby areas with similar soil types have been largely unsuccessful. 
Additionally, seed is banked in two locations: 74 seeds have been 
deposited at the Berry Botanic Garden in Portland, Oregon, and 439 
seeds have been deposited at the National Laboratory for Genetic 
Resource Preservation (NLGRP) in Fort Collins, Colorado. The 
conservation strategy and the Six Rivers National Forest will 
prioritize augmenting the collection at NLGRP (USDA 2020b, p. 1).

Species Condition

    To assess the current condition of the Lassics lupine, we used 
recent monitoring data and results from the recent PVA (Kurkjian et al. 
2017, entire) to score the current condition of each analysis unit 
based on our assessment of habitat and demographic variables. For each 
analysis unit, we assess habitat quantity, habitat quality, and 
abundance of Lassics lupine.
    Habitat variables were categorized using largely qualitative 
information while demographic variables were analyzed quantitatively, 
which corresponds with the best available information for each 
variable. Each variable in an analysis unit was assigned a current 
condition of high, moderate, or low (Service 2023, table 5.1). The 
average score was then used to rate the overall current condition of 
each analysis unit. When a score fell between two condition categories, 
the overall current condition was assigned consistent with the 
condition of the majority of the parameters. In other words, if two of 
the three parameters were low and one was moderate, the overall 
condition was rated as low. A population that is in low condition is 
one where resources are in overall low condition. A similar definition 
applies to moderate and high conditions.
    Habitat quantity is a description of the relative size of available 
habitat based on both available soil type information and the amount of 
habitat available compared to historical conditions. This information 
was qualitatively scored based on the most recently available site 
observations. Because Lassics lupine has likely always been narrowly 
restricted, we chose not to assess the total area occupied by each 
analysis unit but rather to look at the relative size of each analysis 
unit. Furthermore, because Lassics lupine is highly influenced by 
vegetation encroachment (habitat that supports pre-dispersal seed 
predators), we also considered the amount of habitat available 
currently compared with historical habitat availability based on aerial 
photographs.
    Habitat quality is a description of the solar insolation, 
influenced by aspect and canopy cover, for each analysis unit. Because 
solar insolation directly influences available soil moisture, and both 
influence the survival and vigor of Lassics lupine individuals and 
populations, we used solar insolation as a surrogate to describe 
habitat quality. The Lassics lupine demonstrates higher fecundity and 
vigor in areas with a suitable range of solar insolation. Areas with 
suitable solar insolation are defined as either occurring on the north 
aspect of a slope (most areas in the Mount Lassic population) or are 
located nearby within moderately open canopy Jeffrey pine forests where 
trees provide some shade. Suboptimal areas are those with either 
slightly too much shading or slightly too little shading, and 
unsuitable areas are those without any shading from either orographic 
cover or adjacent trees. Areas within a suitable range of solar 
insolation conditions were defined as ``high'' condition, areas within 
a suboptimal range of solar insolation as ``moderate'' condition, and 
unsuitable areas as ``low'' condition. This information was also 
qualitatively scored based on recent site observations.
    Abundance is often used as a metric to assess the overall status of 
plant species. Abundance data represent the total number of adult 
vegetative and reproductive plants present in each analysis unit. 
Abundance categories were defined as ``low'' (fewer than 100 plants), 
``moderate'' (100 to 500 plants), and ``high'' (more than 500 plants). 
These rating categories were derived using the estimated overall MVP 
adapted from Pavlik (1996, p. 137). Rather than use abundance data from 
one year, we report a range of years that reflects the range observed 
from data collected during annual monitoring from 2015-2022 by Six 
Rivers National Forest staff and volunteers (see chapter 5 of the SSA 
report for more details). We considered that abundance is significantly 
higher than it would be without the current practice of caging a large 
portion of adult plants each year. Caging has occurred at some level 
since approximately 2003, with the percentage of caged plants 
increasing gradually over time; current caging levels vary from 60-100 
percent, varying between population and year.
    We assessed the two populations (Red Lassic and Mount Lassic) as 
delineated by CNDDB, which defines populations as groups of individual 
plants that are separated by approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi). We then 
further considered three subpopulations of the Mount Lassic population 
for a total of four analysis units, three of which are subpopulations 
of Mount Lassic (i.e., Saddle, Terrace, and Forest) and one of which is 
the Red Lassic population. There are also Lassics lupine plants outside 
of the transects we analyzed. These individuals largely occur on steep 
slopes that are not accessible to surveyors without causing significant 
erosion or damage to plants and surveys are generally conducted with 
binoculars in order to avoid disturbing the soil.
    The results of our analysis are presented in table 1 below, and 
additional detail on populations, analysis units, and individuals 
outside those units is available in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 
36-39)

        Table 1--Current Condition Data for Each Analysis Unit With Overall Current Condition Summarized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Abundance
                             Habitat quantity       Habitat quality     range (mean)   Overall current condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Lassic...............  Relatively small,     Unsuitable (south        0-320 (129)  Low.
                            reduced from          aspect without tree
                            historical amounts.   cover).
Saddle...................  Relatively            Suitable solar          14-284 (184)  Moderate.
                            moderately-sized,     insolation.
                            but reduced from
                            historical amounts.
Terrace..................  Relatively small,     Suitable solar           33-135 (79)  Low.
                            reduced from          insolation.
                            historical amounts.

[[Page 69084]]

 
Forest...................  Relatively small,     Suboptimal (north         12-85 (48)  Low.
                            reduced from          aspect combined
                            historical amounts.   with moderate
                                                  canopy).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having assessed the current condition of the two known populations, 
we now consider the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the 
Lassics lupine. In total, two of the three subpopulations of the Mount 
Lassic population are considered in low overall current condition, and 
one is in moderate overall current condition. As described above, our 
abundance metric spans a range of years and demonstrates fluctuations 
in numbers of flowering plants. Also, as described above under Species 
Needs, current population sizes are too small to withstand current 
rates of seed predation without significant management efforts. Most 
species' populations fluctuate naturally, responding to various factors 
such as weather events, disease, and predation. These factors have a 
relatively minor impact on species with large, stable local populations 
and a wide and continuous distribution. However, populations that are 
small, isolated by habitat loss or fragmentation, or impacted by other 
factors are more vulnerable to extirpation by natural, randomly 
occurring events (such as predation or stochastic weather events), and 
to genetic effects that impact small populations (Purvis et al. 2000, 
p. 1949). Small populations are less able to recover from random 
variation in their population dynamics and environment (Shaffer and 
Stein 2000, pp. 308-310), such as fluctuations in recruitment 
(demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall (environmental 
stochasticity), or changes in the frequency of wildfires.
    While some analysis units have high to moderate habitat quality, 
the overall current conditions are driven by small population sizes and 
a limited amount of available habitat. The Red Lassics population is 
also in overall low current condition. Resiliency is low for both 
populations.
    With regard to redundancy, there are currently close to 800 Lassics 
lupine adult plants existing in two populations in a roughly 1-square-
kilometer area. One of the populations is in overall low condition 
while the other population is comprised of three subpopulations of 
which two are in low condition and one is in moderate condition. When 
considering the overall condition of the Mount Lassic population (the 
three subpopulations plus plants outside of the transects), it is still 
in overall low condition. Our analysis of redundancy concludes that 
both populations are in low resiliency and a single catastrophic event 
could heavily impact both populations even though the populations are 
well-distributed throughout the species' historical range. Thus, 
species redundancy is reduced from the historical condition.
    With regard to representation, as a narrow endemic, the Lassics 
lupine is highly specialized and restricted to its ecological niche. 
Suitable habitat is narrowly distributed on mountaintops and is 
becoming increasingly limited due to encroachment of forest and 
chaparral vegetation. Both populations share similar features, with the 
differences being largely related to the aspect on which each is 
positioned and amounts of canopy cover and corresponding isolation and 
soil moisture. Both populations are susceptible to seed predation and 
vegetation encroachment. The best available data do not indicate any 
potential genetic differentiation across the range of the species, and 
representation units correspond with our analysis units, which 
generally align with different ecological settings. Although 
populations and subpopulations of the species remain extant across each 
of the ecological settings, resiliency is low for both populations.
    Representation is not only gauged by ecological and genetic 
diversity, but also by the species' ability to colonize new areas. 
Currently, populations of Lassics lupine are small and isolated by 
tracts of unsuitable habitat. The lack of connectivity between 
populations and overall small size may result in reduced gene flow and 
genetic diversity, rendering the species less able to adapt to novel 
conditions. Further, the lack of available and unoccupied suitable 
habitat leaves less opportunity for an adaptable species to exploit new 
resources outside of the area it currently occupies. Thus, while 
ecological diversity is generally low for this highly specialized 
species, the limited availability of unoccupied habitat in suitable 
condition also likely limits the potential for this species to adapt to 
environmental changes.
    As mentioned previously, quantitative data on habitat condition 
could be misleading for a narrow endemic, so we relied on qualitative 
assessments relative to historical availability of habitat and the 
expert opinion of those familiar with the populations as the best 
scientific data available. Detailed genetic information is not 
available for this species, nor do we know the minimum number of 
individuals that would be required to sustain a population, or the 
minimum number of populations required to sustain the species. 
Nonetheless, the evidence that does exist points to a species that is 
heavily impacted by variable weather patterns and by high rates of seed 
predation, likely exacerbated by vegetation encroachment.

Future Condition

    As part of the SSA, we also developed three future condition 
scenarios to capture the range of uncertainties regarding future 
threats and the projected responses by the Lassics lupine. Our 
scenarios examined possible future impacts of seed predation, climate 
change, and fire. Because we determined that the current condition of 
the Lassics lupine was consistent with an endangered species (see 
Determination of Lassics Lupine's Status, below), we are not presenting 
the results of the future scenarios in this final rule. Please refer to 
the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 42-50) for the full analysis of 
future scenarios.

Determination of Lassics Lupine's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The

[[Page 69085]]

Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition 
of endangered species or threatened species because of any of the 
following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    In this final rule, we present summary evaluations of six threats 
analyzed in the SSA report for the Lassics lupine (Service 2023, 
entire): vegetation encroachment (Factor A), seed predation and 
herbivory (Factor C), fire (Factor A), climate change effects (Factor 
E), and invasive species (Factor A). We also evaluate existing 
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) and ongoing conservation measures.
    In the SSA, we also considered the following additional threats: 
overutilization due to commercial, recreational, educational, and 
scientific use (Factor B); disease (Factor C); and recreation (Factor 
E). We concluded that, as indicated by the best available scientific 
and commercial information, these threats are currently having little 
to no impact on the Lassics lupine, and thus their overall effect now 
and into the future is expected to be minimal. However, we consider 
them in our determination of status for the Lassics lupine, because 
although these minor threats may have low impacts on their own, 
combined with impacts of other threats, they could further reduce the 
already low number of Lassics lupine plants.
    For full descriptions of all threats and how they impact the 
species, please see the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 22-33).
    Based on historical records, it appears that the Lassics lupine has 
always had a limited range. However, in recent decades, the species has 
experienced a reduction of its range. As woody vegetation encroachment 
(Factor A) has affected occupied Lassics lupine habitat, the population 
of small mammals has increased, resulting in pre-dispersal seed 
predation (Factor C) that has affected up to 95 percent of flowering 
plants. Ongoing efforts to cage all adult plants have greatly reduced 
the magnitude of pre-dispersal seed predation, and our assessment of 
population abundance and habitat quality for the species from recent 
surveys indicates that the Lassics lupine population size is relatively 
stable. While population levels are currently stable, given the high 
rates of seed predation documented prior to caging (up to 95 percent of 
seeds consumed pre-dispersal), they would not be stable without the 
annual effort of caging individual plants. Caging is not guaranteed to 
continue and requires significant investment of time and resources 
twice per year to implement. Additionally, habitat quantity and quality 
are reduced compared to historical levels with the remaining 
populations being small in size and occupying a small area. The current 
abundance and recruitment levels are sustained only through management 
actions, specifically caging of a large proportion of reproductive 
individuals.
    In recent years, fire (Factor A) impacted the Red Lassic 
population, killing both individual Lassics lupine plants and the 
overstory that was providing necessary shade to the species. Any future 
mixed- or high-severity fire could provide further loss of adult 
Lassics lupine plants and damage the habitat features necessary for 
their survival. Additionally, earlier snowmelt date, reduced summer 
precipitation, and higher summer temperatures associated with climate 
change (Factor E) have resulted in a loss of soil moisture in the 
shallow soils where the Lassics lupine is found. Further, invasive 
species (Factor A) are encroaching near Lassics lupine populations, 
although the magnitude of this threat is currently low.
    Under the current condition, the Lassics lupine remains distributed 
throughout its historical range, but resiliency is low for both 
populations and across all ecological settings. Overall current 
condition is ranked as low in three of the four analysis units. 
Although representation is maintained at current levels throughout the 
range, population resiliency and species redundancy are both low, 
especially as compared to historical conditions. The current small size 
of Lassics lupine populations makes the species less able to withstand 
the threats that are currently impacting the species.
    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we find that the Lassics lupine is currently facing high-
magnitude threats from vegetation encroachment, pre-dispersal seed 
predation, fire, and reduced soil moisture associated with ongoing 
effects of climate change. Although ongoing management actions are 
helping to reduce the magnitude of seed predation, the majority of 
Lassics lupine individuals are concentrated in a single population that 
has a reduced ability to withstand both catastrophic events and normal 
year-to-year fluctuations in environmental and demographic conditions. 
These threats are impacting the species now. Thus, after assessing the 
best available information, we determine that the Lassics lupine is in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. We have determined that the Lassics lupine is in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did not 
undertake an analysis of any significant portions of its range. Because 
the Lassics lupine warrants listing as endangered throughout all of its 
range, our determination does not conflict with the decision in Center 
for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), 
because that decision related to significant portion of the range 
analyses for species that warrant listing as threatened, not 
endangered, throughout all of their range.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Lassics lupine meets the Act's 
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we are listing the 
Lassics lupine as an endangered species in accordance with sections 
3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed 
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements 
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. 
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried 
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies, 
including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities 
are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and

[[Page 69086]]

threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed 
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and 
functioning components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery 
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making 
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or 
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for 
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates 
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of 
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental 
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop 
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery 
plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website 
(https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species), or from our Arcata 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    Once this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of California will be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the Lassics lupine. Information on our 
grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found 
at: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for the Lassics lupine. Additionally, we invite you to 
submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes 
available and any information you may have for recovery planning 
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or 
threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is 
designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation 
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they 
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy 
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may 
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with us.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include management 
and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands 
administered by the USFS (Six Rivers National Forest).
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 
17.61, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to import or export; remove and reduce to possession 
from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy on 
any such area; remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy on any other 
area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State or in 
the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law; deliver, 
receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, 
by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity; or 
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce an endangered 
plant. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, other 
Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered plants under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits for endangered plants are codified at 50 CFR 17.62. 
With regard to endangered plants, a permit may be issued for scientific 
purposes or for enhancing the propagation or survival of the species. 
The statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, 
which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify, to the extent known at the time a 
species is listed, specific activities that will not be considered 
likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act. To the extent 
possible, activities that will be considered likely to result in 
violation will also be identified in as specific a manner as possible. 
The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect 
of a final listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range 
of a listed species. As discussed above, certain activities that are 
prohibited under section 9 may be permitted under section 10 of the 
Act. In addition, to the extent currently known, the following 
activities will not be considered likely to result in violation of 
section 9 of the Act:
    (1) Vegetation management practices, such as hand-pulling invasive 
species and trail maintenance outside the populations that are carried 
out in accordance with any existing regulations and best management 
practices;
    (2) Research activities that are carried out in accordance with any 
existing regulations and permit requirements;
    (3) Vehicle use on existing roads in compliance with the Six Rivers 
National Forest land management plan; and
    (4) Recreational use (e.g., hiking and walking) with minimal ground 
disturbance on existing designated trails.
    This list is intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive; 
additional activities that will not be considered likely to result in 
violation of section 9 of the Act may be identified during coordination

[[Page 69087]]

with the local field office, and in some instances (e.g., with new 
information), the Service may conclude that one or more activities 
identified here will be considered likely to result in violation of 
section 9.
    To the extent currently known, the following is a list of examples 
of activities that fall under the prohibitions set forth at 50 CFR 
17.61 and that will be considered likely to result in violation of 
section 9 of the Act:
    (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, removing, possessing, 
selling, delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, 
including transport across State lines and import or export across 
international boundaries; and
    (2) Destruction or alteration of the species by unauthorized 
vegetation management, trail maintenance, or research activities.
    This list is intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive; 
additional activities that will be considered likely to result in 
violation of section 9 of the Act may be identified during coordination 
with the local field office, and in some instances (e.g., with new or 
site-specific information), the Service may conclude that one or more 
activities identified here will not be considered likely to result in 
violation of section 9.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Arcata Fish 
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Critical Habitat

Background

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat 
concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in 
section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the 
government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not 
require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement 
measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal 
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed 
species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to 
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, 
even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would 
likely result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical 
habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required 
to abandon the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; 
instead, they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to 
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, 
cover, and protected habitat).
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information from the SSA report and information developed during the 
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may 
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the 
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans 
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and 
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that

[[Page 69088]]

habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. 
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside 
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will 
continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical 
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans 
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new 
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a 
different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as 
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protection. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that 
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a 
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example, 
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might 
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline 
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or 
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include 
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for 
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or absence of a particular level 
of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed 
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat 
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between 
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential 
to support the life history of the species.
    In considering whether features are essential to the conservation 
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and 
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the 
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the 
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space 
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, 
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological 
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or 
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected 
from disturbance.

Geological Substrate and Soils

    The Lassics lupine occurs on or in the vicinity of serpentine soils 
in the Lassics Mountains, mainly on barren slopes with very shallow 
soil and low organic matter, or less commonly, near edges of Jeffrey 
pine forests. Most plants occur on flat or steep slopes with high 
proportions of gravel or cobble on the surface. The Lassics Range 
occurs in the central Franciscan Belt of the California Coast Ranges. 
This area is characterized by moderately steep to very steep slopes and 
a complex assemblage of rocks primarily composed of the Franciscan 
Complex, the Coast Range Ophiolite, and the Great Valley Sequence 
(Kaplan 1984, p. 203; Krueger 1990, p. 1). The sources of these 
complexes range from oceanic crusts to underlying mantle that was 
forced to the surface by thrusts originating from great distances. The 
serpentine rocks are present due to extreme disruptions of faulting and 
folding (Alexander 2008, p. 1). These soil parent materials and the 
natural erosion on the landscape determine the soil features present 
today. Both fluvial erosion and mass wasting have been important 
geologic processes in the Lassics area (Alexander 2008, p. 1).
    Lassics lupine occurs across four described soil units that are all 
characterized as either serpentine and/or clastic (composed of pieces 
of older rocks) sedimentary rocks (Alexander 2008, pp. 2-3). Serpentine 
soils in general are characterized by their relatively high levels of 
magnesium and iron, while being simultaneously low in calcium, 
nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus (Kruckeberg 1985, p. 18; Alexander 
2011, p. 28). Additional soil analyses demonstrated that all soils 
supporting Lassics lupine are characterized by similar sand content (81 
to 91 percent) and similar concentrations of heavy minerals and 
nutrients (specifically phosphorus, potassium, calcium, copper, iron, 
zinc, total carbon, total nitrogen, and extractable aluminum) when 
compared with nearby soils. Nearby soils that do not support Lassics 
lupine revealed lower sand content and slightly higher pH. Few 
additional sites meet the Lassics lupine soil requirements identified 
by these two investigations. Given the narrow range of suitable soils, 
it is unlikely that the species was significantly more widespread in 
the area historically (Imper 2012, pp. 1-28).
    The Lassics lupine occurs in an area that typically experiences 
hot, dry summers and snow coverage for up to 7 months a year from late 
fall through spring. The soils are fast draining and generally 
infertile, as described above. The general inability for the 
surrounding soil to retain moisture and/or nutrients results in 
potentially increased impacts from climate variables such as rainfall, 
snowmelt, and soil temperature.
    Both Lassics lupine populations occur at the top of the Little Van 
Duzen River watershed, which drains into the Van Duzen River, the Eel 
River, and then the Pacific Ocean. The primary sources of water for 
Lassics lupine plants are snowmelt and rainfall, some of which is 
available as groundwater after weather events.
    Lassics lupine habitat is typically covered in snow for many winter 
months, with soil temperatures close to freezing and high moisture 
content. Demographic monitoring data suggest that earlier snowmelt 
dates are negatively correlated with survival of Lassics lupine plants 
that year, especially during years of lower summer rainfall (Imper 
2012, pp. 142-143). The date of snowmelt is influenced by the amount 
and type of precipitation in the winter (rain versus snow) and 
temperatures. Increased snow cover later in the season is assumed to 
provide greater water infiltration into the soils, therefore increasing 
the amount of

[[Page 69089]]

available moisture to Lassics lupine plants and decreasing desiccation 
of overwintering plants.
    Soil temperatures increase dramatically after snow has melted due 
to lack of cover and vary with aspect. These temperatures continue to 
increase into August. Soil moisture typically remains high in the weeks 
following snowmelt and then decreases gradually, with some spikes based 
on summer precipitation events. Areas occupied by Lassics lupine have 
both high light levels and high available soil moisture in August 
compared to unoccupied habitat nearby (Imper 2012, pp. 91-92). Most 
areas are located on a north aspect or have some tree cover, both of 
which decrease insolation and increase available soil moisture. Some 
areas occupied by Lassics lupine are adjacent to mature trees and 
experience lower soil temperatures due to shading and decreased 
insolation; these areas generally appear to be less suitable for 
Lassics lupine based on decreased reproductive vigor and growth rates. 
Most of these forested areas experience rapid decreases in available 
soil moisture earlier in the growing season, likely due to water 
demands of nearby trees (Imper 2012, pp. 91-92). The exception to this 
is the Red Lassic population, where there is a seasonally wet area 
perched above the population that allows for increased moisture to be 
available later in the season.
    When it occurs, summer rainfall appears to be beneficial for 
Lassics lupine's survival, with lower mortality in years with more 
precipitation during the growing season (Imper 2012, pp. 142-143). In 
late summer, when available soil moisture is low and soil temperatures 
are high, there is the risk of desiccation of seedlings and mature 
plants. In years when summer rainfall is low and summer temperatures 
are high, there is increased mortality. The effects of these conditions 
are exacerbated by early or decreased snowmelt.
    Therefore, suitable soils are generally fast-draining and include 
serpentine and clastic soils, with very shallow soil and low organic 
matter. These soils are also characterized as receiving sufficient snow 
and rain for seed germination and moisture for growing plants; 
containing relatively high levels of magnesium and iron, while being 
simultaneously low in calcium, nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus; and 
having relatively high sand content.

Ecological Community

    The area immediately surrounding Lassics lupine habitat is 
characterized by Jeffery pine and incense cedar forest, chaparral, and 
largely unvegetated serpentine barrens. The predominant canopy cover is 
provided by Jeffrey pine and incense cedar, with white fir (Abies 
concolor) being prevalent on nonserpentine forest soils of the Lassics 
(Alexander 2008, entire). The primary chaparral species are pinemat 
manzanita, mountain whitethorn (Ceanothus cordulatus), buckbrush 
(Ceanothus cuneatus), and various herbaceous species. Chaparral 
habitats occur primarily on the south-facing slopes and forest habitats 
on the north-facing slopes.
    The majority of Lassics lupine plants occur on serpentine barrens 
around Mount Lassic with patchy, or no, tree and shrub cover. Several 
small herbs and geophytes, including other rare species, occur on these 
serpentine barrens and have been documented over the past few decades 
(for more detail see Nelson and Nelson 1983, entire; Cate 2016, pp. 7-
8; Imper and Elkins 2016, p. 11). Some plants occur in closed-canopy 
Jeffrey pine-incense cedar forest farther downslope on the north aspect 
of Mount Lassic. Plants in this area show decreased vigor and growth, 
assumed to be attributed to reduced light and water and increased leaf 
litter (Imper 2012, p. 140). A third habitat setting, at Red Lassic, is 
dominated by Jeffrey pine and pinemat manzanita and occurs on a south 
to southeast aspect.
    Most Lupinus species require outcrossing for effective 
fertilization of flowers. All Lupinus species have specialized 
pollination mechanisms that require animal pollinators to carry pollen 
from one individual to another. While the Lassics lupine may be capable 
of some level of self-pollination, it is also visited at high rates by 
three bee species: yellow-faced bumblebee, black-tailed bumblebee, and 
a mason bee species (Osmia spp.) (Crawford and Ross 2003, p. 2). All 
three of the bee species appear to be capable pollinators given that 
they are large enough to trigger the mechanism that releases pollen 
from the individual flowers (Crawford and Ross 2003, p. 3).
    Successful transfer of pollen among Lassics lupine populations may 
be inhibited if populations are separated by distances greater than 
pollinators can travel and/or if a pollinator's nesting or foraging 
habitat and behavior is negatively affected (Cranmer et al. 2012, p. 
562; Dorchin et al. 2013, entire). Flight distances are generally 
correlated with body size in bees; larger bees are able to fly farther 
than smaller bees (Gathmann and Tscharntke 2002, entire; Greenleaf et 
al. 2007, pp. 592-594). There is evidence to suggest that larger bees, 
which are able to fly longer distances, do not need their habitat to 
remain contiguous, but it is more important that the protected habitat 
is large enough to maintain floral diversity (Greenleaf et al. 2007, p. 
594). While researchers have reported long foraging distance for 
solitary bees, the majority of individuals remain close to their nest; 
thus, foraging distance tends to be 1,640 ft (500 m) or less (Antoine 
and Forrest 2021, p. 152). The most common bee and wasp pollinators 
have a fixed location for their nest, and thus their nesting success is 
dependent on the availability of resources within their flight range 
(Xerces 2009, p. 14).
    Many insect communities are known to be influenced not only by 
local habitat conditions, but also the surrounding landscape condition 
(Klein et al. 2004, p. 523; Xerces 2009, pp. 11-26; Tepedino et al. 
2011, entire; Dorchin et al. 2013, entire; Inouye et al. 2015, pp. 119-
121). In order for genetic exchange of Lassics lupine to occur, 
pollinators must be able to move freely between populations. 
Alternative pollen and nectar sources (other plant species within the 
surrounding vegetation) are needed to support pollinators during times 
when Lassics lupine is not flowering. Conservation strategies that 
maintain plant-pollinator interactions, such as maintenance of diverse, 
herbicide-free nectar resources, would serve to attract a wide array of 
insects, including pollinators of Lassics lupine (Cranmer et al. 2012, 
p. 567). Therefore, Lassics lupine habitat must also support 
populations of bee species that, in turn, require abundant, diverse 
sources of pollen and nectar.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the Lassics lupine from studies of the species' 
habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. Additional 
information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2023, entire; 
available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2022-0083). We have determined that the following physical or 
biological features are essential to the conservation of the Lassics 
lupine:
    (1) A plant community that consists of the following:
    (a) Areas of open to sparse understory to ensure competition with 
Lassics lupine is inhibited. When sparse understory is present, the 
composition is predominantly native vegetation.
    (b) Suitable solar insolation levels to support growth. These 
suitable levels can be achieved by the appropriate combination of 
canopy cover and aspect, with hotter and drier west-facing

[[Page 69090]]

slopes needing moderate and more protective canopy cover compared to 
cooler north-facing slopes where there can be little to no canopy 
cover.
    (c) A diversity and abundance of native plant species whose 
blooming times overlap to provide pollinator species with pollen and 
nectar sources for foraging throughout the seasons and to provide 
nesting and egg-laying sites; appropriate nest materials; and 
sheltered, undisturbed habitat for hibernation and overwintering of 
pollinator species and insect visitors.
    (2) Sufficient pollinators, particularly bees, for successful 
Lassics lupine reproduction and seed production.
    (3) Suitable soils and hydrology that consist of the following:
    (a) Open, relatively barren, upland sites categorized as receiving 
sufficient snow and rain for seed germination and moisture for growing 
plants.
    (b) Soils that are generally fast-draining, including serpentine or 
clastic (composed of pieces of older rocks) soils, with very shallow 
soil and low organic matter.
    (c) Soils characterized by their relatively high levels of 
magnesium and iron, while being simultaneously low in calcium, 
nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus.
    (d) Soils characterized by relatively high sand content.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. The features essential to the conservation of this species 
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce 
the following threats: pre-dispersal seed predation, native woody 
vegetation encroachment, invasive species encroachment, and the ability 
to withstand drought due to climate change. Management activities that 
could ameliorate these threats include, but are not limited to: (1) 
Caging plants to reduce the threat of pre-dispersal seed predation; (2) 
habitat restoration activities that include the removal of woody 
vegetation; (3) removal of nonnative, invasive species; and (4) 
augmentation and reintroduction programs to expand Lassics lupine 
populations.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat. We are not designating any areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species because we have 
not identified any unoccupied areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat.
    We are designating one occupied critical habitat unit for the 
Lassics lupine. The one unit is comprised of approximately 512 ac (207 
ha) of land in Humboldt and Trinity Counties, California, and is 
completely on lands under Federal (USFS) land ownership. The unit was 
determined using location information for Lassics lupine after extant 
population boundaries were collected in 2018 by Six Rivers National 
Forest staff around Mount Lassic with global positioning system (GPS) 
units. This dataset was provided to the Arcata Fish and Wildlife 
Office. This unit includes the physical footprint of where the plants 
currently occur, as well as their immediate surroundings out to 1,640 
ft (500 m) in every direction from the periphery of each population. 
This area of surrounding habitat contains components of the physical 
and biological features (i.e., the pollinator community and its 
requisite native vegetative assembly), necessary to support the life-
history needs of the Lassics lupine.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort 
to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, 
pavement, and other structures because such lands lack the physical or 
biological features necessary for the Lassics lupine. The scale of the 
maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code 
of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed 
lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat 
boundaries shown on the maps of this rule have been excluded by text in 
the rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a 
Federal action involving these lands will not trigger section 7 
consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no 
adverse modification unless the specific action will affect the 
physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
    We are designating as critical habitat areas that we have 
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently 
occupied) and that contain one or more of the physical or biological 
features that are essential to support life-history processes of the 
species. The critical habitat unit is designated based on all of the 
physical or biological features being present to support the Lassics 
lupine's life-history processes.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document under Regulation Promulgation. We include more-detailed 
information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in 
the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot 
points or both on which each map is based available to the public on 
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0083, and on 
our internet site at https://www.fws.gov/species/lassics-lupine-lupinus-constancei.

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating one unit as critical habitat for the Lassics 
lupine. The critical habitat area we describe below constitutes our 
current best assessment of the area that meets the definition of 
critical habitat for the Lassics lupine. The area we designate as 
critical habitat is in the Mount Lassic area. Table 2 shows the 
critical habitat unit and its approximate area.

                           Table 2--Final Critical Habitat Unit for the Lassics Lupine
                   [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Size of unit
         Critical habitat unit             Land ownership by type      in acres               Occupied?
                                                                      (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mount Lassic Unit......................  Federal (USFS)...........       512 (207)  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 69091]]

    We present a brief description of the unit and reasons it meets the 
definition of critical habitat for the Lassics lupine, below.

Mount Lassic Unit

    The Mount Lassic Unit consists of 512 ac (207 ha) of USFS land. 
This unit is located on the border of Humboldt and Trinity Counties, 
California, surrounding Mount Lassic and Red Lassic peaks. All of this 
unit is on Federal land managed solely by the Six Rivers National 
Forest. This unit is currently occupied and contains two populations of 
Lassics lupine consisting of less than 4 ac (1.6 ha) total. This unit 
is essential to the recovery of Lassics lupine because it includes all 
the habitat that is occupied by Lassics lupine across the species' 
range. This unit currently has all the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species, including open to 
sparsely vegetated areas with low native plant cover and stature; 
nesting, egg-laying, and foraging habitat for pollinator species and 
insect visitors; and suitable soils with appropriate textures and 
chemistry. This unit faces threats from encroaching woody vegetation 
and high-severity fire and drought due to climate change. Cheatgrass 
occurs within and adjacent to this unit and has encroached within 100 
ft of individual plants. Special management may be required to mitigate 
future impacts to Lassics lupine. It is likely that there is room for 
expansion of the species in this unit provided that woody vegetation 
management occurs to further limit pre-dispersal seed predation and 
improve the quality of solar insolation.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species.
    We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or 
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or 
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that 
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the 
conservation of a listed species.
    Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act is 
documented through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood 
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or 
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical 
habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal 
agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions. 
These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and, 
subsequent to the previous consultation: (a) if the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (b) if 
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously 
considered; (c) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a 
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat 
that was not considered in the biological opinion or written 
concurrence; or (d) if a new species is listed or critical habitat 
designated that may be affected by the identified action. The 
reinitiation requirement applies only to actions that remain subject to 
some discretionary Federal involvement or control. As provided in 50 
CFR 402.16, the requirement to reinitiate consultations for new species 
listings or critical habitat designation does not apply to certain 
agency actions (e.g., land management plans issued by the Bureau of 
Land Management in certain circumstances).
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
    The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification 
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way 
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a 
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, 
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide 
for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section 
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, 
or that may be affected by such designation.
    Activities that we may, during a consultation under section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act, consider likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat include, but are not limited to, wildfire operations and 
management within or adjacent to occupied areas. Such activities could 
include, but are not limited to, construction of new access roads, use 
of heavy equipment, and use of fire retardant. These activities could 
significantly reduce the species' population size and range, and could 
remove corridors for pollinator movement, seed dispersal, and 
population expansion or significantly fragment the landscape and 
decrease the resiliency and representation of the species throughout 
its range.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any 
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department 
of Defense (DoD), or designated for its use, that are subject to an 
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under 
section 101 of the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a), 
if the Secretary determines in

[[Page 69092]]

writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which 
critical habitat is proposed for designation. There are no DoD lands of 
any kind within this critical habitat designation for the Lassics 
lupine.

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat based on economic 
impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant impacts. 
Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 
and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Endangered Species Act (2016 Policy; 81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016)--
both of which were developed jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 Department of the Interior 
Solicitor's opinion entitled, ``The Secretary's Authority to Exclude 
Areas from a Critical Habitat Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Endangered Species Act'' (M-37016). We explain each decision to exclude 
areas, as well as decisions not to exclude, to demonstrate that the 
decision is reasonable.
    The Secretary may exclude any particular area if she determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the 
statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that 
the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and 
how much weight to give to any factor. In this final rule, we are not 
excluding any areas from critical habitat.

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared 
an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis which, 
together with our narrative and interpretation of effects, we consider 
our economic analysis of the critical habitat designation and related 
factors (IEc 2022, entire). The analysis, dated March 16, 2022, was 
made available for public review from October 6, 2022, through December 
5, 2022 (87 FR 60612; October 6, 2022). The economic analysis addressed 
probable economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the 
Lassics lupine. Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed 
and evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that 
may pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic 
impacts of this critical habitat designation. Additional information 
relevant to the probable incremental economic impacts of critical 
habitat designation for the Lassics lupine is summarized below and 
available in the screening analysis for the Lassics lupine (IEc 2022, 
entire), available at https://www.regulations.gov.
    As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of 
economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely 
affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the 
probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the 
designation of critical habitat for the Lassics lupine, first we 
identified probable incremental economic impacts associated with the 
following categories of activities: fuels reduction, trail maintenance, 
invasive plant removal, habitat restoration, Forest Route 1S07 
operation and maintenance, protective plant caging and population 
monitoring, prescribed fire, population management, and cattle 
exclusion. We considered each industry or category individually. 
Additionally, we considered whether the activities have any Federal 
involvement. Critical habitat designation generally will not affect 
activities that do not have any Federal involvement; under the Act, 
designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, 
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where 
the Lassics lupine is present, Federal agencies will be required to 
consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they 
fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. Our 
consultations would include an evaluation of measures to avoid the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the 
effects that would result from the species being listed and those 
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference 
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the 
Lassics lupine's critical habitat. Because the designation of critical 
habitat for the Lassics lupine is being adopted concurrently with the 
listing, it has been our experience that it is more difficult to 
discern which conservation efforts are attributable to the species 
being listed and those which will result solely from the designation of 
critical habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this 
case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical or 
biological features identified for critical habitat are the same 
features essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any 
actions that would result in sufficient harm to constitute jeopardy to 
the Lassics lupine would also likely adversely affect the essential 
physical or biological features of critical habitat. The IEM outlines 
our rationale concerning this limited distinction between baseline 
conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of 
critical habitat for this species. This evaluation of the incremental 
effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the probable incremental 
economic impacts of this designation of critical habitat.
    The critical habitat designation for the Lassics lupine consists of 
a single unit totaling 512 ac (207 ha). This unit is occupied and falls 
entirely within federally owned land within the boundary of the Six 
Rivers National Forest.
    The screening analysis concluded that the anticipated number of 
consultations and associated costs will be small and will be limited to 
administrative efforts to consider adverse modification. This is 
because the single critical habitat unit is relatively small and 
because it occurs entirely on Federal lands, including a large portion 
of the unit that is in a designated wilderness area. The analysis 
predicts that there will be approximately 10 formal consultations over 
the next 10 years and will result in approximately $5,400 in 
incremental costs per year (IEc 2022, p. 10, exhibit 3). Few other 
additional costs are anticipated. Overall, the additional 
administrative burden is anticipated to fall well below the $200 
million annual threshold.
    As discussed above, we considered the economic impacts of the 
critical habitat designation, and the Secretary is not exercising her 
discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical 
habitat for the Lassics lupine based on economic impacts.

Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security

    In preparing this rule, we determined that there are no lands 
within the

[[Page 69093]]

designated critical habitat for the Lassics lupine that are owned or 
managed by the DoD or Department of Homeland Security, and, therefore, 
we anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security. We 
did not receive any additional information during the public comment 
period for the proposed designation regarding impacts of the 
designation on national security or homeland security that would 
support excluding any specific areas from the final critical habitat 
designation under the authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, as well as the 2016 Policy.

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security as discussed above. To identify other relevant impacts that 
may affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a number of factors, 
including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the 
species in the area such as HCPs, safe harbor agreements (SHAs), or 
candidate conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs), or whether 
there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that 
would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical 
habitat. In addition, we look at whether Tribal conservation plans or 
partnerships, Tribal resources, or government-to-government 
relationships of the United States with Tribal entities may be affected 
by the designation. We also consider any State, local, social, or other 
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
    We are not excluding any areas from critical habitat. In preparing 
this final rule, we have determined that there are currently no HCPs or 
other management plans for the Lassics lupine, and the designation does 
not include any Tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no 
impact on Tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this final critical 
habitat designation. We did not receive any additional information 
during the public comment period for the proposed rule regarding other 
relevant impacts to support excluding any specific areas from the final 
critical habitat designation under the authority of section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, as well as 
the 2016 Policy. Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising her 
discretion to exclude any areas from this designation based on other 
relevant impacts.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 
14094

    Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and 
E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency 
efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance 
statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, 
and the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2021 (Modernizing 
Regulatory Review). Regulatory analysis, as practicable and 
appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the 
extent permitted by law. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations 
must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking 
process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of 
ideas. We have developed this final rule in a manner consistent with 
these requirements.
    E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, provides 
that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant 
rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply 
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, 
Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential incremental 
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the 
rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not require agencies to 
evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The 
regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are 
realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in 
consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, 
funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only 
Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory 
requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by 
critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that 
only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this 
designation. There is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the 
potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal 
agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities 
will be directly regulated by this rulemaking, we certify that this 
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and 
evaluated all information submitted during the comment period on the 
October 6, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 60612) that may pertain to our 
consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this 
critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm our

[[Page 69094]]

certification that this critical habitat designation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare statements of energy effects ``to the extent 
permitted by law'' when undertaking actions identified as significant 
energy actions (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001). E.O. 13211 defines a 
``significant energy action'' as an action that (i) is a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 (or any successor order, including 
most recently E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879; Apr. 11, 2023)); and (ii) is 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. This rule is not a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or 14094. Therefore, this action is 
not a significant energy action, and there is no requirement to prepare 
a statement of energy effects for this action.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following finding:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that 
receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise 
require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, 
may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the 
legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to 
the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because 
they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal 
aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor 
would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement 
programs listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because only Federal lands are included in the 
designation. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for the Lassics lupine in a takings implications assessment. 
The Act does not authorize us to regulate private actions on private 
lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat 
designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land 
ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or 
access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of 
critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require 
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat 
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit 
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. 
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or 
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed and 
concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the Lassics 
lupine does not pose significant takings implications for lands within 
or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement 
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and 
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this critical habitat designation with, 
appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism perspective, the 
designation of critical habitat directly affects only the 
responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties 
with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, this final rule does not 
have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. The designation may have some benefit to these governments 
because the areas that contain the features essential to the 
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the physical 
or biological features of the habitat necessary for the conservation of 
the species are specifically identified. This information does not 
alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, 
it may assist State and local governments in long-range planning 
because they no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur.
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act will be required. While 
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or 
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a 
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the 
designation of critical

[[Page 69095]]

habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule will not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this rule 
identifies the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species. The areas of designated critical habitat 
are presented on maps, and the rule provides several options for the 
interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if 
desired.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and 
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not 
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

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

    Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt 
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes 
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical 
habitat designations. In a line of cases starting with Douglas County 
v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the courts have upheld this 
position.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. We have determined that no Tribal 
lands fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation 
for the Lassics lupine, so no Tribal lands will be affected by this 
designation.

References Cited

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

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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


0
2. In Sec.  17.12, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants by adding an entry for ``Lupinus constancei'' in 
alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Listing citations
         Scientific name              Common name          Where listed          Status         and applicable
                                                                                                     rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Flowering Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Lupinus constancei..............  Lassics lupine.....  Wherever found.....  E                 88 FR [INSERT
                                                                                               FEDERAL REGISTER
                                                                                               PAGE WHERE THE
                                                                                               DOCUMENT BEGINS],
                                                                                               10/5/2023; 50 CFR
                                                                                               17.96(a).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.96, in paragraph (a), by adding an entry for ``Family 
Fabaceae: Lupinus constancei (Lassics lupine)'' after the entry for 
``Family Fabaceae: Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (Ventura 
Marsh milk-vetch)'', to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Fabaceae: Lupinus constancei (Lassics lupine)

    (1) The critical habitat unit is depicted for Humboldt and Trinity 
Counties, California, on the map in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Lassics lupine consist of the 
following components:
    (i) A plant community that consists of the following:
    (A) Areas of open to sparse understory to ensure competition with 
Lassics lupine is inhibited. When sparse

[[Page 69096]]

understory is present, the composition is predominantly native 
vegetation.
    (B) Suitable solar insolation levels to support growth. These 
suitable levels can be achieved by the appropriate combination of 
canopy cover and aspect, with hotter and drier west-facing slopes 
needing moderate and more protective canopy cover compared to cooler 
north-facing slopes where there can be little to no canopy cover.
    (C) A diversity and abundance of native plant species whose 
blooming times overlap to provide pollinator species with pollen and 
nectar sources for foraging throughout the seasons and to provide 
nesting and egg-laying sites; appropriate nest materials; and 
sheltered, undisturbed habitat for hibernation and overwintering of 
pollinator species and insect visitors.
    (ii) Sufficient pollinators, particularly bees, for successful 
Lassics lupine reproduction and seed production.
    (iii) Suitable soils and hydrology that consist of the following:
    (A) Open, relatively barren, upland sites categorized as receiving 
sufficient snow and rain for seed germination and moisture for growing 
plants.
    (B) Soils that are generally fast-draining, including serpentine or 
clastic (composed of pieces of older rocks) soils, with very shallow 
soil and low organic matter.
    (C) Soils characterized by their relatively high levels of 
magnesium and iron, while being simultaneously low in calcium, 
nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus.
    (D) Soils characterized by relatively high sand content.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
November 6, 2023.
    (4) Data layers defining the map unit were created based on surveys 
conducted with global positioning system (GPS) units collecting in 
WGS84 coordinates, and the critical habitat unit was then mapped using 
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 10N coordinates. The map in 
this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, 
establishes the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The 
coordinates or plot points or both on which the map is based are 
available to the public at the Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/office/arcata-fish-and-wildlife, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0083, and at the field 
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office 
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices, 
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Mount Lassic Unit, Humboldt and Trinity Counties, California.
    (i) The Mount Lassic Unit consists of 512 acres (207 hectares) of 
land in Humboldt and Trinity Counties. The entirety of the unit falls 
within the boundary of the Six Rivers National Forest.
    (ii) Map of the Mount Lassic Unit follows:

Figure 1 to Family Fabaceae: Lupinus constancei (Lassics lupine) 
paragraph (5)(ii)

BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 69097]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC23.058


[[Page 69098]]


* * * * *

Janine Velasco,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-21477 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C