69074 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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-lupinelupinus-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-lupinelupinus-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-ofcontact 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-lupinelupinus-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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 taprooted, 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69076 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 selfpollination, 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69077 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER05OC23.057</GPH>

Lassies Lupine Populations 

Humboldt and Trinity Counties, California 

Humboldt I Trinity I County I County 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 I 

I 

Q. I 

I 

I 

I 

~ f 

I 

I 

I 

I LASSIC I 

I 

I 

I 

I • I A 

I RED 

I LASSIC I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

0 OS Miles I 

I I I I I I 

0 0.5 1 Kllomett1rs I 

I 

MAP FEATURES 

E'2Z2J Lassies Lupine Populations ,-. -- - ._ - _I County Border 

= Roads 

A Mountains 

Figure 1. Lassies lupine populations on Mount Lassie and Red Lassie. 
69078 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 speciesspecific 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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/lassicslupine-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 welldistributed 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69080 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 predispersal 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 climaterelated extremes such as droughts and 

wildfires (IPCC 2014, p. 8). Average 

annual temperatures in California have 

risen by approximately 2 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69082 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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

Habitat quantity Habitat quality 

Abundance 

range 

(mean) 

Overall current 

condition 

Red Lassic ........ Relatively small, reduced from historical 

amounts.

Unsuitable (south aspect without tree 

cover).

0–320 (129) Low. 

Saddle ............... Relatively moderately-sized, but reduced 

from historical amounts.

Suitable solar insolation .............................. 14–284 (184) Moderate. 

Terrace ............. Relatively small, reduced from historical 

amounts.

Suitable solar insolation .............................. 33–135 (79) Low. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69084 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—CURRENT CONDITION DATA FOR EACH ANALYSIS UNIT WITH OVERALL CURRENT CONDITION SUMMARIZED— 

Continued 

Habitat quantity Habitat quality 

Abundance 

range 

(mean) 

Overall current 

condition 

Forest ................ Relatively small, reduced from historical 

amounts.

Suboptimal (north aspect combined with 

moderate canopy).

12–85 (48) Low. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 highseverity 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 highmagnitude 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69086 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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, selfsustaining, 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/financialassistance. 

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 landscapealtering 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonFederal 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69088 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 lifehistory 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 earlysuccessional 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 lifehistory 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 northfacing 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 closedcanopy 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, blacktailed 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69090 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 fastdraining, 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 moredetailed 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-lupinusconstancei. 

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.] 

Critical habitat unit Land ownership by type 

Size of unit in 

acres 

(hectares) 

Occupied? 

Mount Lassic Unit ......................................................... Federal (USFS) ............................................................ 512 (207) Yes. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 highseverity 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 predispersal 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69092 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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-togovernment 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69094 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. In § 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: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Scientific name Common name Where listed Status Listing citations 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

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 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 milkvetch)’’, to read as follows: 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
69096 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 fastdraining, 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-andwildlife, 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 69097 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1ER05OC23.058</GPH>

Critical Habitat for The Lassies Lupine 

Mount Lassie Unit 

Humboldt and Trinity Counties, California 

0 

I 

0 

Humboldt 

County 

I 

o.s 

MAP FEATURES 

0.5 Miles 

I I 

1 KIiometers 

11111 Lassies Lupine Critical Habitat 

: : :, County Border 

= Roads 

..&c Mountains 

Trinity 

County 
69098 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 220801–0167; RTID 0648– 

XD342] 

Inseason Action for 2023–2024 

Commercial Pacific Bluefin Tuna 

Biennial Catch Limit in the Eastern 

Pacific Ocean 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Inseason announcement of 

2023–2024 catch limit. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is announcing that the 

Pacific bluefin tuna (PBF) 2023–2024 

biennial catch limit for U.S. commercial 

fishing vessels in the eastern Pacific 

Ocean (EPO) is 1,054 metric tons (mt). 

DATES: The rule is effective 12 a.m. local 

time November 3, 2023, through 11:59 

p.m. local time December 31, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tyler Lawson, NMFS West Coast 

Region, 503–230–5421. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

United States is a member of the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission 

(IATTC), which was established under 

the Convention for the Establishment of 

an IATTC signed in 1949 (1949 

Convention). The 1949 Convention 

provides an international agreement to 

ensure the effective international 

conservation and management of highly 

migratory species of fish in the IATTC 

Convention Area. In 2003, the IATTC 

updated the 1949 Convention through 

the adoption of the Convention for the 

Strengthening of the IATTC Established 

by the 1949 Convention between the 

United States of America and the 

Republic of Costa Rica (Antigua 

Convention). The IATTC Convention 

Area, as amended by the Antigua 

Convention, includes the waters of the 

EPO bounded by the coast of the 

Americas, the 50° N and 50° S parallels, 

and the 150° W meridian. 

Fishing for PBF in the EPO is 

managed, in part, under the Tuna 

Conventions Act of 1950, as amended 

(Act), 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq. Under the 

Act, NMFS must publish regulations to 

carry out recommendations and 

decisions of the IATTC in consultation 

with the Department of State. 

Regulations implementing conservation 

and management measures for tuna and 

tuna-like species in the EPO appear at 

50 CFR part 300, subpart C. 

On August 5, 2022, the NMFS 

published a final rule (87 FR 47939) 

implementing IATTC Resolution C–21– 

05 (Measures for the Conservation and 

Management of Pacific Bluefin Tuna in 

the Eastern Pacific Ocean). That rule 

established an initial combined catch 

limit for 2023–2024 of 1,017 mt. Under 

50 CFR 300.25(g)(2), that initial catch 

limit is then either increased by the 

amount of catch remaining from, or 

decreased by the amount of catch in 

excess of, the 2021–2022 biennial catch 

limit, which was 739 mt. Any increase 

to the initial 2023–2024 catch limit 

cannot exceed 37 mt (see 

§ 300.25(g)(2)(i)). 

Based on landings data and other 

information available as of August 22, 

2023, 587 mt of PBF were caught by 

U.S. commercial vessels during the 

2021–2022 biennial management period 

(217 mt in 2021 and 370 mt in 2022). 

Therefore, in 2023–2024, the catch limit 

may be increased by 37 mt. Specifically, 

the 2023–2024 limit is increased from 

1,017 to 1,054 mt. During the 2023–2024 

biennial management period, the 1 year 

maximum of 720 mt remains unchanged 

for 2023. The annual catch limit for 

2024 will be announced at the 

beginning of that year. 

Notice of this inseason action that 

announces the biennial limit has also 

been posted on the NMFS website: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/westcoast/sustainable-fisheries/pacificbluefin-tuna-commercial-harvest-status. 

Classification 

There is good cause to waive prior 

notice and an opportunity for public 

comment on this action under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), as notice and comment would 

be impracticable, unnecessary, and 

contrary to the public interest. Under 

§ 300.25(g)(2), NMFS determines the 

biennial catch limit for 2023–2024 by 

adjusting the initial catch limit of 1,017 

mt to account for any over-harvest or 

under-harvest from the 2021–2022 

biennial catch limit. The regulation 

provides NMFS with no discretion in 

setting the 2023–2024 biennial catch 

limit; therefore, public comment on this 

action is impracticable, unnecessary, 

and contrary to the public interest. 

Moreover, prior notice and an 

opportunity for public comment was 

provided when NMFS promulgated the 

regulation for determining the 2023– 

2024 biennial catch limit being 

implemented here. As previously noted, 

notification of the 2023–2024 biennial 

catch limit was also provided to the 

public through posting on the NMFS 

website. 

This action is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq. 

Dated: October 2, 2023. 

Jennifer M. Wallace, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–22219 Filed 10–4–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1