Lassics Lupine

Item No. 30 STAFF SUMMARY FOR APRIL 18-19, 2018

30. LASSICS LUPINE

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Consider whether to add Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) to the list of endangered species and, if FGC determines that listing is warranted, authorize staff to publish notice of its intent to amend Section 670.2, Title 14, CCR.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions  Received petition Jul 19, 2016  FGC transmits petition to DFW Jul 29, 2016  Published notice of receipt of petition Aug 12, 2016  Approved DFW request for 30-day extension Oct 19-20, 2016; Eureka  Received DFW evaluation of petition Dec 7-8, 2016; San Diego  Determined that listing may be warranted Feb 8-9, 2017; Rohnert Park  Received DFW’s status review report Feb 7-8, 2018; Sacramento  Today determine if listing is warranted Apr 18-19, 2018; Ventura

Background

In Jul 2016, FGC received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (Exhibit 1) to list Lassics lupine as an endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act. FGC designated Lassics lupine as a candidate species at its Feb 8, 2017 meeting.

FGC received DFW’s status review report at the Feb 2018 meeting (Exhibit 3). The status review report represents DFW’s final written review of Lassics lupine and is based upon the best scientific information available to DFW. The status review report contains DFW’s recommendation that listing Lassics lupine as endangered is warranted

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation FGC staff: Supports DFW's recommendation DFW: Recommends listing Lassics lupine as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act

Exhibits 1. Petition to list Lassics lupine, dated Jul 15, 2016 2. DFW memo, received Jan 10, 2018 3. DFW status review report, dated Jan 2018 4. DFW presentation

Author: Sheri Tiemann 1 Item No. 30 STAFF SUMMARY FOR APRIL 18-19, 2018

Motion/Direction 1a. Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission, pursuant to Section 2075.5 of the Fish and Game Code, finds the information contained in the petition to list Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) and other information in the record before the Commission, warrants listing Lassics lupine as an endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act. (Note: Findings will be adopted at a future meeting.)

AND

1b. Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission, authorizes publication of its intent to amend Section 670.2, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, to add Lassics lupine to the list of plants of California declared to be endangered.

2. Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission, pursuant to Section 2075.5 of the Fish and Game Code, finds that the information contained in the petition to list Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) and other information before the Commission does not warrant listing Lassics lupine as an endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act. (Note: Findings will be adopted at a future meeting.)

Author: Sheri Tiemann 2 FGC - 670.1 (3/94)

A PETITION TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION

For action pursuant to Section 670.1, Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR) and Sections 2072 and 2073 of the Fish and Game Code relating to listing and delisting endangered and threatened species of plants and animals.

I. SPECIES BEING PETITIONED:

Common Name: ~L=as~s~ic~s~lu~p~in~e~ ______

Scientific Name: ( Lupinus constancei )

II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: (Check appropriate categories)

a. List fZ] b. Change Status 0

As Endangered fZ] from ______

As Threatened 0 to ______

Or Delist 0

III. AUTHOR OF PETITION: Cynthia Elkins Name: Dave Imper Center for Biological Diversity

Address: PO Box 220

Shelter Cove, CA 95589

Phone Number: (707) 888 - 2239 ------~------I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, all statements made in this petition are true nd com let

Signature.'-=,.....~~:;,..:..LI.. __"""=::::::::,.&,. ______

Date: __~~~~ ______FGC - 670.1 (3/94) -2-

PETITION TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR

( ) Common Name Scientific Name

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Provide a brief statement explaining why the petitioned action is being recommended. Include a brief summary of each section of the petition. If a species is being petitioned for listing, state why its survival is threatened by any one or a combination of the following factors (listed in Section 670.1, Title 14, CCR):

(1) present or threatened modification or destruction of its habitat;

(2) overexploitation;

(3) predation;

(4) competition;

(5) disease; or

(6) other natural occurrences or human-related activities.

If a species is being recommended for delisting, indicate why State-listing is no longer warranted, and state why any one or a combination of the aforementioned factors no longer threatens its existence.

1. POPULATION TRENDS

Describe current population trends (with numbers and rate) and relate these to viable population numbers. Explain survey methodology used to arrive at numbers or estimates and what assumptions, if any, were involved.

2. RANGE AND DISTRIBUTION

In the text, indicate the percentage of historic distribution that is in existence and the rate of loss. If appropriate, indicate the number of extant occurrences, populations or portions of populations in California. Indicate whether the rate of loss is accelerating, and estimate when extinction would occur if current trends continue. Discuss the relationship between historic and current acreage and degree of habitat fragmentation. Describe the quality of the existing habitats in terms of ability to maintain viable populations with or without enhancement. For delisting, indicate how current distribution reflects the recovery of the species since its listing. FGC - 670.1 (3/94) -3-

3. ABUNDANCE

Provide available historic and current population estimates/trends, densities, vigor, sex and age structures, and explain population changes relative to human-caused impacts or natural events. Compare current and historic abundance in terms of overall population size or size of occurrences, populations or portions of populations, as appropriate. Describe current population trends (with numbers and rate) and relate these to viable population numbers. Explain survey methodology used to arrive at numbers or estimates and what assumptions, if any, were involved.

4. LIFE HISTORY (SPECIES DESCRIPTION, BIOLOGY, AND ECOLOGY)

Include pertinent information that is available on species identification, taxonomy and systematics, seasonal activity or phenology, reproductive biology, mortality/natality, longevity, growth rate, growth form, food habits, habitat relationships and ecological niche or ecological attributes, interactions with other species or special habitat requirements that may increase vulnerability of the species to certain natural or human-caused adverse impacts (e.g., obligate wetland or riparian habitat species, low birthrate, colonial species).

5. KIND OF HABITAT NECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL

Describe habitat features that are thought to be important to the species' ability to maintain viable population levels. Any or all of the following features may be included, as appropriate:

Plant community; edaphic conditions; climate; light; topography/microtopography; natural disturbance; interactions with other plants or animals; associated species; elevation; migration or movement corridors; wintering habitat; breeding habitat; foraging habitat; other habitat features.

For aquatic organisms, the following features may be included in addition to the above:

Water temperature; water flow patterns; stream gradient; water chemistry (dissolved oxygen, salinity, etc.); water depth; bottom type; cover type and availability; fish assemblage/community; aquatic plant abundance; other habitat features.

6. FACTORS AFFECTING ABILITY TO SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE

FGC - 670.1 (3/94) -4-

Discuss the basis for the threats to the species or subspecies, or to each population, occurrence or portion of range (as appropriate) due to one or more of the following factors:

(1) present or threatened modification or destruction of its habitat;

(2) overexploitation;

(3) predation;

(4) competition;

(5) disease; or

(6) other natural events or human-related activities.

Identify the direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse impacts and discuss how these are contributing to the decline of the species. Indicate whether the species is vulnerable to random catastrophic events.

For delisting, state why any one or a combination of the aforementioned factors no longer threatens the existence of the species.

7. DEGREE AND IMMEDIACY OF THREAT

Indicate the immediacy of the threat and the magnitude of loss or rate of decline that has occurred to the present or is expected to occur without protective measures.

8. IMPACT OF EXISTING MANAGEMENT EFFORTS

Describe any ongoing protective measures or existing management plans for the species or its habitat. Information on species or land management activities that are impacting populations or portions of the range and information on proposed land-use changes should be included. This may be best accomplished by discussing populations or portions of the range. A chart may be useful.

Include available information on any or all of the following:

(1) property ownership/jurisdiction for known populations or portions of the range;

(2) current land use;

(3) protective measures being taken, if any, and effectiveness of current management activities; FGC - 670.1 (3/94) -5-

(4) current research on the species;

(5) existing management/recovery plans and the extent of their implementation;

(6) proposed land-use changes (include knowledge of forthcoming California Environmental Quality Act documents that may or should address impacts, and lead agencies involved); or

(7) county general plans, federal and State agency plans/actions or other plans/actions that address or should address the species.

9. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE MANAGEMENT

Describe activities that may be necessary to ensure future survival of the species after listing or delisting. Include recommendations for any or all of the following:

(1) activities that would protect existing populations (site maintenance, preserve design establishment, etc.);

(2) monitoring programs and studies;

(3) needed amendments to existing management and land-use plans, including county general plans;

(4) agencies/organizations that should be involved in planning and implementing management and recovery actions;

(5) other activities that would help protect existing habitat or ensure survival of the species;

(6) how other sensitive species (listed and unlisted) may benefit from protection of this species;

(7) how other species/habitats may be impacted by management and recovery activities for this species; or

(8) at what point this species would be considered stable and sustainable.

10. AVAILABILITY AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Cite literature, available specimen collection records, and other pertinent reference materials. Attach documents critical to the recommended action. Be sure to include recent status surveys. List names, addresses, and FGC - 670.1 (3/94) -6-

telephone numbers of persons providing unpublished information and list those supporting the recommended action.

11. DETAILED DISTRIBUTION MAP

Delineate on appropriate maps the historic and present distribution (estimated if not known). Include one map of California showing general distribution, and U.S. Geological Survey topographical maps (or equivalent) of appropriate scale, for more detailed distribution information, including locations of occurrences, populations or portions of populations, as appropriate. Include historic and current distribution as documented by literature, museum records, Natural Diversity Data Base and other Department of Fish and Game records, and testimony of knowledgeable individuals. All maps must be suitable for black and white reproduction and fully labeled, including borders, base map name, map scale and species name, and should not exceed 11" x 14" in size.

PETITION TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION TO LIST THE LASSICS LUPINE (LUPINUS CONSTANCEI) AS ENDANGERED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

JULY 14, 2016

DAVID IMPER CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Notice of Petition

I. SPECIES BEING PETITIONED: Common Name: Lassics lupine Scientific Name: Lupinus constancei

II. RECOMMENDED ACTION To list as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act

Dave Imper and the Center for Biological Diversity submit this petition to the California Fish and Game Commission to list the Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) as “endangered” in California, under the California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code §§ 2050 et seq.) (“CESA”). This petition demonstrates that the Lassics lupine clearly warrants listing under CESA based on factors specified in the statute. We look forward to the Commission’s response to this petition and processing of it pursuant to the procedures and timelines established at California Fish and Game Code §§ 2073 et seq.

III. AUTHORS OF PETITION

Name: Dave Imper Address:

Phone: Email:

Name: Cynthia Elkins Center for Biological Diversity Address: PO Box 220 Phone: Shelter Cove, CA 95589 Email: [email protected]

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, all statements made in this petition are true and complete.

Date: July 14, 2016 Signature: /s/ David Imper David Imper, M.Sc.,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

RANGE AND DISTRIBUTION ...... 3

LAND OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 4

CHRONOLOGY OF PAST INVESTIGATION ...... 5

CONSERVATION STATUS AND MANAGEMENT EFFORTS ...... 6 Regulatory ...... 6 Draft conservation agreement ...... 6 Past conservation actions ...... 6

POPULATION TRENDS AND ABUNDANCE ...... 7 Demographics ...... 7 Population record ...... 8

LIFE HISTORY ...... 9 Taxonomy and genetics ...... 9 Species description ...... 10 Habitat ...... 10 Pollination ...... 12 Small mammals ...... 12 Geology and soils ...... 13 Climate ...... 13

FACTORS AFFECTING THE LUPINE’S ABILITY TO SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE ...... 16 Modification or curtailment of habitat or range ...... 16 Overutilization ...... 18 Disease and Predation ...... 18 Existing Regulatory Mechanisms ...... 19 Other Factors ...... 20

DEGREE AND IMMEDIACY OF THREAT ...... 21

RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT AND RECOVERY ACTIONS ...... 22 Priority Category 1: Tasks needed to avoid imminent species extinction ...... 24 Priority Category 2: Tasks needed to maintain a viable population ...... 25

INFORMATION SOURCES ...... 26 Literature Cited ...... 26

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) is an herbaceous perennial flowering member of the legume family (Fabaceae) endemic to the Lassics mountain range of Humboldt and Trinity counties, in northwestern California. This attractive lupine exhibits striking pink-rose tinged flowers above white- silver foliage, in contrast to the surrounding black or reddish barren slopes. Its total global range consists of less than four acres of mostly barren, shallow serpentine-influenced soils, with a scattered assemblage of shrubs and forbs. Only two occurrences of Lassics lupine have been documented since it was described in 1983, both located above 5,000 feet elevation on the slopes of Mt. Lassic and Red Lassic, within Six Rivers National Forest (SRNF). Both sites were negatively impacted by the Lassics Fire in July and August of 2015. Extensive monitoring and research over the past 13 years indicated the species is trending toward extinction. Events over the past two years have significantly increased that concern.

The Lassics lupine is threatened by four general factors, and thus warrants state protection. The species is threatened with significant curtailment of habitat, as a result of climate change, forest encroachment, and the recent fire. It is also threatened by predation; a very high rate of seed predation and herbivory by wildlife has caused a high rate of mortality, significantly impairing its reproductive potential. Regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species. The Lassics lupine is classified a Sensitive species by the Forest Service. However, that status and other State and Federal regulations have been ineffective. SRNF has been slow in implementing measures necessary to counter the imminent threats, in part because the majority of the species distribution occurs within designated wilderness. Finally, the species is threatened by other factors; recent and severe mortality related to climate extremes, representative of longer term regional climate trends, indicate if the species is to survive, a greater proportion of the population must occupy habitat more immune to climate extremes. Such habitat formerly occupied by the species has succumbed to forest encroachment over the past 60 years. The SRNF has not pursued the necessary restoration. Without protection under CESA, and the enhanced status, agency prioritization, urgency, and hopefully, funding, that formal listing will facilitate, all available evidence indicates the species is in immediate danger of extinction.

Currently there are no regulatory mechanisms to protect the Lassics lupine from extinction. The petitioners have petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the Lassics lupine under the Endangered Species Act and it is currently under federal status review.

INTRODUCTION

There is no more appropriate icon symbolizing the beauty and exceptional floristic diversity associated with the Lassics Mountain Range than the Lassics lupine. Named after the Athabascan Lassik tribe, forcibly removed from the region in 1862 (Carothers 2008), the mountain range and its unique lupine have been, and hopefully will continue to be, a permanent memorial to the original occupants of this truly exceptional landscape.

The Lassics lupine is likely the rarest, and based on a recent population viability analysis (PVA), arguably the most threatened plant species in northwestern California. It is substantially more imperiled than any

of the six plant species listed as endangered under the ESA within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Arcata Field Office (Carothers 2015a, 2015b; Imper 2015; Kurkjian 2012).

The Lassics lupine PVA (Kurkjian 2012a), which was based on nearly a decade of monitoring and research data, indicated that in the absence of aggressive protection and management measures, the species has a greater than 50 percent risk of going extinct within 50 years.

Lassics lupine at Mt. Lassic

The decline predicted by that analysis was primarily driven by a high rate of seed mortality due to predation by small mammals (Kirkjian 2012). The PVA model did not account for three additional factors threating the population (Imper 2012): 1) occupied habitat at Mt. Lassic is shrinking rapidly due to forest encroachment, 2) prolonged climate extremes, and 3) the Red Lassic colony, one of the two existing colonies, is threatened with extirpation as a result of the loss of shading provided by nearby trees, which subsequently burned in the 2015 Lassic fire (Imper 2012, 2015, 2016).

RANGE AND DISTRIBUTION

The Lassics Mountain Range is located approximately 80 miles southeast of Eureka, on the Mad River Ranger District, and includes three principle peaks: Mt. Lassic, Red Lassic, and Black Lassic, straddling the Humboldt/Trinity County line (see map below). The Lassics lupine is endemic to Mt. Lassic and Red Lassic, at elevations between 5,200 and 5,700 feet. The largest colony is located near the top of the westernmost of three peaks comprising Mt. Lassic (referred to hereafter as Signal Peak), and on the adjacent saddle (i.e, the lower west-facing slope of the second peak of the three. A second colony, occupying less than 2,500 square feet, is located on the west slope of Red Lassic, approximately 3,000 feet southeast of the Mt. Lassic colony. Various targeted surveys of potential habitat within the Lassics since 1991 have failed to identify any additional sites (Imper 2015). In their description of the species, Nelson and Nelson (1983) cite a voucher specimen collected in 1972 by Nelson (#1017) from “Mt. Lassic and the two smaller peaks to the east.” As the name Mt. Lassic is interpreted here, that would suggest the lupine may have previously occurred on the easternmost peak of the three making up Mt. Lassic. However, Imper (2015) did not observe the lupine growing on the easternmost peak in 1982, nor has anyone reported it since. That peak does exhibit a small area of unique soil type on its north face that is identical to that supporting the lupine on Signal Peak, and which has not been documented anywhere else in the Lassics (Alexander 2008). Therefore, it is conceivable the lupine occurred there historically. Several lupine individuals also occurred at the top of the second peak of Mt. Lassic between 2005 and 2012, although these are no longer extent.

Based on annual monitoring, the total area occupied by the species was under four acres in 2014, but has since declined somewhat after four years of drought, coupled with absence of snowpack in 2014, extreme winter and summer conditions in 2015, and to lesser extent, the Lassic Fire of 2015 (Imper 2015). The current occupied range has rebounded temporarily after recent germination of seed in the natural seed bank, but will likely recede again by late summer, 2016, due to a very high mortality rate affecting new seedlings.

LAND OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

The distribution of Lassics lupine lies entirely within the Lassics Botanical and Geologic Special Interest Area (SIA) of SRNF. The Mt. Lassic colony is also located within the Lassics Wilderness, designated in 2006.

The Lassics lupine is listed as “Sensitive” by the Forest Service, and as such, the agency is responsible to ensure its viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal listing as a result of agency actions (Forest Service Manual [FSM] Chapter 2670: Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals, September 2005).

As a part of the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act, approximately 7,000 acres (11 square miles) of the Mt. Lassic Range was incorporated into the Mt. Lassic Wilderness. The orientation of the 2006 Act is in keeping with the earlier wilderness bills to preserve wild and natural features of the landscapes, protect the diverse array of ecosystems (plants, animals, geologic/hydrologic structures), retain and enhance scientific research and promote the recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species (SRNF 2012a).

A portion of Lassics lupine habitat is considered early successional, and very likely was maintained historically by fire (see Habitat – Mt. Lassic – Fire section). The wilderness area is bordered by private lands to the west and north, and National Forest timber lands to the south and east. Political and economic considerations severely limit the feasibility of allowing lightning-caused fires that ignite outside the wilderness to burn, and the likelihood is small for ignition within such a small wilderness. After decades of fire suppression, it is clear that some level of manual treatment, followed by routine prescribed fire is necessary to restore and maintain a portion of Lassics lupine habitat. Unfortunately that same portion of its habitat happens to offer the species the best available refuge from climate extremes.

Abundant Forest Service guidance is available to justify the necessary habitat restoration, caging efforts, and other intervention needed to conserve the species. Specific to designated wilderness areas, FSM 2300 Recreation, Wilderness and Related Resource Management, under Chapter 2320 Wilderness Management, 2323.32 Policy, the agency shall apply the Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in Wilderness and Primitive Areas, developed jointly by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in a practical, reasonable, and uniform manner in all National Forest wilderness units (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2006). Those policies include a specific process for undertaking habitat restoration needed to conserve endangered species (formal listing is not technically necessary) within wilderness (including mechanical use and tree removal), to wit: “actions necessary to conserve or recover threatened or endangered

species, including habitat manipulation and special conservation measures, that involve uses generally prohibited under Section 4 (c) of the Wilderness Act, will be considered and may be authorized by the Federal administering agency through application of the MRDP as outlined in Section E., General Policy.” Relevant to state listing, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Policies and Guidelines clearly recognizes the state’s authority to manage fish and wildlife resources in wilderness areas, and also provides a framework for cooperation upon which fish and wildlife projects and management are implemented by the state and federal agencies for future generations.

Forest Service manual policy states the agency shall “manage wilderness to protect known populations of federally listed threatened or endangered species where necessary for their perpetuation and aid in their recovery in areas of previous habitation.” Yet, the SRNF has not implemented habitat restoration to benefit the lupine, nor has it been aggressive in pursuing recovery actions. U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) staff repeatedly urged SRNF to give higher priority to recovery of the species for more than a decade, in order that Federal listing might be precluded. The reasons given for the agency’s inaction generally included: conflicts with Wilderness values or other administrative roadblocks, lack of funding and staff, and conflicting Forest priorities (Carothers 2005; SRNF 2012b; Imper 2015). Maintenance of wilderness values was also cited by the Forest Supervisor in his 2012 decision requiring removal of cages protecting the lupine, within months after a PVA (Kurkjian 2012a) indicated that to do so would very likely lead to extinction of the species (Imper 2015).

CHRONOLOGY OF PAST INVESTIGATION

2002 – Initiation of Lassics lupine demographic monitoring. 2003 – Lassics lupine pollination study (Crawford and Ross 2003); Initiation of seasonal caging at Red Lassic to preclude browsing; first in situ lupine seed germination trials, expanded in 2005, 2009; boulder placement to block vehicle access. 2004 - Draft conservation strategy for the botanical area (Carothers 2004); Forest closure order to preclude OHV use; trail relocation to reduce pedestrian impacts; genetics study; first ex situ seed germination study (Gile 2004); plant cage design modified to prevent seed loss to rodents and cages installed at Mt. Lassic. 2005 – Lupine seed stored in seed bank at Berry Botanic Garden (currently the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank, Portland, Oregon; habitat, soils and micro-climate studies initiated; initial population introduction efforts, expanded in 2008, 2012, 2014; small mammal monitoring initiated. 2006 - Lassics Wilderness designated. 2007 – Second germination study (Guerrant 2007). 2008 - Buried seed study to assess seed bank longevity; expanded soil survey and chemical analysis to characterize Lassics lupine soils and identify potential introduction sites (Imper 2012); vegetation study to assess historical vegetation dynamics and fire history (Carothers 2008). 2010/2011 – Multiple-year lupine seed predation and production studies initiated, and seed production model developed (Kurkjian 2010; 2011; 2012b). 2012 – Population viability analysis completed (Kurkjian 2012a). 2013 – Humboldt State University wildlife studies initiated, focused on identifying principle seed predators and relationships between seed predation rate and vegetation encroachment.

CONSERVATION STATUS AND MANAGEMENT EFFORTS

Regulatory Lassics lupine is included on California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1, of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California, maintained by the California Natural Diversity Database and California Native Plant Society, indicating it is rare, threatened, or endangered (CNPS 2015). The species is covered under the California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Reg. §15380). It is not listed under the California Endangered Species Act. Lassics lupine is included on the Sensitive Plant list maintained by SRNF. The California Natural Diversity Database (2015) and NatureServe (2015) rank Lassics lupine as critically imperiled (G1/S1).

The Lassics lupine was proposed by SRNF staff (1995) for Federal candidate status in 1995, based primarily on Factor A (destruction of habitat) and Factor C (inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms). The major threats cited were cattle grazing, recreational use (primarily hunters), and inadequate funding by the Forest Service to control those impacts. The petition was denied by the USFWS, citing insufficient information (Fuller 1995).

Draft conservation strategy A draft conservation agreement was developed in 2012 between the USFS and USFWS to define near- term conservation measures, research needs and timeline, and the respective responsibilities of agencies and other partners involved in the conservation effort (USFWS 2014). Among other tasks, the strategy calls for seasonal caging of plants as an interim measure, continuation of ongoing research, and experimental vegetation manipulation. Reintroduction of disturbance is needed to 1) counter conifer succession, which has reduced habitat suitability for Lassics lupine and potentially attracted small mammals and, 2) counter increased chaparral cover which provides habitat for small mammals. Proposed research would focus on discerning the extent to which chaparral adjacent to lupine areas affects seed predation. Research outcomes would help guide management aimed at reducing the impacts of seed predation on Lassics lupine viability. The strategy has not been finalized by the two agencies at this time.

Past conservation efforts Plant caging: In response to observations of high rates of predation on nearly-mature lupine seeds, approximately 20 wire mesh cages were placed on lupine individuals at Red Lassic in 2003. The effort was expanded in 2004 to include roughly 60 cages at Mt. Lassic. The simple capped tube cage design was ineffective at excluding small mammals, resulting in loss of virtually all seed produced that year. Based on an experimental program, the cage was redesigned in 2005 to include both an upper and lower fabric bonnet extending out from the central barrel. When installed properly, the cages are usually 100 percent effective (Kurkjian 2012c).

Population viability analysis: The PVA (Kurkjian 2012a) was conducted to help identify the most critical life transition stages for the lupine and to assess the species’ risk of extinction. The model was based on nine years of demographic data from three monitoring transects and related research, and predicted the annual population growth rate (lambda) under various conditions. The results indicated that if all reproductive plants were left uncaged and exposed to a constant 95 percent seed predation rate, the probability of quasi-extinction (defined as 10 adult plants or fewer remaining) within the next 50 years

would range between 68.4 and 100 percent across the three monitoring transects. If all reproductive plants were caged, and therefore protected from seed predation, the probability of quasi-extinction in the next 50 years across all sites dropped to between 0 and 1.8 percent. Even with the current caging effort, the model suggests that stochastic events over the next decade will move the species closer to extinction.

Population expansion: Three attempts have been made to introduce Lassics lupine to new locations isolated from the existing colonies. Based on soils analysis conducted within and adjacent to the two lupine colonies, 44 unscarified seed were planted at four new locations in 2005 (Imper 2012). Weather stations were also installed at the sites. Three of the four sites exhibited germination, but only one site retained live lupine plants after June 2007. This site was on the north side of the easternmost peak of Mt. Lassic (i.e., ML Peak#1). Additional research on potential introduction sites was conducted, this time taking into account physical site factors that may help to mitigate a drier and warmer climate. A total of 310 unscarified seed were planted at five locations in October 2012 (Imper 2012). The cumulative germination rate as of June 2014 for those sites ranged 3-18 percent. In November 2014 additional seed were planted at the two sites that had yielded the best germination and survival in the previous effort (Lower Mule Ridge and ML Peak#1). However, other than the ML Peak#1 site, plant survival for more than one year was negligible at all sites.

The results for the ML Peak #1 site were encouraging. Other than the north slope of Signal Peak, approximately 1,000 feet west of ML Peak #1 (supports a large proportion of the lupine population), this site was the only location within Alexander’s (2008) study area in which he mapped the presence of the CM map unit soil (i.e. clastics mixed with serpentine; see Geology and soils section). The similarity was supported by laboratory analysis. That and its location on a north-faced slope suggested it offered the best opportunity for introduction of the lupine population. Indeed, the seeding effort as of June 2014 appeared to have succeeded; the 311 seed planted there since 2005 had produced a colony consisting of four reproductive plants, which had produced four juveniles and three new seedlings. Regrettably, following the warm and largely snow-free winter of 2014-15 (see Habitat – Climate section), all of the reproductive plants died and only two juvenile plants remained as of June. The near extirpation of this colony is not surprising, given the severe losses suffered by the lupine population in general, but it does emphasize the urgent need to restore existing habitat, or locate new habitat that provides greater refuge from climate extremes.

POPULATION TRENDS AND ABUNDANCE

Demographics Seed bank: The Lassics lupine produces a relatively large thick-coated seed, and maintaining a reserve of dormant seed in the soil (i.e., seed bank) appears to be an important strategy for the species. A buried seed bag study conducted between 2008 and 2013 (Carothers 2013a, 2013b) indicated an early decline in the percentage of dormant seed in the soil. Approximately 50 percent of the initial seed remained intact and viable after 1 year, 25 percent after 2 years, and an average of 22 percent for each of the succeeding 3 years of the study. The missing seed each year either germinated or died due to other causes.

Germination and early survival: Under optimum conditions germination of well-formed Lassics lupine seed can approach 100 percent. A greenhouse propagation study by Guerrant (2007) resulted in 98

percent germination when seed were scarified (5 percent germination without scarification). Multiple in situ germination trials conducted since 2003 using mostly unscarified seed generally yielded a relatively low rate of germination and early survival, with a maximum 20 percent germination rate observed after 7 years, and as high as 8 percent survival at 6 years for those seed that did germinate. In most cases the germination rate was much lower, and fell dramatically after the first year or two (Carothers 2013a; Imper 2015).

Based on the monitoring transects, new seedlings generally comprise 20-50 percent of total plants (Kurkjian 2012c), but that likely is an overestimate due to the enhanced seed productivity and survival due to the caging effort. Both monitoring data and anecdotal evidence suggest that much or all of the increase in lupine population observed during the 5 years prior to 2014 was the result of caging reproductive plants (Figure 1).

Mortality: Loss of seed to predation by small mammals during most years since 2003 has been very high, in many years approaching 100 percent of seed produced. Kurkjian (2010) observed an 86 percent predation rate of fruit in uncaged plants, compared to 5 percent for caged plants. In addition, Kurkjian (2010) noted the occurrence of small mammals collecting lupine seed from the soil surface after dispersal, also noted by Imper (2015), with an unknown rate of loss.

Annual mortality rates for the lupine are quite variable, but are normally high. Between 2003 and 2011, August to August adult mortality averaged 26 percent (range 10-50 percent) for the three transects. Annual seedling mortality was higher, ranging 48-64 percent (Imper 2015). The relationship between climate and lupine mortality has not been straight forward, and clearly is confounded by other factors such as wildlife browsing. Nevertheless, monitoring has indicated that climate-induced lupine mortality is most closely associated with lack of summer rainfall, in combination with high summer temperatures, the effects of both being exacerbated by early snowmelt dates. For example, lupine mortality in the Mt. Lassic colony was extremely high in 2015, a year in which winter and summer temperatures were near record highs, and winter snowpack was negligible. In contrast, lupine mortality in 2005 was very low during the growing season, when summer rainfall appeared to be the most plentiful observed since 2000, and served to replenish summertime soil moisture readings to saturated levels (Imper 2012). The snowpack that year also extended well into May, and the June-August mean temperature was the coolest recorded since 2000. The combination of these factors appears to have been optimal for the lupine. The degree to which site conditions mitigate for summer climate extremes undoubtedly explains much of the difference in lupine mortality, plant density and reproductive vigor observed across the site in any one year (Imper 2012).

In summary, multiple factors contribute to the generally low reproductive potential of the lupine. These include: relatively high mortality rates due to desiccation, animal browsing and excavation around the rootstock; severe seed predation combined with predation from the soil surface after dispersal; typically low in situ germination rates, and apparent rapid decline in seed longevity in the seedbank.

Population Record Demographic monitoring of the Lassics lupine has been conducted annually along 2 permanent transects since 2003; one transect encompasses the entire colony at Red Lassic and a second transect encompasses

most of the plants on the saddle between Signal Peak and the second peak of Mt. Lassic. A third permanent transect was established in 2005 in the forest habitat on the lower slope of Signal Peak. Location in reference to the transect tape, life stage, plant size, number of inflorescences, number of fruits, evidence of herbivory and/or seed predation, predation intensity, and whether the plant is caged are recorded for each plant during each monitoring period.

The three transects along which Lassics lupine demographic data and location coordinates are recorded are estimated to represent roughly half of the entire population. Total population has been variously estimated at between 500 and 1,000 plants over the past 12 years. The majority of the north slope of Signal Peak itself is too steep to traverse without damage to the soil, and surveys of the lupine there have generally been limited to counts of adult plants from a trail bisecting the colony, using binoculars. With the exception of a relatively small flat near the summit, which exhibits robust and dense lupine plants, the average density across the slope is relatively low.

At the time the PVA was completed, the lupine population was estimated on the order of 800 total plants with fewer than 400 reproductive plants (Kurkjian 2012a; Carothers 2014). In June 2015, following two very warm winters and virtually no winter snow accumulation, monitoring indicated the overall population had fallen to some 390 plants, including an estimated 103 reproductive plants (Carothers 2015a; Carothers 2014; Imper 2015). At that time the mortality since the previous year was approximately 48 percent (Carothers 2015a). In late July and August 2015, the Lassic Fire burned a portion of the Mt. Lassic colony, and burned through the entire Red Lassic colony with stand-replacing severity. In addition, unusually dry and warm conditions continued through the summer. As a result, monitoring conducted in late September suggested as much as 80 percent mortality had occurred just since the June 2015 sampling (Carothers 2015b), potentially reducing the population of Lassics lupine to as few as 60 individuals (i.e., 7% of the estimated population when the PVA was completed) (Figure 1). Inventory data are not available yet, but initial assessments conducted in May 2016 indicate the population may have declined even more than that projection (Imper 2016). No adult plants appear to have survived at the Red Lassic site, and survival in at least a portion of the Mt. Lassic population appears worse than expected.

LIFE HISTORY

Taxonomy and Genetics The Lassics lupine is a member of the caespitose lupine complex of western North America, and was described in 1983 based on specimens from Mt. Lassic (Nelson and Nelson 1983)(Integrated Taxonomic

Information System Taxonomic Serial Number [TSN] 503578). The Lassics lupine appears most closely related, but bears little obvious resemblance to the more widespread L. sellulus var. ursinus (Nelson and Nelson 1983). The species was briefly reduced to a variety of L. lepidus (L. l. var. constancei [T.W. Nelson & J.P. Nelson] Isely) by Isely (1998) but was maintained as L. constancei in the 2012 Jepson manual (Baldwin et al. 2012). No closely related lupines with which the Lassics lupine may be confused occur in the vicinity of the Lassics.

Isozyme analysis was used to assess the amount of genetic differentiation between the two Lassics lupine colonies at Mt. Lassic and Red Lassic (Wilson and Hipkins 2004). Overall genetic diversity within the species was judged to be very low, and differentiation between the colonies was a small component of total variation observed.

Species Description The species is easily distinguished from other members of the caespitose lupine complex by its short erect stem, short thick inflorescence, white and pink-rose bicolored flowers, glabrous keel, and several other characteristics (Nelson 1980; Nelson and Nelson 1983). The Lassics lupine is a short-lived perennial, although individual plants have been observed to live up to 12 years. Plants are tap rooted with a woody caudex, grow close to the ground in a matted habit, and may reach a diameter of 12 inches or more. A mature plant growing under optimal conditions may produce 20 or more inflorescences (flowering stalks); more typical is one to three inflorescences (LUCO database - Kurkjian 2012c). A single flowering stalk can produce up to 20 or more fruits (legumes) per stalk, but usually fewer, each containing from one to four seeds (Carothers 2012, Kurkjian 2012a). At maturity, the fruits split along the suture and seeds have been observed to be projected to a distance of four feet or more away (Imper 2015).

Habitat Red Lassic: Although soil characteristics and geology are similar between the Red Lassic and Mt. Lassic lupine sites, the lupine habitat at Red Lassic is an anomaly. In contrast to the Mt. Lassic colony, generally confined to a north slope, the Red Lassic colony is situated on a southwest aspect at the crest of a slope, and appears entirely dependent on two potentially temporary conditions: overstory shading and snowmelt. Large Jeffrey pines (Pinus jeffreyi) provide partial shelter from the south and southeast. In addition, a topographic depression formed by a mass failure on the lower slope of Red Lassic is located adjacent to the colony, and during normal years retains snow or water into the early summer. The combination of those two factors appears to mitigate what otherwise would be conditions too hot and dry to sustain the lupine (Imper 2012). Species typically associated with the lupine include Jeffrey pine, pinemat manzanita (Arctostaphylos nevadensis), sandwort (Minuartia nuttalii) wintergreen (Pyrola picta) and a few others (Carothers 2004).

The distribution of Lassics lupine at Red Lassic surrounds a core area where the lupine is absent, and which is more exposed than the surrounding area due to the lack of tree cover. An investigation was conducted from 2007-2009 on the relationship between solar radiation, soil temperature, and distribution of the lupine. Soil temperatures were recorded across a grid encompassing the lupine distribution. Vertical 180 degree photographs taken at the same grid points were analyzed with Winscanopy software to calculate mean daily understory radiation. As expected, the understory radiation levels for June, July and August were significantly correlated with monthly mean and maximum soil temperatures. The

results also indicated levels of light and soil temperature rose dramatically within the central area that is devoid of lupines. When one of the six pine trees providing shelter to the lupine colony was removed digitally from the images, the results suggested that August maximum soil temperatures in occupied lupine habitat would rise on the order of 10 degrees F., sufficient to eliminate the lupine (Imper 2012). All six trees were charred in the 2015 Lassic fire and their viability is not yet known.

Mt. Lassic: Lassics lupine habitat at Mt. Lassic in general is open, with scattered buckbrush (Ceanothus cuneatus), whitethorn (C. cordulatus), stunted Jeffrey pine and incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) trees, and a variety of herbs including Allium hoffmani, A. falcifolium, Phacelia corymbosa, and Galium grayanum (Carothers 2004). Slope angle ranges from nearly flat on the saddle east of Signal Peak, to 80 percent or more on the north slope of Signal Peak. The habitat may be divided into three basic types, with ramifications for lupine density, reproductive vigor and mortality. These general habitats include: steep barren slopes, barren flats, and Jeffrey-pine forest. The majority of plants occur on moderate to steep north or west-faced slopes, with a large proportion of gravel or cobble at the surface, high insolation and no litter layer. Snow tends to melt earlier, and soils tend to dry out earlier than in the other occupied habitat. In this habitat the lupine generally exhibits low density, and intermediate growth and reproductive vigor (Imper 2012).

Two areas of what appears to be optimum habitat for the lupine occur on flat to moderate slopes, in micro-sites that in normal years hold snow later in the season, and as a result retain soil moisture near the surface later into the summer. These sites include: 1) a bench near the top of Signal Peak, and 2) the east side of the Mt. Lassic saddle just as it breaks onto a northerly aspect. Though open, these sites also receive a relatively high degree of orographic shading, and exhibit intermediate soil temperatures compared with other lupine habitat (Imper 2012). The lupine here occurs in greater density, and is the most robust with respect to size and reproductive vigor.

The least favorable habitat for the lupine, from the standpoint of reproductive vigor and growth rate, is found lower on the slope at the edge or within the Jeffrey pine/incense cedar forest. At Mt. Lassic, this habitat generally is intermediate with respect to soil moisture retention in late spring and summer, but exhibits distinctly lower insolation and soil temperatures in summer (Imper 2012). Based on the unprecedented lupine mortality observed following the warm, dry winter of 2014-15, this habitat appears to provide some degree of refuge from climate extremes; lupine mortality was somewhat lower in the forest than on the open slopes (Carothers 2015a; Imper 2015).

The forested lupine habitat occurs in two areas: 1) a monitoring transect located on the northwest side below Signal Peak, with a relatively small concentration of Lassics lupine, and 2) an area of forest encroachment to the northeast below Signal Peak and north of the saddle area. The latter area supports a small number of lupine under a relatively closed canopy of Jeffrey pine, and among mats of prostrate buckbrush (Ceanothus prostratus). This area is the focus of future habitat restoration efforts involving tree removal or girdling (see Factor A).

Solar radiation: Similar to the study described above for Red Lassic, an analysis was conducted to determine how average daily radiation levels in June vary around the lupine distribution perimeter (Imper 2012). The radiation levels ranged from less than 40 moles per meter squared per day (mol/m2/day), on

the northern slope within the forest canopy, to 63.3 mol/m2/day in the open at the south boundary. The maximum theoretical June radiation for this location (calculated for a due south aspect at about 40 percent slope) is 64 mol/m2/day, suggesting that June radiation (and likely soil temperatures) probably is not a major factor limiting the lupine. Average daily radiation was then recalculated for the colony perimeter photo-points for the month of August, and compared with the maximum theoretical input (62 mol/m2/day). Radiation levels at or within the lupine distributions did not rise above 53.1 mol/m2/day, suggesting that late summer radiation levels (i.e., soil temperatures) after the soils had dried out may be a critical determining factor, at least for the southern boundary of the colony.

Fire: While fire suppression records date back to 1910 on SRNF, aggressive suppression of fires in remote areas of the Forest did not begin until the end of World War II. Prior to 2015, only three natural fires have been recorded in the vicinity of the Lassics peaks themselves, all in 1953. Of course fires further from the Lassics could well have spread into lupine habitat, were it not for fire suppression. Estimated fire intervals range from 13-20 years for most of the Mad River District (Carothers 2008) but may be longer for open habitat with low understory fuels. The Lassics were within the territory of the Athabascan Lassik tribe, and it is likely that they periodically burned to keep forests clear of undergrowth for hunting and travel (Carothers 2008). Such fires would have been understory burns that consumed the duff and young trees that characterize the forest today.

Past fire suppression is considered to be the most likely factor leading to the forest encroachment observed on the lower face of Signal Peak, and which is currently degrading Lassics lupine habitat. The supporting evidence includes the complete absence of stumps or other evidence of a previous stand in this habitat, and the frequent presence of fire scars on old-growth trees near and below the young stand.

Pollination Crawford and Ross (2003) investigated pollination of the Lassics lupine, and in the process incidentally made the first observation of the very extreme level of seed predation suffered by the lupine. The majority of lupine pollination was by two widespread bumble bee species, Bombus vosnesenskii, and Bombus melanopygus. The rate of pollinator visitation was high, and the three most frequent bee species appear to be effective pollinators, as they are large enough to trigger the mechanism that releases pollen and presents the stigma.

Small mammals Based on small mammal trapping conducted since 2005, small mammal fauna within and near the lupine habitat is dominated by two species of deer mice (Peromyscus boylii and P. maniculatus), and two species of chipmunk (Tamias senex, and T. sonomae) (Falxa 2015). Small mammal abundance estimates have varied substantially among years, and are generally highest in the chaparral type, which on average has small mammal abundance 1.6 times greater than in the open habitat, and more than twice the abundance found in forest on the north slope of Signal Peak. The trap data also indicates that late spring precipitation (April-June total) is negatively correlated with small mammal abundance in general, and in particular, in the open habitat type. The regression RSQD (0.70) using precipitation to predict open trap rate is highly significant (F statistic P value < 0.005) if the atypical weather years 2014 and 2015 are excluded, and still significant (P value < 0.05) when they are included (Imper 2015).

Geology and Soils Alexander (2008) described soil map units in detail over an area of approximately 250 hectares, comprising the majority of exposed serpentinized peridotite, and colluvium predominantly composed of serpentinized peridotite, within a six square mile area enclosing the Lassics. Non-serpentine soils were not included, except one unique map unit (clastic sedimentary rock-based soil), which supports a portion of the Lassics lupine population. The majority of the Lassics lupine occurs on soils (map unit CS) described by Alexander (2008) as barren/very shallow Entisols/clastic metasedimentary rock colluvium over serpentinite, with moderately steep slopes (12-30 percent). The distribution of this soil is primarily limited to a portion of the north slope of Mt. Lassic. A second soil type (map unit CM), supports perhaps 20 percent of the aerial extent of the population, and also is limited to the north slope of Mt. Lassic. Alexander described this soil as rocky, very shallow Entisols/clastic sedimentary rocks, with very steep slopes (60-75 percent), with sparse conifer trees and deciduous shrubs. The remainder of the lupine population was mapped on a widespread soil type (map unit SD), described as moderately deep Hyampom variant, cold, and deep to very deep Hungry family complex/serpentinite, with steep slopes (25-60 percent) and open forest. Only a very small portion of this soil type actually supports the lupine.

Mineralogical and physical analysis of soils appeared to distinguish those areas supporting the lupine from the map unit in general.Macro- and micronutrient and heavy metal concentrations, and other parameters were characterized in soils collected across the range of ultramafic-soils, and selected other soils present in the Lassics between 2005 and 2009 (Imper 2012). The initial investigation was designed to distinguish Lassics lupine soils from the immediate surrounding habitat. With little exception, the soils supporting the lupine were similar in several key indicators, particularly soil texture; also carbon, nitrogen, magnesium, lead and nickel concentrations, compared to adjacent habitat not occupied by the lupine. Further soils analysis beginning in 2009 focused on identification of potential sites for lupine introduction. The results were analyzed with Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to select the variables that best characterized soils supporting the lupine. Among the 52 samples collected, pH and sand content were generally intermediate in soils supporting the lupine, with pH ranging 5.7-6.8 and sand content ranging 81-91 percent. The totally barren, green-gray serpentine soils typical of much of Mt. Lassic were similar in many respects, but differed from lupine soils in higher sand content and pH, and also lower lead levels.

PCA and polynomial multiple regression were then used to rank the different collection sites for lupine suitability (Imper 2012). Several suitable locations were indicated on the north slope of Mt. Lassic below the existing lupine distribution, as well as on the easternmost peak of Mt. Lassic, Mule Ridge, and near Red Lassic. From those, five sites that appeared to offer greater refuge from warming temperatures, such as northerly aspects, were planted with lupine seed in late fall 2012 (see Conservation Status - Past conservation efforts section).

Climate Regional: The Zenia Forest Service Guard Station is the closest formal weather station to the Lassics, located at 4,000 feet elevation, 8 miles south and approximately 1,500-1,700 feet lower than the distribution of Lassics lupine. Precipitation and air temperature data have been recorded there since 2000 (California Data Exchange Center 2015a). Average annual precipitation for the 16-year period is 71 inches (range 32 – 102 inches). The coldest and wettest month at Zenia over the record period was

December, with a daily temperature mean of 40.5 degrees F. (range 35.8 - 44.5), and total December precipitation average of 18.0 inches (range 1.27 – 38.9 inches). The hottest month was consistently July; average daily temperature for the recorded period was 69.3 degrees F. (range 64.0 – 72.6), with average precipitation for the month at 0.3 inches (range 0 – 2.5 inches).

While annual and monthly precipitation at Zenia in 2014 was generally average for the record period, data for 2015 indicate near record lows for January, March and May. As a result, the total January- April precipitation was third lowest in the 16-year period, and precipitation for those months exhibit a distinct drying trend over the period, as does December and January precipitation (Figure 2). Temperature data for Zenia also exhibit strong warming trends. Mean temperature for the period January-March, and June- August of 2015, as well as June- August of 2014 were among the two warmest during the 16-year period (Figures 3 and 4).

In order to determine if the 16-year climate record for Zenia reflects localized, short term trends or more widespread, longer term trends, temperature data for the Big Flat weather station approximately 60 miles to the northeast in the Trinity Alps, were compared. Weather data at Big Flat, 5,100 feet elevation, have been collected since 1985 (California Data Exchange Center 2015b). Although monthly averages range up

to 10 degrees F. lower in winter compared to Zenia, the data are likely more representative of conditions on Mt. Lassic, and the monthly fluctuations observed over the 16-year overlap period are remarkably similar (Figures 3 and 4). Similar to Zenia, mean temperature from January-March of 2015 was the warmest of the 31-year record, and for June-August of both 2014 and 2015 was among the warmest on record. The strong correlation between Zenia and the longer record period suggests the recent climate extremes experienced at Mt. Lassic are indicative of longer term trends.

Climate at Mt. Lassic: In such an extreme environment as the summit of Mt. Lassic, which is under snow for up to 8 months a year, subject to hot, dry summers, extreme soil temperatures, and soils that are well-drained, infertile and potentially toxic, it is not surprising that climate factors (both above and below-ground) play an important role in the distribution and life history of the Lassics lupine.

The combination of snowmelt date, summer precipitation, late summer temperatures and specialized soils characteristics, all appear to be critical factors affecting the Lassics lupine distribution, mortality, reproduction and recruitment. Weather data recorded at Zenia in many cases are good indicators of spring conditions in Lassics lupine habitat, particularly the date of average snowmelt. Those data were also correlated with lupine mortality rates, particularly summer temperatures and rainfall (Imper 2012).

Above and below ground climate conditions were investigated within lupine habitat between 2005 and 2012 to assess: 1) spatial and seasonal variability in date of snowmelt, and ways to predict it remotely; 2) spatial and seasonal variability in soil temperature and moisture, and how it influences Lassics lupine distribution and demographics; and 3) how spatial variability in solar radiation is moderated by canopy, topographic shading, aspect, and slope; and how those factors are related to Lassics lupine mortality.

Soil temperature, available soil moisture, and solar radiation measured as photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), were recorded for various periods at 14 sites within and near Lassics lupine habitat between 2005 and 2012. The influence of solar radiation on lupine demographics and distribution was also investigated using Winscanopy software, similar to the Red Lassic study. In this case, the primary focus was on late spring and summer radiation levels, in order to investigate the influence of radiation inputs on the snowmelt date, and its influence on heat and soil moisture stress and how those factors influence the south boundary of the lupine.

A rain recorder was also installed at the top of Mt. Lassic between October 2009 and June 2012. Monthly totals averaged 61 percent of that recorded at Zenia over the entire period (Zenia recorded 241 inches over the three full winters the recorder was installed at Mt. Lassics). The discrepancy in recorded precipitation was undoubtedly influenced by the much higher proportion falling as snow at Mt. Lassic (except 2013 and 2014), for the most part not recorded by the rain recorder. The total June-September precipitation was as much as 0.7 inches less than recorded at Zenia, and was 3.4 and 2.3 inches in 2010 and 2011, respectively. Both the stations recorded rain on about 37 percent of the days between October 2009 and June2012, with about 70 percent of those days in common between the two recorders. The commonality increased to nearly 80 percent for the summer months.

The duration of snowpack was (and continues to be) monitored with Onset Hobo temperature loggers buried at four inches in the soil, which exhibit an abrupt rise in temperature above freezing within a few

days following snowmelt. The accuracy of this method for determining snowpack duration is in good accordance with fluctuation in solar radiation readings (PAR sensors placed 12 inches above the ground), which provided a second direct indication of snow cover. An index of snowmelt date was derived from the average of four Hobo sensors buried within Lassic lupine habitat on Mt. Lassic and Red Lassic (Imper 2003). Between 2005 and 2013, the index of snow pack duration ranged from 4 to 7 months (mean 5.5 months); snow was virtually absent in 2014 and 2015 (intermittent snow covered the ground surface less than 2 weeks total throughout the winter. Data for the coldest site of the four monitored, on the north side of the Mt. Lassic saddle, are shown in Figure 5. The date of snowmelt varied somewhat among different lupine habitats, with the Red Lassic and top of the saddle at Mt. Lassic melting earliest, followed by open areas on the north slope, and finally the forested habitat (Imper 2012).

Until 2014 and 2015, when winter snowpack was negligible, April and May average temperatures, and March-April total precipitation recorded at Zenia were able to predict the date of annual snowmelt to within a few days each year (regression RSQD 0.93).

FACTORS AFFECTING THE LUPINE’S ABILITY TO SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE

The Lassics lupine is vulnerable to a wide variety of threats. Seed predation and browsing by wildlife severely limit reproductive capability. Forest encroachment into lupine habitat is eliminating plants and, more importantly, is reducing the availability of habitat most resistant to climate extremes. Finally, recent extreme climate conditions have resulted in both loss of habitat and a severe decline in the population. Added to this, wilderness designation in 2006 has made it extremely difficult to implement urgently needed recovery actions in a timely manner. Because of its severely limited range, recent population declines, and the high magnitude and imminent nature of the threats it faces, the Lassics lupine is in danger of becoming extinct in the foreseeable future.

Modification or curtailment of habitat or range

Habitat loss and modification is a primary and urgent threat to the survival of Lassics lupine.

Range contraction of the Mt. Lassic colony: The canopy analysis using Winscanopy software indicated the south and east boundaries of the Mt. Lassic colony are limited by a maximum level of solar radiation

in August (Imper 2012), which is mitigated in more exposed areas of the habitat by orographic shading and/or tree canopy. Above a maximum level of solar radiation, the lupine cannot survive due to heat and/or moisture stress. Population monitoring began at the Mt. Lassic saddle transect in 2002. By 2005, with the exception of only a few plants, the southern boundary of the lupine distribution on the saddle east of Signal Peak had moved roughly 20 feet northward, and by 2011 had contracted another 12 feet (Figure 6). By June 2015 the boundary was roughly 100 feet north of the 2002 boundary. Much of the area vacated by the lupine during the first 10 years appeared to receive solar radiation in August in excess of the maximum generally associated with the boundary elsewhere in occupied habitat (Imper 2012). The unprecedented (i.e., since 2001) virtual snow-free winters of 2014 and 2015, and record temperatures undoubtedly exacerbated the effects of radiation. While “climate change” may or not be the ultimate factor involved (see Threats section), the fact remains that lupine habitat has been significantly curtailed by extreme climate conditions, and those conditions appear to reflect a continuation of a trend ongoing for at least the past 30 years. The best available recovery option would seem to be immediate establishment of a significant proportion of the population in habitat that is less susceptible to climate extremes.

Forest encroachment: Carothers (2008) documented the rapid advancement of forest up the north face of Signal Peak over the past 50-60 years, in some areas on the order of 300 feet or more. A smaller area immediately below and north of the saddle area has also been encroached upon, with similar impacts on the lupine. Based on soils data, the portion of the affected habitat that exhibits the clastic/serpentine soil type suitable for the lupine encompasses between 2 and 3 acres, or roughly 30-40 percent of the total suitable habitat for the lupine at Mt. Lassic (Imper 2012). The encroachment by both forest and chaparral vegetation likely also served to stimulate foraging behavior out in the barren landscape, which 60 years ago offered neither abundant food nor cover for escape, as well as reduce seed production by the lupine. Kurkjian (2011) concluded that forest canopy cover and proximity to forest cover have a strong (negative) influence on plant size and number of inflorescences, which themselves are the best predictors of seed output. In general, forest cover leads to a decline in reproductive vigor, and unsuitable growing conditions through deepening litter, canopy closure and reduced light. Carothers (2008) noted that lupine habitat beneath Jeffrey pine that does not undergo periodic burning accumulates deep litter layers,

producing an environment that (especially when coupled with overstory shading) results in lower lupine plant density, reduced size and lower reproductive vigor, and reduced seedling germination (Carothers 2008; Imper 2012).

The majority of the encroachment is Jeffrey pine ranging from 5-15 inches diameter at breast height (dbh), 10-50 feet tall, and based on increment cores in 2008, was relatively even-aged at about 45 years. Incense cedar is scattered in the understory ranging up to 3 inches dbh, and 15 feet tall.

2015 Lassic fire: The Lassic fire of July and August 2015 appears to have significantly curtailed Lassics lupine habitat. The fire burned approximately 18,200 acres, centered roughly on Mt. Lassic. Many Lassics lupine individuals in the lower northern reach of the Mt. Lassic colony and all but a few of the individuals at the Red Lassic colony may have been killed. The fire severity was not adequate within lupine habitat at Mt. Lassic to kill a significant number of trees, and scorching of the litter layer was spotty, and thus did not appear to materially improve the forest habitat for the lupine, beyond the short- term benefit from a nutrient flush. In contrast, the fire burned exceedingly hot over the entire Red Lassic colony, eliminating the protective litter layer and burning 40 feet or more up into the pine trees. Research on the influence of canopy shading on lupine distribution at Red Lassic, described in the Habitat section, suggests the loss of just one tree there likely would lead to significant mortality in what was already a very small (perhaps now extirpated) colony (Imper 2012).

The impacts of past Forest management on the lupine: The available evidence indicates that historical fire suppression is the most important anthropogenic factor, if not the only factor contributing to expansion of chaparral and forest vegetation, both reducing the distribution of the lupine, and likely increasing small mammal densities in close proximity to the lupine (see Habitat section). At 11 square miles, the Mt. Lassic Wilderness is far too small to maintain anything close to a natural fire regime by itself, given that it is surrounded by Forest matrix lands which are managed for timber production to the east and south, and private lands to the west and north.

Past indifference by SRNF management to the plight of the lupine is discussed under Regulatory threats.

Off-road vehicles and recreation: Off-road vehicle use historically impacted the Mt. Lassic colony of Lassics lupine, as recently as 2003 (Carothers 2004). In order to reduce both vehicle and pedestrian impacts to the lupine, a formal trail was built that bypasses the colony, and a forest closure order was implemented in 2004 prohibiting vehicle use within the area. Designation as wilderness in 2006 permanently eliminated the use of vehicles. Current impacts from recreational use are relatively minor compared to the other threats cited.

Overutilization

Illegal removal for horticultural purposes is not known to be a threat to the Lassics lupine.

Disease and predation

The Lassics lupine does not appear to be threatened by disease.

Predation is a primary threat to the species. Severe pre-dispersal (prior to fruits dehiscing) seed predation has been observed in most years since 2003, when virtually the entire seed crop was taken (Crawford and Ross 2003; Imper 2015). It is considered unlikely, and there is no evidence available indicating, that lupine seed predated by small mammals are cached or otherwise survive. In addition, the lupine is subject to frequent deer and/or rabbit herbivory and in some cases excavation of the root crown, resulting in loss of reproductive capability or death. Carothers (2015b) reported a severe rate of seed predation, as well as foliar browsing leading to death at the Mt. Lassic colony in 2015. While caging is generally quite effective in reducing seed predation, it is labor intensive, and careful installation is necessary to avoid failure. Carothers (2015b) noted a high rate of cage failure in 2015, which allowed predation even on the caged plants.

The magnitude of the threat posed by seed predation shown by the PVA would suggest that habitat features that lead to increased seed predation pressure must have changed dramatically in the recent past, or the species would not have survived. The most likely change, consistent with small mammal trapping conducted since 2005, is that pressure from seed predation has risen as a consequence of forest and chaparral encroachment within and close to lupine habitat. Small mammal abundance varies between years, but on average, potential seed predators are 40 percent less abundant in the open lupine habitat compared to adjacent chaparral (Falxa 2015). California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) appear to have expanded in the lupine area since 2005, and because of their large size (compared to mice and chipmunks), a few individuals can take many seeds. The link between seed predation and vegetation encroachment was also made by Kurkjian (2010), in her investigation of seed predation within and near Lassics lupine habitat, using surrogate species. Seeds of Vicia sp. were predated at a greater rate from screens set within or near chaparral, compared to forest, and rates were highest close to the vegetation edge.

Existing regulatory mechanisms

Existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to ensure the continued existence of Lassics lupine. The lupine is classified as a Sensitive species by the U.S. Forest Service. The only protection provided by classification as a Sensitive species is that the Forest Service is required to assess, and if warranted, mitigate impacts to Sensitive species as part of the planning process for agency projects, but this does not abate the current threats to the lupine.

Various Forest Service policies both allow and require the agency to maintain viable populations and preclude a species trend toward Federal listing, even within designated wilderness. In this case, actions taken by SRNF have been treated as discretionary and been given low priority, in regards to proactively safeguarding the lupine.

As a California Rare Plant Rank 1B species, Lassics lupine is covered under the California Environmental Quality Act, but that offers no protection, since the current threats are not due to projects under which CEQA, or its Federal equivalent, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), apply. Designation of the Lassics Wilderness in 2005, a factor contributing to the current threats to this species, was a congressional action, and therefore not subject to analysis under NEPA. It is primarily natural processes

(seed predation, vegetation succession and its effects on habitat loss and potentially seed predation, and climate extremes), in absence of historical disturbance regimes and adequate human intervention, that are the primary threats. In part, the agency may have been slow to recognize the need for immediate actions due to the principle threats being largely insidious and until recently, relatively chronic in nature.

If nothing else, the mere fact that the Forest Supervisor in 2012 was able to order the removal of all protective cages, within months following completion of a PVA indicating that the caging was critical to maintain the species, illustrates the inadequacy of current regulatory mechanisms to protect even a species as threatened as the Lassics lupine.

Lassics lupine warrants protection under both the CESA and Federal ESA because it is at high risk of becoming extinct in the foreseeable future from high magnitude, imminent threats to its continued existence and there are no regulatory mechanisms that ensure its continued existence in the face of these threats.

Other factors (climate change)

Climate change is a primary threat to the Lassics lupine. Although some specifics about how global climate change will affect the Lassics are as yet unknown, the general consensus is for warmer winter temperatures, diminished snowpack, and drier summer and autumn seasons (Wilkinson and Rounds 1998). In particular, the enhanced risk of extinction for mountaintop species related to climate change is well recognized (Cochran 2011). Such species tend to be more susceptible to warming temperatures, shortened snowpack duration and earlier snowmelt than the environments and their biota found at lower elevations, through altered phenology, energy balance, exposure to predators and numerous other ramifications. Notably, species such as the Lassics lupine, relatively unsuited for long distance dispersal (heavy, unwinged seed), and already situated at the highest elevations of suitable terrain in the Lassics, have no place to migrate upwards. Thus they are largely dependent on fortuitous escape to suitable micro-climates nearby, or assisted migration in order to escape extinction.

The high sensitivity of the Lassics lupine to climate extremes has been described (see Conservation status - Population expansion; Habitat - Red Lassic and Solar radiation; and Curtailment of habitat sections), clearly illustrated by the dramatic die-off in 2015. Climate data most applicable to the Lassics only date to 2000, but a strong correlation was demonstrated with the 30-year record available for the Big Flat CDEC weather station (see Climate section), suggesting the recent climate extremes (30-year record high temperatures and shortened snowpacks) may become more frequent in the future. It is reasonable to conclude that long term regional climate changes present a significant threat to the lupine.

Due to the current small population of Lassics lupine, even prior to the recent severe mortality (less than 1,000 plants), loss of genetic diversity due to inbreeding and/or random genetic drift are potential significant threats to the species. No assessment has been made of the minimum population necessary to avoid these effects. However, given the restricted amount of habitat available to the species, at least within the Lassics, the population likely has not been substantially larger than that for some time. At the current population level (on the order of 60 plants), environmental stochasticity poses an imminent threat to the species.

DEGREE AND IMMEDIACY OF THREAT

The PVA by Kurkjian (2012a) indicated the Lassics lupine is trending toward extinction. Without any protection of reproductive plants, and at the current rate of seed predation, the PVA predicted a greater than 68 percent chance of species extinction within 50 years. Even with the current caging effort (approximately 60-80 reproductive plants annually), the model suggested that stochastic events over the next decade would move the species closer to extinction.

The PVA did not account for several major threats: The smaller of the two colonies of Lassics lupine, located at the western base of Red Lassic, was severely burned during the 2015 Lassic Fire (Imper 2015). That colony may have been extirpated, or may be extirpated in the near future, either due to incineration of the majority of plants, or death of one or more of the pine trees that provide critical shade to the colony (Imper 2012).

The larger lupine colony, at Mt. Lassic, has been severely impacted by several years of extreme warm temperatures, declining snowpack, and the recent fire. A portion of the southern boundary of the colony has retreated northward as much as 100 feet over the past 12 years. At the same time forest dominated by Jeffrey pine and incense-cedar has encroached southward on the Mt. Lassic site over the past 60 years, eliminating the lupine from habitat believed to be more sheltered from the effects of drought conditions. As a result, the lupine has nowhere to escape warming and drying conditions. The species already occurs on the uppermost extent of suitable soils on the north slope of Mt. Lassic, and currently is prevented from moving further down slope into a more favorable microclimate due to encroachment on that habitat by conifers.

While past efforts to enhance the population through protective caging were successful, most noticeably between 2010 and 2013 (Figure 1), the gains appear to have been negated over the past two years. Efforts to introduce the lupine to new sites, begun in 2003 had limited success until 2015, when all but a few of the new plants died.

As a result of the above factors, the current population of Lassics lupine is estimated to be fewer than 60 adults (7 percent of the estimated population when the PVA was completed). While some of the plants that appeared to have died as of early spring 2016 may re-sprout, the situation will not likely change significantly for the better. Although portions of the Lassics did retain snow until early April this year, if summer conditions are again warm and dry, the population surviving into 2017 may well be on the verge of extinction.

There is an immediate need for prioritization of Lassics lupine conservation by the SRNF, and infusion of resources to implement management actions within the wilderness aimed at reducing threats and increasing the lupine population. State listing as endangered will help it gain the attention it needs. To survive, the lupine needs both short and long-term agency attention. Both of the SRNF staff botanists will soon be retiring, and the USFWS Arcata field office has not, nor does it intend to, refill the plant recovery position vacated in 2012, which carried out a significant portion of the past investigation and recovery efforts for this species. Therefore, in addition to other critical needs, federal and state listing

will help ensure that this species will not fall off the regulatory radar, and that both agencies will continue to focus attention on the plight of this species.

We believe the information provided in this petition indicates beyond question that the Lassics lupine warrants protection under the California Endangered Species Act.

RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT AND RECOVERY ACTIONS

There are multiple urgent, specific actions available and needed to ensure the long-term survival of this species. Given the past inability of SRNF to accomplish certain of these tasks, we anticipate State and Federal listing will facilitate their implementation in a more timely manner.

While the caging effort appeared, at least until 2015, effective at forestalling a trend toward extinction of the lupine, it is only effective at mitigating the threat of seed predation and wildlife browsing. It was an emergency measure necessary to provide seed to maintain and perhaps expand the lupine population, and buy critical time for research on the various threats to the species. The recent curtailment of occupied habitat and the population as a result of climate extremes, and to lesser extent, forest encroachment, pose their own significant threats for the species, and point directly to the urgent need to restore habitat lost to forest encroachment, grow the population, and establish a significant portion of the population in habitat where the species as a whole is able to survive prolonged climate extremes such as occurred in 2014 and 2015.

Evidence described by Imper (2012) indicated that between two and three acres of forested habitat (Figure 7, Area 1 primarily) suitable for the lupine are located downslope from the lupine on Mt. Lassic. We know this habitat was formerly open (Carothers 2008), but it has been encroached upon by Jeffrey pine and incense cedar over the past 60 years, resulting in a thick litter layer, and in areas, relatively dense canopy. Climate and soils data collected by Imper (2012, 2015) indicate that at least in portions of this habitat, seasonal fluctuation in soil temperature and moisture are more conducive to growth of the lupine than the more exposed locations of its current occupied habitat. The major difference between the forested habitat and its current habitat is that light levels in the forested habitat are generally 40 - 50 percent less.

Due to its close proximity to the main concentration of Lassics lupine and scattered residual lupine individuals, Area 1, and to lesser extent Area 2, represent the best opportunity to expand the population through partial removal of the tree canopy and litter layer (Figure 7). The restoration effort there could be approached in two ways:

Experimental approach: The western portion of Area 1 (Figure 7) below Signal Peak and west of the saddle measures approximately 260 feet (up-downslope) by 320 feet across slope, or approximately two acres in size. One or more test plots would be treated, measuring 60 feet across slope by 200 feet downslope from the current tree line, each of which would involve removal (either manual removal or by girdling) of an estimated 40-50 trees ranging 3-15 inches dbh, along with many small incense-cedar trees. Trees larger than 15 inches dbh would be retained. The litter layer would be partially removed. Lupine seed and/or

transplants would be introduced, and a monitoring program implemented, including soils and climate variables, and lupine response, both in the planted material and any natural recruitment. No old-growth trees are present in this area. The approach in the east portion of Area 1 (Figure 7) would differ slightly. This area is smaller, measuring roughly 75 by 160 feet, and contains scattered old growth pine and cedar exceeding 24 inches dbh and 150 years old, along with the encroaching pine and numerous small incense cedar trees. The treatment here would include removal of the smallest incense and pine trees aged 60 years or less throughout the area.

Full project approach: Alternatively, there is good argument to proceed with the entire restoration of Area 1 initially: 1) This habitat was open 60 years ago; 2) The lupine is suppressed along the edge, and virtually absent within this forested habitat; 3) There is good evidence to suggest that if the lupine can be established, it will be more immune from climate extremes than in the open habitat farther upslope; 4) Given the imminent threat of extinction for the species, there is a great deal to be gained if the introduction is successful; 5) There is relatively little to lose if it fails, other than setting back forest succession temporarily.

Area 2 (Figure 7) is not considered to be as high priority as Area 1 due to the appearance of less suitable

soils for the lupine (map unit ST = higher proportion of serpentine), as opposed to the clastics mixed with serpentine soils of Area 1 (map unit CS), throughout much of the area. Area 2 does exhibit tree encroachment and thick litter, which if removed would undoubtedly support more than the few lupine there now, but the degree to which the lupine density may be increased is considered more limited than in Area 1.

Imper (2012) identified numerous locations isolated from the existing population that exhibited soils similar to those occupied by the lupine, and which were situated on northerly aspects that might meet the other ecological requirements of the species. The most promising of those was ML Peak#1, located east of Signal Peak (Figure 7, Area 3). The initial results of seed out-planting were encouraging, but the extreme climate conditions between 2013 and 2015 eliminated all but a few of the surviving lupine. A renewed search for suitable transplant sites in locations more protected from climate extremes should be pursued as soon as possible.

Of course any experimental introduction efforts entail inherent risk from removing seed from the current colonies. Therefore, efforts should be implemented immediately to propagate Lassics lupine, both for producing seed and to experimentally test methods for growing planting stock ex situ, to be available for the population introduction efforts. Although attempts to establish colonies elsewhere in the Lassics (or beyond) or immediately downslope from Signal Peak in what appears to be suitable habitat may fail, the effort may be the only good recovery option available at this time to maintain a native population of Lassics lupine in the Lassics.

A checklist of suggested immediate specific recovery actions, in order of priority, includes the following:

Priority Category 1: Tasks needed to avoid imminent species extinction

1) Initiate all planning efforts needed to proceed with implementation of habitat restoration in the high priority area (Area 1, Figure 7) on the north face of Signal Peak as soon as possible.

2) Until the immediate threat of extinction subsides, expand the caging effort to include protection of all accessible Lassics lupine adult plants and as many seedlings as feasible at both colonies.

3) In 2016 and until the immediate threat of extinction subsides, capture a significant proportion of the annual lupine seed production and allocate to: a) shallow burial in order to augment the seed bank in optimal lupine habitat, and b) focused out-planting in optimal lupine habitat, combined with subsequent caging protection and monitoring of germinants. Maximizing the rate of seed recruitment into the population may be crucial to saving the species, given the demonstrated high mortality of naturally dispersed seed.

4) Initiate further investigation (along the lines of that conducted by Imper 2012) to locate suitable habitat for the lupine, in locations less susceptible to mortality from extreme climate conditions. Additional detailed soils inventory by a soils scientist, with greater focus on specific soils characteristics favored by the lupine than Alexander (2008) was, would greatly assist in the effort. Early installation of soil moisture sensors in potential out-planting sites will help confirm whether they are suitable for the lupine, prior to significant investment of lupine seed to the effort. Implement

plant introduction efforts in conjunction with routine monitoring and caging as soon as adequate seed are available.

5) Continue and expand both in situ, and ex situ propagation of the lupine. Offsite propagation is needed to provide both planting stock and seed available for augmentation of the existing colonies, and introduction to new sites. Virtual year-round protection (except during snowpack) from browsing and seed predation by caging will be needed to protect any resulting plants until the critical threat of extinction is mitigated.

Priority Category 2: Tasks needed to maintain a viable population

6) As a pre-emptive measure, reduce the extent of chaparral vegetation surrounding and within lupine habitat on Mt. Lassic, based on the logical premise that clearing will reduce the resident small mammal populations and their seed predation impacts.

7) Continue research in order to confirm whether or not the encroaching chaparral increases the risk of seed predation for lupine plants.

8) Continue the small mammal monitoring trapping effort, providing the baseline abundance data for interpreting the results of item 7.

9) Continue to (a) monitor snowpack duration and melt date (e.g., the current four Hobo sensors used as a snowmelt index), (b) monitor climate data for the Zenia weather station, and (c) explore relationships with the trapping results from item 8. As described (Natural history - Small mammals section), total spring rainfall at Zenia since 2005 is negatively correlated with the small mammal abundance data from monitoring. That relationship, or other environmental indicators, should be investigated for their ability to predict small mammal populations prior to the field season. The caging effort is labor intensive, costly and unsustainable in the long term. A reliable method for predicting the threat from seed predation during the approaching season, if such exists, would be invaluable if it enabled suspension of caging during low-threat years.

10) Continue the seed predation monitoring and research to further document the relationship between the primary seed predators and vegetation encroachment; initiate research to identify the primary lupine browser species; investigate their relationship to encroaching vegetation; and quantify impacts on the lupine. Unless it is feasible to utilize a surrogate attractant species in lieu of exposing Lassics lupine, this research must be delayed until the immediate threat of lupine extinction subsides.

11) Continue the demographic-based monitoring of Lassics lupine at the three existing monitoring sites.

12) Add to the offsite conservation seed bank as appropriate.

13) Update and maintain the Lassics lupine database, commissioned by SRNF, but not updated since 2011.

INFORMATION SOURCES

See the Literature Cited section below for a list of references cited in this petition and persons providing unpublished information. Copies of references are also being provided to the Commission in electronic format on a disk.

Literature Cited

Alexander, E.B. 2008. A soil survey of serpentine landscapes in the Lassics area. Unpublished report submitted to Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, California.

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies USDI/USDA. 2006. Policies and guidelines for fish and wildlife management in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness (as amended June 2006). Available at: http://www.wilderness.net/index

Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

California Data Exchange Center 2015a. Weather data for Zenia weather station; website: “http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/staMeta?station_id=ZEN”, downloaded October 2015.

California Data Exchange Center 2015b. Weather data for Big Flat weather station; website: “http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/staMeta?station_id=BFL”, downloaded October 2015.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. 2015. Special vascular plants, bryophytes, and lichens list. Quarterly publication. Sacramento, California.

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.

Carothers, S. 2004. Draft Conservation strategy for the Lassics Botanical and Geologic Area, Mad River Ranger District, Six Rivers National Forest. Unpublished document prepared for Six Rivers National Forest.

Carothers, S. 2005. Meeting discussion notes recorded July 27, 2005 at Mt. Lassic; in attendance were Sydney Carothers, David Imper (USFWS) and Lisa Hoover (SRNF). On file, Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, California.

Carothers, S. 2013a. Brief Summary of monitoring results for 2012 field visits to Lupinus constancei (T.W. Nelson & J.P. Nelson) monitoring sites in the Lassics Botanical and Geologic Area. Unpublished document dated April 1, 2013, on file Six Rivers National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Eureka CA.

Carothers, S. 2013b. Brief Summary of monitoring results for 2013 field visits to Lupinus constancei

(T.W. Nelson & J.P. Nelson) monitoring sites in the Lassics Botanical and Geologic Area. Unpublished document dated September 28, 2013, on file Six Rivers National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Eureka CA.

Carothers, S. 2014. Brief Summary of monitoring results for 2014 field visits to Lupinus constancei (T.W. Nelson & J.P. Nelson) monitoring sites in the Lassics Botanical and Geologic Area. Unpublished document dated December 28, 2014, on file Six Rivers National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Eureka CA.

Carothers, S. 2015a. Email dated June 24, 2015 to Lisa Hoover; cc to Dave Imper, describing results for initial June16/17 2015 monitoring of Lupinus constancei. On file Six Rivers National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Eureka CA.

Carothers, S. 2015b. Email dated September 23, 2015 to Dave Imper, describing results for initial June16/17 2015 monitoring of Lupinus constancei. On file Six Rivers National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Eureka CA.

Crawford, J. and J. Ross. 2003. Report on the pollination system and fruit predation of Lupinus constancei, the Lassic’s lupine. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office, Arcata, California.

Cochrane, M. 2011. "The Fate of Alpine Species in the Face of Climate Change: A Biogeographic Perspective,"Macalester Reviews in Biogeography: Vol. 2, Article 1. Available at: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/biogeography/vol2/iss1/1

Falxa, G. 2015. Small mammal trap data for 2005-2015, Lassics lupine project. Excel file maintained at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office, Arcata, California.

Fuller, K. 1995. Biologist, Sacramento Field Office USFWS: Note to file regarding denial of candidate status for Lassics lupine, dated April 15, 1995. On file U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office, Arcata, California.

Guerrant, E.O. 2007. Propagation of Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei): Investigations into the need for seed scarification for germination and effects of soil innoculants on growth. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office, Arcata California.

Hickman, J. C. 1993. Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California i–xvii, 1–1400. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Imper, D.K. 2003. Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) monitoring transects, photopoints and seed plot monitoring 2003. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office, Arcata, California.

Imper, D.K. 2009. Soil investigation report: Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) habitat and a comparison to surrounding soils (draft). Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office, Arcata, California.

Imper, D.K. 2012. Revised data summary and conclusions: Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) soils and climate study, The Lassics, Six Rivers National Forest (draft). Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office, Arcata, California.

Imper, D.K. 2015. Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) monitoring and research field and file notes collected at Mt. Lassic 2002-2015. Unpublished. Eureka, California.

Imper, D.K. 2016. Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) field observations May 31, 2016 and recovery team meeting notes June 2, 2016. Unpublished. Eureka, California.

Isely, D. 1998. Native and naturalized Leguminosae (Fabaceae) of the United States (exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii). Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, Brigham Young University; MLBM Press, Provo, Utah.

Kurkjian, H. 2010. Seed predation study on Mount Lassic. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office, Arcata California.

Kurkjian, H. 2011. Lassics lupine production model update. Unpublished report dated June 23, 2011 submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office, Arcata California.

Kurkjian, H. 2012a. A population viability analysis of the Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei). Thesis presented to the faculty of Humboldt State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in Biology, Arcata, California.

Kurkjian, H. 2012b. Lassics lupine seed production study, 2010-2011. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office, Arcata California.

Kurkjian H. 2012c. Lassics lupine database: compilation of demographic data 2003-2011 into Adobe database format. Developed under contract with Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, California.

NatureServe 2015. An online encyclopedia of life: website: “http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species”. Accessed October 2015.

Nelson, T.W. 1980. A Flora of the Lassics. Thesis presented to the faculty of Humboldt State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in Biology. Arcata, California.

Nelson, T.W and J.P. Nelson. 1983. Two new species of Leguminosae from serpentine of Humboldt County, California. Brittonia 35(2):180-183.

Six Rivers National Forest. 1995. Category and priority assignment form for the Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei). Document dated April 11, 1995 on file, U.S. Forest Service, Eureka, California.

Six Rivers National Forest. 2004. Draft conservation strategy for the Lassics Botanical and Geological Area, Mad River Ranger District, Six Rivers National Forest. Unpublished report on file, U.S. Forest Service, Eureka, California.

Six Rivers National Forest. 2012a. Forest Service Manual direction, wilderness and other policies. Briefing statement submitted by the Forest Botanist to management, dated April 6, 2012.

Six Rivers National Forest. 2012b. Forest Service role and options for the Lassics Lupine. Position statement submitted by the Forest Botanist to management, dated April 6, 2012.

Wilkinson, R. and T. Rounds. 1998. Climate Change and Variability in California; White Paper for the California Regional Assessment. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, California Research Paper No. 4. Available at "http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/papers/climate.pdf".

Wilson, B.L, and V. Hipkins. 2004. Genetic variation in Lupinus constancei: Implication for seed transfer between colonies. Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Arcata Field Office, Arcata, California.

State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Wildlife

REPORT TO THE FISH AND GAME COMMISSION

STATUS REVIEW OF LASSICS LUPINE (Lupinus constancei)

January 2018

Lassics lupine, CDFW photo by Jeb McKay Bjerke

Charlton H. Bonham, Director Department of Fish and Wildlife

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 2 LIST OF TABLES ...... 3 LIST OF APPENDICES ...... 3 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND TERMS ...... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 Petition History ...... 5 Department Review ...... 5 BIOLOGY ...... 6 Species Description ...... 6 Taxonomy ...... 6 Range and Distribution ...... 8 Life History ...... 11 Similar-looking Plants ...... 14 Habitat that may be Essential to the Continued Existence of the Species ...... 14 Vegetation Communities ...... 17 Geology and Soils ...... 19 Climate and Hydrology ...... 20 POPULATION TRENDS ...... 21 FACTORS AFFECTING THE ABILITY TO SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE ...... 24 Predation and Herbivory ...... 24 Climate Change ...... 27 Vegetation Encroachment ...... 28 Cover Vegetation for Small Mammals Consuming Lassics Lupine Seeds ...... 30 Habitat Suitability for Lassics Lupine ...... 30 Vulnerability of Small Populations ...... 31 Fire ...... 32 Recreational Use ...... 33 REGULATORY AND LISTING STATUS ...... 34 Federal ...... 34 State ...... 34 Natural Heritage Program Ranking ...... 34 California Rare Plant Rank ...... 34 MANAGEMENT EFFORTS ...... 35 Exclusion Caging ...... 35

Population Expansion Attempts ...... 35 Wilderness and Special Interest Area Designations...... 36 Conservation Seed Banking ...... 36 Monitoring and Research...... 36 Draft Conservation Strategy ...... 37 Impacts of Existing Management Efforts ...... 37 SCIENTIFIC DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE STATUS OF LASSICS LUPINE IN CALIFORNIA ...... 38 Present or Threatened Modification or Destruction of Habitat ...... 38 Overexploitation ...... 39 Predation ...... 39 Competition ...... 39 Disease ...... 39 Other Natural Occurrences or Human-related Activities ...... 39 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ...... 40 RECOMMENDATION FOR PETITIONED ACTION ...... 41 PROTECTION AFFORDED BY LISTING ...... 41 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND RECOVERY MEASURES ...... 42 PUBLIC RESPONSE ...... 43 PEER REVIEW ...... 43 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 43 LITERATURE CITED ...... 44 Personal Communication...... 51

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. Photographs of Lassics Lupine ...... 7 FIGURE 2. Regional Vicinity of Lassics Lupine ...... 9 FIGURE 3. Lassics Lupine Populations ...... 10 FIGURE 4. Photographs of Mt. Lassic Peaks and Lassics Lupine Population at Red Lassic.... 12 FIGURE 5. Ecological Settings of Lassics Lupine at Mt. Lassic and Red Lassic ...... 15 FIGURE 6. Approximate Locations of Lassics Lupine Ecological Settings at Mt. Lassic ...... 16 FIGURE 7. Lassics Lupine Population Trends ...... 23 FIGURE 8. Photographs of a Seed Predator and Protective Wire Cage...... 25 FIGURE 9. Mt. Lassic Peak 3 (Signal Peak) Photograph Comparison ...... 29

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. Lassics Lupine Populations ...... 11 TABLE 2. Status Review Peer Reviewers ...... 43

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. Comments from Affected and Interested Parties on the Petitioned Action APPENDIX B. Comments from Peer Reviewers on the Lassics Lupine Status Review Report

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND TERMS

CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act CESA – California Endangered Species Act CNDDB – California Natural Diversity Database Commission – California Fish and Game Commission Department – California Department of Fish and Wildlife Occurrence – CNDDB Element Occurrence et al. – “and others” Evaluation – Initial Evaluation of Petition to List Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei) as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act Id. – “the same” NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act Petition - Petition from Mr. Dave Imper and Ms. Cynthia Elkins from the Center for Biological Diversity to list Lassics lupine as an endangered species pursuant to CESA ssp. – Subspecies var. – Variety

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Status Review of Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei T. W. Nelson and J. P. Nelson) (Status Review) has been prepared by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) for the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) pursuant to the requirements of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). This Status Review has been independently reviewed by scientific peers, and is based upon the best scientific information available to the Department.

Lassics lupine is an herbaceous perennial plant of the legume family (Fabaceae) that was described as a new species in 1983. Lassics lupine is only found near the summits of remote mountains in northern California called the Lassics, which have unique serpentine-influenced soils. The Lassics are located in Humboldt and Trinity counties within the Six Rivers National Forest. There are two known populations of Lassics lupine, occupying a combined area of approximately 1.6 hectares (4 acres). The smaller of the two Lassics lupine populations is found on a southwest-facing slope of a mountain called Red Lassic. The larger Lassics lupine population is located entirely within Mt. Lassic Wilderness on adjoining peaks of Mt. Lassic.

Results of extensive surveys of the Lassics suggest that Lassics lupine has always been restricted to small areas of suitable habitat. Anecdotal observations of severe population declines and of the absence of Lassics lupine plants in previously occupied areas led to the beginning of annual quantitative monitoring in 2001. The habitat requirements and life history of the species have been relatively well studied. Lassics lupine populations experienced a significant decline in 2015 due to negligible winter snowpack in the Lassics during the winters of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, historic drought, and the 2015 Lassics Fire. The number of adult Lassics lupine plants remained low in 2016 as the drought continued. In 2017, the number of adult plants increased after heavy precipitation in the fall, winter, and spring of 2016-2017.

The most immediate threat to the existence of Lassics lupine is from predation of Lassics lupine seeds prior to dispersal (while still attached to the plant) by small mammals such as deer mice and chipmunks. In response to the observed seed predation, researchers and the U.S. Forest Service began using wire cages to exclude seed predators from reproductive Lassics lupine plants in 2003, and this practice is still in use. Lassics lupine is also sensitive to climate extremes such as high summer temperatures, low summer precipitation, and early snowmelt. As a result of climate change, the Lassics are expected to experience less snowpack and higher summer temperatures. Climate change is considered to be a significant ongoing threat to the continued existence of the species. Lassics lupine also faces significant threats from vegetation encroachment and related fire suppression, small population sizes, the aftermath of the 2015 Lassics Fire, consumption of vegetation and flowers by animals (herbivory), and relatively minor threats from illegal off road vehicle use and trampling from recreational use. Because of the rarity of Lassics lupine, the loss of all or a significant portion of either Lassics lupine population would represent the loss of a significant portion of Lassics lupine’s total range.

The scientific information available to the Department indicates that Lassics lupine is in serious danger of becoming extinct in all or a significant portion of its range due to one or more causes, including seed predation and herbivory, climate change, the vulnerability of small populations, vegetation encroachment, and impacts from wildfire. The Department recommends that the Commission find that the petitioned action to list Lassics lupine as an endangered species is warranted, and further recommends implementation of the management recommendations and recovery measures described in this Status Review.

INTRODUCTION

This Status Review addresses Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei T. W. Nelson and J. P. Nelson).

Petition History

On July 19, 2016, the Commission received a petition (Petition) from Mr. Dave Imper and Ms. Cynthia Elkins from the Center for Biological Diversity to list Lassics lupine as an endangered species pursuant to CESA (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.).

On July 29, 2016, the Commission referred the Petition to the Department for evaluation.

On August 12, 2016, as required by Fish and Game Code section 2073.3, the Commission published notice of receipt of the Petition in the California Regulatory Notice Register (Cal. Reg. Notice Register 2016, No. 33-Z, p. 1463).

On September 14, 2016, the Department requested a 30-day extension of time to complete its evaluation report, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2073.5. The Commission granted the Department’s request on October 20, 2016.

On December 8, 2016, the Commission received a report from the Department titled, “Evaluation of the Petition from Mr. David Imper and Ms. Cynthia Elkins to List Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei) as an Endangered Species under the California Endangered Species Act” (Evaluation). Based upon the information contained in the Petition, the Department concluded, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2073.5, subdivision (a), that sufficient information exists to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted, and recommended to the Commission that the Petition should be accepted and considered.

On February 8, 2017, at its scheduled public meeting in Rohnert Park, California, the Commission considered the Petition, the Department’s Evaluation and recommendation, and comments received. The Commission found that sufficient information existed to indicate the petitioned action may be warranted and accepted the Petition for consideration.

Subsequently, on February 24, 2017, the Commission published its Notice of Findings for Lassics lupine in the California Regulatory Notice Register, designating Lassics lupine as a candidate species (Cal. Reg. Notice Register 2017, No. 8-Z, p. 258).

Department Review

Following the Commission’s action to designate Lassics lupine as a candidate species, the Department notified affected and interested parties and solicited data and comments on the petitioned action pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2074.4 (see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (f)(2)). All comments received are included in Appendix A to this report. The Department promptly commenced its review of the status of the species as required by Fish and Game Code section 2074.6, which has now concluded with this Status Review.

The Department sought independent and competent peer review on its draft Status Review by persons of the scientific/academic community commonly acknowledged to be experts on the Lassics lupine and possessing the knowledge and expertise to critique the scientific validity of the draft Status Review. Appendix B contains the specific input provided to the Department by

the individual peer reviewers, the Department’s written response to the input and any amendments made to the draft Status Review (Fish & G. Code, § 2074.6; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (f)(2)). This Status Review was prepared by Mr. Jeb McKay Bjerke, in the Department’s Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, Native Plant Program.

BIOLOGY

Species Description

The information below is paraphrased from the original species description of Lassics lupine (Nelson and Nelson 1983), the Jepson Manual, 2nd Edition (Sholars 2012), and other sources.

Lassics lupine is an herbaceous plant of the legume family (Fabaceae) that grows to a height of less than 15 centimeters (six inches) from an erect short woody stem (Figure 1, Photo 1). Plants produce a tap root that reaches relatively deep into soil to extract persistent moisture. Lassics lupine is covered with relatively long, shaggy hairs, and is cespitose, which means that it grows close to the ground. Reproductive plants may reach a diameter of approximately 30 centimeters (12 inches), but have an average diameter of 18 centimeters (7 inches) (Six Rivers National Forest 2015; S. Carothers pers. comm. 2017 in Appendix B). The leaves are palmate compound, which is typical for plants in the genus Lupinus (lupines). Leaves are clustered near the base of the plant. The leaves have six to seven leaf segments, called leaflets, which are each 10 to 20 millimeters (⅜ to ¾ inch) long and approximately 8 to 10 millimeters (⅜ inch) wide and spoon-shaped. The leaf stalks can be 4 to 14 centimeters (1.5 to 5.5 inches) long, and there are two appendages at the base of each leaf stalk called stipules that are each less than 6 millimeters (¼ inch) long. The first leaves to appear on Lassics lupine seedlings are called cotyledons (Figure 1, Photo 2).

Like most plants in the legume family, the flowers of Lassics lupine are pea-like, which means that they have a large upper petal called a banner, two smaller side petals called wings, and two fused lower petals called a keel. The petals of Lassics lupine flowers are pink, with parts of the banner and keel a darker rose color. The keel of Lassics lupine flowers is hairless. The flower structure of fused sepals below the petals has two lips and is called a calyx. There are 10 male reproductive structures in the flower called stamens, and they are all partially fused together. There is one female reproductive structure in the flower called a pistil. Lassics lupine flowers are densely arranged together in a structure called a raceme inflorescence, which means the flowers grow on short stalks called pedicels along a central axis, and the flowers at the bottom of the inflorescence tend to open and mature before the flowers at the top. The inflorescence of Lassics lupine is relatively short and thick. Mature plants growing under the best conditions may produce up to 20 or more clusters of flowers, but they typically produce fewer.

Lassics lupine flowers can develop into a 1.5 to 2.5 centimeter (⅗ to 1 inch) long fruit called a legume that splits into two halves that may remain jointed at the base. Lassics lupine fruits are hairy and produce one to five multicolored seeds, with an average of two seeds per pod (Kurkjian 2012b; S. Carothers pers. comm. 2017 in Appendix B).

Taxonomy

A type specimen is the specimen, or group of specimens, of an organism used to describe and name that organism. The type specimen of Lassics lupine was collected by Thomas W. Nelson and Jane Nelson on July 9, 1982, from “Mt. Lassic (Signal Peak) and saddle to E” (Nelson and

Photo 1: Reproductive Lassics lupine plant with flowers and maturing fruit

Photo 2: Lassics lupine seedling showing red cotyledons

Figure 1. Photographs of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei)

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei)

Nelson 1982). Lassics lupine was first described by Nelson and Nelson in 1983, but the earliest collection of the species recorded within the Consortium of California Herbaria database is a 1972 collection by D. E. Anderson, Thomas W. Nelson, and S. Dowty (Anderson et al. 1972, CCH 2017). Lassics lupine was reduced to a variety of Lupinus lepidus for a short time, but was maintained as Lupinus constancei in the 2012 Jepson Manual (Isely 1998, Sholars 2012). Lassics lupine (L. constancei) is named for Dr. Lincoln Constance, a botanist and administrator at the University of California, Berkeley (Nelson and Nelson 1982).

Analysis of the genetic differentiation between the two Lassics lupine populations at Mt. Lassic and Red Lassic found the overall genetic diversity within the species to be very low, and differentiation between the two populations to be a small component of the total variation within the species (Wilson and Hipkins 2004).

Range and Distribution

Range is the general geographical area in which an organism occurs. For purposes of CESA and this Status Review, the range is the species’ California range (Cal. Forestry Assn. v. Cal. Fish and Game Com. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1535, 1551). Distribution is the actual sites where individuals and populations of the species occur within the species’ range.

Lassics lupine occurs only in California. All known populations of Lassics lupine are restricted to the Lassics mountain range which is situated near the boundary of Humboldt and Trinity counties, approximately 130 kilometers (80 miles) southeast of Eureka (Figure 2) (CNDDB 2017). The Lassics mountain range is within the Mad River Ranger District of Six Rivers National Forest, and is partially within Mt. Lassic Wilderness, which was designated in 2006. The range of Lassics lupine is also entirely within the 1,473 hectare (3,640 acre) Lassics Botanical and Geologic Special Interest Area, a designation by the Six Rivers National Forest. The three principal mountains of the Lassics mountain range are Mt. Lassic, Red Lassic, and Black Lassic. Lassics lupine is only known to occur on Mt. Lassic and Red Lassic at elevations between 1,590 and 1,740 meters (5,200 and 5,700 feet), near the top of the Little Van Duzen River watershed. The Little Van Duzen River watershed drains into the Van Duzen River, then the Eel River, and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. The Van Duzen River is approximately four miles east of the Lassics, and the Little Van Duzen River is approximately six miles to the west.

The distribution of Lassics lupine is documented within the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Plant taxa, animal taxa, and natural communities that are documented within the CNDDB are of conservation concern within California and are referred to as “elements.” An “element occurrence” (occurrence) is a location record for a site which contains an individual, population, nest site, den, or stand of a special status element. Populations, individuals, or colonies that are located within 0.40 kilometer (1/4 mile) of each other generally constitute a single occurrence, sometimes with multiple “parts” (Bittman 2001).

The Department updated the CNDDB occurrences for Lassics lupine in September 2016 in conjunction with initial preparation for this Status Review. This update involved entering all information on Lassics lupine that had been submitted to the Department, correcting erroneous information, and checking for additional information from online resources such as the Consortium of California Herbaria, Calflora.org, and CalPhotos.Berkeley.edu.

There are currently two known populations of Lassics lupine (Figure 3). One of the populations is on Mt. Lassic (Mt. Lassic Population), and the other, smaller population is approximately 0.8

8 Shasta Lassen Humboldt Trinity ^

Tehama «¬299 Plumas ¬255 « Glenn Butte Mendocino Nevada Yuba Eureka Colusa Lake Sutter Placer

Yolo El Dorado

Sonoma Napa Sacramento Amador Solano

Marin San Contra San Joaquin Costa Francisco

211 «¬ Fortuna Trinity

County County

Humboldt

«¬36

Van Duzen Road ¤£101

^01S07

± Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Species Occurrence Data Source: California Natural Diversity Database July 2017 0 7.5 15 30 Figure 2. Regional Vicinity of Lassics Lupine ^ = Lassics Lupine Populations Kilometers California Department of Fish and Wildlife Status Review of Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei)

9235«¬ Wilderness Area Boundary

County

Trinity

County

Humboldt

Mt. Lassic Black Population Lassic

01S07

Mt. Lassic Red Lassic Population

Red Lassic ±

Species Occurrence Data Source: California Natural Diversity Database July 2017 0 300 600 1200 Figure 3. Lassics Lupine Populations = Lassics Lupine Populations Meters California Department of Fish and Wildlife Status Review of Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) 35«¬

kilometer (0.5 mile) to the southeast on Red Lassic (Red Lassic Population) (Table 1). Lassics lupine was reported to occupy a total area of approximately 1.6 hectares (4 acres) in 2014 (Imper and Elkins 2016).

Table 1. Lassics Lupine Populations Occurrence Number* Population Name Approximate Area Occurrence 1 Mt. Lassic Population 1.6 hectares (4 acres) Occurrence 3 Red Lassic Population 0.02 hectare (0.06 acre) *Another occurrence (Occurrence 2) was based on an herbarium collection (Anderson et al. 1972), but the location was mapped erroneously and the record was removed in 2003.

Occurrence 1: Mt. Lassic Population. The largest population of Lassics lupine occurs on Mt. Lassic. Mt. Lassic consists of three peaks arranged in an east to west row (Figure 4, Photo 3). Peak 1 is the easternmost peak and Peak 2 is the middle peak. Peak 3 is the tallest and westernmost peak and is commonly referred to as Signal Peak. Lassics lupine currently occurs near the top of Peak 3, and on the saddle between Peaks 2 and 3. Several Lassics lupine plants occurred at the top of Peak 2 between 2005 and 2012 but are no longer present (Imper and Elkins 2016). A voucher specimen of Lassics lupine that was collected in 1972 was cited in the original species description and includes a location description of “Mt. Lassic and two smaller peaks to immediate E” (Anderson et al. 1972, Nelson and Nelson 1982). It is reasonable to assume that “Mt. Lassic” refers to Peak 3, and the “two smaller peaks to immediate E” are Peaks 1 and 2. If this is true, Lassics Lupine may have also previously occurred on Peak 1. There are no other observations of Lassics lupine on Peak 1 despite years of targeted surveys. The Mt. Lassic Population is within Mt. Lassic Wilderness, and is approximately 0.4 kilometer (0.25 mile) west of Forest Route 1S01. The Mt. Lassic Population occupied an area of approximately 1.6 hectares (4 acres) in 2014 (Imper and Elkins 2016).

Occurrence 3: Red Lassic Population. The Red Lassic Population is approximately 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) southeast of the Mt. Lassic Population. The Red Lassic Population is approximately 160 meters (530 feet) west of the summit of Red Lassic at an elevation approximately 100 meters (325 feet) lower than the summit. The Red Lassic Population is approximately 100 meters (325 feet) east of Mt. Lassic Wilderness. The Red Lassic Population occupies an area of approximately 0.02 hectare (0.06 acre) (Figure 4, Photo 4).

Various targeted surveys of potential Lassics lupine habitat since 1991 have not identified any additional populations. Furthermore, few sites have been found that meet the Lassics lupine’s soil requirements, suggesting that it is unlikely the species was much more widespread in the recent past than described above (Imper 2012).

Life History

Like many plants in the legume family, Lassics lupine exhibits physical seed dormancy, which means there is a physical barrier (seed coat) that prevents moisture from entering seeds (Baskin and Baskin 1998, Guerrant 2007). This seed coat prevents seed germination, even if other environmental factors such as moisture and temperature are favorable, and allows Lassics lupine to form a persistent seed bank. The seed coat for Lassics lupine appears to be relatively robust (Guerrant 2007). Some Lassics lupine seeds can remain viable in the soil for at least five years. In one study, buried seed survival was about 25 percent after three years in the soil (Kurkjian 2012b, Carothers 2013b, Kurkjian et al. 2016). It is unknown how long Lassics lupine seeds can ultimately survive in the soil. In a germination experiment conducted in a germination chamber, about 95 percent of Lassics lupine seeds required scarification

11 Peak 1 Peak 2 Peak 3 (Signal Peak)

Photo 3: Looking south at Mt. Lassic Peaks 1, 2, and 3, with Mt. Lassic Population Outlined in Red

Photo 4: Approximate Location of Red Lassic Population, Outlined in Red

Figure 4. Photographs of Mt. Lassic Peaks and Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei) Population at Red Lassic

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei)

(intentionally damaging the seed coat) before water would enter the seed and initiate germination (Guerrant 2007). Once seeds had taken up water, all 64 seeds used in the experiment germinated, showing that a well-formed seed is relatively easy to germinate with scarification, although several seeds required multiple attempts to penetrate the seed coat before germination would occur.

Lassics lupine seeds likely germinate after snow has melted and soil temperatures have begun to rise. Beginning in 2005, temperature dataloggers have been used to record above and below ground climate conditions at four locations within Lassics lupine populations (Imper 2012). During this time, the snowmelt date has been somewhat variable, occurring sometime between March and June; however, snow was almost completely absent from the Lassics in the winters of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, and only covered the ground for less than two weeks.

In-situ germination trials using unscarified seeds have resulted in low germination and low early survival (Carothers 2013a, Imper and Elkins 2016). During the very early stages of Lassics lupine growth, plant size appears to be most influenced by seed size, with larger seeds producing larger plants (Guerrant 2007). Although not directly observed, naturally-occurring microorganisms (fungi and bacteria) appear to be present in native Lassics lupine soil and are beneficial to the growth and development of Lassics lupine. After Lassics lupine plants have become established and have produced 12-15 regular leaves, plants exposed to unsterilized native soil presumed to contain beneficial microorganisms become consistently and significantly larger than plants exposed to sterilized native soil in which such microorganisms would be dead (Guerrant 2007).

After germination, Lassics lupine plants typically take several years to reproduce for the first time (Kurkjian 2012a, Kurkjian et al. 2016). An in-situ seed germination experiment that involved sowing 435 seeds in native habitat in 2005 did not result in any reproductive individuals until 2008 (Carothers 2013a). Of 64 Lassics lupine seeds germinated and grown in a controlled environment, only one individual plant flowered and produced seeds within the timeframe of the experiment (approximately eight months). Of the Lassics lupine plants that germinated from seed at the Red Lassic Population in 2016 after the 2015 Lassics Fire, 73 percent reproduced in the 2017 growing season showing that Lassics lupine is capable of reproducing in the wild in its second year if conditions are favorable (S. Carothers pers. comm. 2017 in Appendix B). Several Lassics lupine plants that germinated from seed at the Mt. Lassic Population in 2016 also reproduced during the 2017 growing season (D. Barton pers. comm. 2017 in Appendix B). Lassics lupine typically blooms in July, but flowers may appear as early as late May (Kurkjian 2012a, Sholars 2012, Kurkjian et al. 2016, CNPS 2017). Reproductive individuals typically bear 1 to 15 inflorescences with 10-60 flowers per inflorescence (Kurkjian 2012a, Kurkjian et al. 2016).

Lassics lupine is primarily pollinated by three species of bees, and the rate of pollinator visits per flower is relatively high (Crawford and Ross 2003). The majority of visits are made by the yellow-faced bumblebee (Bombus vosnesenskii) and the black-tailed bumblebee (Bombus melanopygus) with some visits by a species of mason bee (Osmia sp.) towards the end of the flowering season. These three species of bees appear to be effective pollinators, because they are large enough to trigger the mechanism that releases pollen and presents the tip of the female reproductive structure, which is called a stigma. Lassics lupine flowers may be capable of self-pollination because some fruit development has been observed in flowers that were self- pollinated by hand, and in flowers that pollinators could not visit due to pollinator exclusion (Crawford and Ross 2003).

Lassics lupine fruits can produce one to five seeds by July or August, and each inflorescence contributes an average of 14.6 mature seeds to a plant’s total production (Kurkjian 2012b, Kurkjian et al. 2016). Mature Lassics lupine legumes split along sutures and seeds can fall to the ground nearby, or can be projected up to four meters (13 feet) away if the legumes split open suddenly (Kurkjian 2012a). Small mammals are known to consume Lassics lupine fruits and seeds (Crawford and Ross 2003; Kurkjian 2011, 2012a; Cate 2016). It is possible that seed-caching small mammals such as chipmunks are a vector in dispersing Lassics lupine seeds; however, this has not been observed (Carothers 2008).

Lassics lupine plants can live for several years and produce seeds over several growing seasons before dying. Individual Lassics lupine plants have been observed to live up to 12 years (Imper and Elkins 2016).

Similar-looking Plants

Lassics lupine is reported to most closely resemble the more widespread Lupinus lepidus var. sellulus (formerly Lupinus sellulus var. ursinus) from the Yolla Bolly Mountains, but the two taxa are visually distinct. Furthermore, Lupinus lepidus var. sellulus is limited to higher elevations of the Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness area and tends to grow on barren shale and greywacke sandstone above 2,070 meters (6,800 feet) in elevation. Habitat for Lupinus lepidus var. sellulus is similar to that of Lassics lupine, but is about 300 meters (1,000 feet) higher in elevation. Due to this higher elevation, snow persists longer into the summer and seed germination tends to occur later in the spring than it does for Lassics lupine. Lassics lupine can be distinguished from other lupines that grow close to the ground by its short erect stem, short thick inflorescence, bicolored flowers, glabrous keel, basal and prostrate leaves, long petioles, and large spoon- shaped leaflets (Nelson and Nelson 1983). Species of lupine that may be confused with Lassics lupine do not occur in the vicinity of the Lassics.

Habitat that may be Essential to the Continued Existence of the Species

Lassics lupine is found on barren slopes and near edges of Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) forest on and within the vicinity of serpentine soils. Lassics lupine habitat at the Red Lassic Population is somewhat different than habitat at the Mt. Lassic Population in terms of aspect and vegetation cover, but the two populations share similar soil characteristics. Lassics lupine is found in three different ecological settings at the Mt. Lassic Population, and one ecological setting at the Red Lassic Population. The four different ecological settings where Lassics lupine is found are described below and presented in Figure 5, followed by information on the vegetation communities, geology, soils, climate, and hydrology associated with Lassics lupine. A map with the approximate locations of the ecological settings at Mt. Lassic is presented in Figure 6.

Red Lassic Population:

1. Southwest-facing Forest Crest: The small Red Lassic Population is on a midslope crest of the southwest-facing slope of Red Lassic. It has an overstory of Jeffrey pine that protects the population from excessive solar radiation that leads to high soil temperatures in late summer. Most of the Jeffrey pine that protects the Red Lassic Population was killed or injured by the 2015 Lassics Fire. A depression adjacent to the crest collects snow in the winter, and while the snow melts relatively early compared

14 Upper terrace is high quality habitat, with Saddle/north slope largest plants is intermediate quality habitat with intermediate plants

Forest/swale with encroaching trees is low quality habitat with smallest plants Mt. Lassic Ecological Settings Northwest to Northeast Facing Slopes

Trees provide canopy shading Seasonal snowbank during hot summer afternoons

Red Lassic Ecological Setting Southwest Facing Slope

Figure 5. Ecological Settings of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei) at Mt. Lassic and Red Lassic

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei) Forest/Swale Ecological Setting

Upper Terrace Ecological Setting

Saddle/North Slope Ecological Setting

Mt. Lassic Population Boundary Ecologial Settings Forest/Swale Saddle/North Slope ± Upper Terrace

Image Source: NAIP 2016 Figure 6. Approximate Locations of Lassics Lupine Ecological Settings at Mt. Lassic California Department of Fish and Wildlife 0 50 100 200 Status Review of Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) Meters

with some areas at the Mt. Lassic Population, the depression retains a relatively high amount of soil moisture into the summer which drains downslope and likely provides summer moisture for the Red Lassic Population. There is a medium to high amount of leaf (needle) litter on the ground at the Red Lassic Population. Leaf litter at the Red Lassic Population since 2015 primarily consists of dead needles from dead or dying Jeffrey pines. Prior to the 2015 Lassics Fire, litter primarily consisted of piles of cone scales under trees from cones dismantled by squirrels collecting pine seed.

Mt. Lassic Population:

2. Upper Terrace: Optimum habitat for Lassics lupine currently appears to be areas with flat to moderate slopes that have little to no tree overstory, but are shaded by nearby topography. This habitat receives a high amount of light, has no leaf litter on the ground, and has relatively high soil temperatures in comparison to other Lassics lupine habitats. Snow tends to melt later and soils tend to retain moisture later in this habitat compared to other Lassics lupine habitats. Lassics lupine populations in these areas grow more densely, and plants tend to be more robust with respect to size and reproductive vigor.

3. Saddle/North Slope: Although this habitat is less optimal than the upper terrace, the majority of Lassics lupine plants grow in areas of moderate to steep north- or west- facing slopes with bare soil that has a large proportion of gravel or cobble at the surface. These areas have no tree overstory and receive high direct sunlight compared to other Lassics lupine habitats, but not as high as the upper terrace. In this habitat, snow tends to melt earlier, particularly on west-facing slopes, and soil tends to dry out earlier than the upper terrace. The Lassics lupine population grows less densely in this habitat, and plants tend to have moderate growth and reproductive vigor compared to plants in other habitats.

4. Forest/Swale: Lassics lupine also grows below the upper terrace and saddle/north slope habitats described above, at the edges of and within Jeffrey pine-incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) forest. This habitat retains snow for a long time, and has a high amount of leaf litter on the ground. These areas receive less direct sunlight, have lower soil temperatures, and have low soil moisture levels in comparison to other Lassics lupine habitats. Forest and forest edges are the least favorable habitat for Lassics lupine from the standpoint of reproductive vigor and growth rate, consistent with apparent intolerance of shade, litter cover and low soil moisture.

Vegetation Communities

The Department uses A Manual of California of Vegetation Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009) to classify natural communities within California. However, the vegetation of the Lassics has not been classified using A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. Alexander et al. (2007) describes the area as being characterized by Jeffrey pine-incense cedar woodland, chaparral vegetation, largely unvegetated serpentine barrens, and seasonal wetland habitats. The predominant cover on the serpentine soils of the Lassics is open Jeffrey pine-incense cedar forest. This vegetation would be correctly called Pinus jeffreyi alliance in Sawyer et al. (2009), and is primarily represented by the Pinus jeffreyi-Calocedrus decurrens/Ceanothus cuneatus association, described in Jimerson et al. (1995) with data from plots in the Lassics. White fir (Abies concolor) is prevalent on nonserpentine forest soils of the Lassics (Alexander et al. 2007). Montane chaparral composed of pinemat manzanita (Arctostaphylos nevadensis),

mountain whitethorn (Ceanothus cordulatus), buckbrush (Ceanothus cuneatus) and other shrubs is common on south facing slopes. Six vegetation plots were established in 2016 near Mt. Lassic to monitor changes in vegetation over time, and these plots may be revisited every 5- 10 years (Hutchinson 2017).

Lassics lupine predominately occurs on patches of serpentine barrens, surrounded by Jeffrey pine-incense cedar forest. Common shrub and tree species found within and near Lassics lupine populations include manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp. manzanita), pinemat manzanita, incense cedar, mountain whitethorn, buckbrush, oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), Jeffrey pine, canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), gummy gooseberry (Ribes lobbii), and Sierran gooseberry (Ribes roezlii) (Nelson and Nelson 1982, Carothers 2008, Six Rivers National Forest 2015, Cate 2016, Imper and Elkins 2016). Other plants associated with Lassics lupine habitats include scytheleaf onion (Allium falcifolium), beegum onion (Allium hoffmanii), Brandegee's spring beauty (Claytonia saxosa), Tracy’s collomia (Collomia tracyi), naked buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum), Siskiyou fritillaria (Fritillaria glauca), Scarlet fritillary (Fritillaria recurva), Gray’s bedstraw (Galium grayanum var. grayanum), Lassics sandwort (Minuartia decumbens), Nuttall’s sandwort (Minuartia nuttallii var. gregaria), naked broomrape (Orobanche uniflora), serpentine scorpionweed (Phacelia corymbosa), white-veined wintergreen (Pyrola picta), pale yellow stonecrop (Sedum laxum ssp. flavidum), mountain jewelflower (Streptanthus tortuosus), and mountain violet (Viola purpurea).

Lassics lupine habitat at the Mt. Lassic Population is generally open, with scattered buckbrush and mountain whitethorn shrubs, stunted Jeffrey pine trees, incense cedar trees, and a variety of herbs and geophytes (plants that survive underground for a part of the year). This habitat corresponds with the upper terrace and saddle/north slope ecological settings described above. Lassics lupine is also found at the edge of or within relatively more closed-canopy Jeffrey pine- incense cedar forest with mats of prostrate buckbrush down the north slopes of Mt. Lassic, to the northwest and northeast of Peak 3 (Signal Peak). This forested habitat is the forest/swale ecological setting described above and is the least favorable habitat for Lassics lupine, from the standpoint of reproductive vigor and growth rate, perhaps due to reduced light and water availability and the presence of leaf litter (Carothers 2008, Imper 2012). Lassics lupine habitat at the Red Lassic Population is a recently burned area with an overstory of relatively large Jeffrey pine trees that provide partial shelter from the south and southeast, and pinemat manzanita, Nuttall’s sandwort, white-veined wintergreen and other plant species in the understory (Carothers 2004).

Jeffrey pine and incense cedar have expanded their distribution up the north slope of Mt. Lassic, in some areas on the order of 90 to 120 meters (300 to 400 feet) or more since the 1930s (Carothers 2008). The majority of the encroachment is from Jeffrey pine trees ranging from 13- 38 centimeters (5-15 inches) diameter at breast height and 3-15 meters (10-50 feet) tall, and relatively even-aged at about 45 years old (Imper 2012). Incense cedar is scattered in the understory, and is up to about 8 centimeters (3 inches) diameter at breast height, and 5 meters (15 feet) tall (Imper 2012).

In August 2015, Mt. Lassic and the surrounding area was subject to an approximately 7,490- hectare (18,200-acre) lightning-caused fire called the Lassics Fire. The effects of the Lassics Fire on vegetation are discussed in the Vegetation Encroachment and Fire sections of this Status Review, below.

Geology and Soils

The Lassics are in the central Franciscan Belt of the California Coast Ranges (Bailey et al. 1964), and the geology of the area is somewhat complex. The Lassics are a mountainous area with moderately steep to very steep slopes. There are three primary assemblages of rocks in the area around the Lassics: (1) the Franciscan Complex, (2) Coast Range Ophiolite, and (3) the Great Valley Sequence (Kaplan 1984, Krueger 1990). The Franciscan Complex underlies and completely surrounds the Coast Range Ophiolite and Great Valley Sequence rocks in the area. The Coast Range Ophiolite is the source of the ultramafic (serpentine) rocks in the area, and originated from oceanic crusts and underlying mantle that were brought to the surface by geologic forces. The serpentine rocks in the area are from an outlier of Coast Range Ophiolite that has been highly disrupted by folding and faulting (Alexander et al. 2007). Rocks from the Great Valley Sequence were also thrust into the area over the Coast Ranges fault, which is now about 75 kilometers (47 miles) to the east. Red Lassic and Mt. Lassic consist of serpentine and other rocks from the Coast Range Ophiolite intermixed with rocks from the surrounding Franciscan Complex. The summit of Red Lassic is almost completely composed of well- developed pillow basalt. Black Lassic, which does not support any Lassics lupine plants, primarily consists of sedimentary rocks from the Great Valley Sequence, with some contact with volcanic rocks on its north and west sides (Kaplan 1984).

Both erosion caused by water flow and mass wastings such as slope failures and rock slides have been important processes in forming the parent materials of the Lassics area, and these processes have contributed to the complex geology of the Lassics.

Lassics lupine populations occur on several soil units related to serpentine and/or clastic sedimentary rocks that are described in detail in a 2008 report by Alexander. Serpentine soils are characteristically rich in magnesium and iron, while relatively low in calcium, nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus compared to nonserpentine soils (Kruckeberg 1984, Alexander et al. 2007, Alexander 2011). Clastic rocks are those composed of broken pieces of older rocks. The Alexander report describes soil map units in detail over the approximately 2.5 square kilometers (1 square mile) of serpentine soils that are within 15 square kilometers (6 square miles) enclosing the Lassics. The soil map units from the 2008 Alexander report that relate to Lassics lupine populations are described below. The majority of the Lassics lupine population is in “Entisols/clastic metasedimentary rock colluvium over serpentine (CS)” soils, which are limited to a portion of the north slope of Mt. Lassic. Approximately 20 percent of the Lassics lupine population is mapped in “Entisols/clastic sedimentary rocks (CM)” which is also limited to a portion of the north slope of Mt. Lassic. The Lassics lupine population also extends to a much lesser degree into “Entisols, Inceptisols and Mollisols/serpentinite (ST)”, the widespread “Hyampom variant and Hungry family complex/serpentinite (SD)” and “nonserpentine (N)” soils. The Red Lassic Population is within an area mapped as “Hungry family/serpentinite colluvium (SL)” soil. Alexander noted that Lassics lupine populations are only found on shallow soils, and although they occur predominately on serpentine soils, plants can also be found on nonserpentine soils (Alexander 2008).

Additional mineralogical and physical analysis by Imper (2012) revealed that soils supporting Lassics lupine generally have similar sand content (ranging from 81 to 91 percent), and generally similar concentrations of phosphorus, potassium, calcium, copper, iron, zinc, total carbon, total nitrogen and extractable aluminum when compared with other soils nearby. Lassics lupine always appears to occur in soils exhibiting some influence from clastic sedimentary material, and usually also exhibiting an obvious influence from serpentine rock, either mixed with or underneath clastic sedimentary material. The totally barren, green-gray

serpentine soils typical of much of Mt. Lassic are similar in many respects to the soils that support Lassics lupine, but have higher sand content and pH, and also lower lead levels (Imper 2012). Few sites that meet Lassics lupine soil requirements are unoccupied by Lassics lupine, which suggests that it is unlikely the species was significantly more widespread in the recent past than it is now (Imper 2012).

Climate and Hydrology

The climate at the Lassics consists of hot dry summers and snow cover in the winter. There are no weather stations on the Lassics, and the closest formal weather station is Zenia, which is approximately 15 kilometers (9.5 miles) southeast of the Lassics and about 460-520 meters (1,500-1,700 feet) lower in elevation. Using PRISM (2017) weather data from 1981 to 2010, the average November to April minimum temperatures in the vicinity of the Lassics are modeled to be 0.1°C (32.2 °F), and the average maximum temperatures from June to September are modeled to be 23.9 °C (75.1 °F). The modeled average annual precipitation is 225 centimeters (88.7 inches), with less than 10 centimeters (3.7 inches) falling in June, July, August and September (PRISM 2017).

Lassics lupine occurs near the top of the Little Van Duzen River watershed. The Little Van Duzen River watershed drains into the Van Duzen River, then the Eel River, and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. Lassics lupine depends on snowmelt, rainfall, and groundwater as its primary sources of water.

Imper (2012) collected extensive soil and climate data from several locations within Lassics lupine populations. A chronological description of typical climate and hydrological conditions of a year in Lassics lupine habitat is presented in the following paragraphs. As described below, snowmelt date, summer precipitation, and late summer temperatures all appear to be critical factors affecting Lassics lupine distribution, mortality, reproduction and recruitment (Imper 2012).

Soil in Lassics lupine habitat is typically close to freezing and covered in snow, with high moisture content in the winter months, and may be covered in snow for up to eight months of the year, although snow cover may be intermittent in some years. Data from weather stations and soil temperature dataloggers installed in the Lassics have shown soil temperatures to be a good indicator of when snow has melted (Imper 2012). Weather data recorded at the Zenia weather station were also found to be typically good indicators of spring conditions in Lassics lupine habitat, particularly the date of average snowmelt (Imper 2012). From 2005 to 2011, the average snowmelt date of all dataloggers was May 8, with an average of 5.5 months of snow cover per year at the north saddle. Between 2005 and 2011, the latest snowmelt date recorded within Lassics lupine populations was June 22, 2011, at the north part of the saddle on Mt. Lassic, and the earliest snowmelt date recorded was March 13, 2007, at the south part of the saddle on Mt. Lassic. Winter snowpack was negligible in the Lassics during the winters of 2013- 2014 and 2014-2015, coinciding with a historic drought in California. Demographic data suggest that snow melting early in the year tends to have a negative effect on the survival of Lassics lupine plants in that year, particularly if it is not followed by summer rain (Imper 2012). Snow may melt earlier in the year if more winter precipitation falls as rain instead of snow, or the snowpack is small. Potential benefits of greater snow cover include reduced desiccation of overwintering Lassics lupine plants and greater water infiltration into soils, compared with precipitation as rainfall.

Soil temperatures typically rise rapidly after winter snow has melted and the growing season for Lassics lupine begins. Soil moisture levels remain high or spike even higher in the weeks following initial snowmelt. Soil moisture in Lassics lupine habitat then typically decreases gradually after all snow has melted, although it may spike with precipitation events. Soil temperature typically increases gradually into August. Optimum Lassics lupine habitat has both high light levels and high available soil moisture in August when compared to unsuitable or less suitable habitat for Lassics lupine nearby. Areas with excessively low soil moisture and excessively high soil temperatures in late summer appear to be unsuitable for Lassics lupine survival. Areas with lower light levels, such as those near trees, likely experience less late summer stress from high soil temperature, but appear to be less suitable for Lassics lupine from the standpoint of reproductive vigor and growth rate. Despite more cover, forested areas experience a more rapid decrease in soil moisture after snow has melted than other areas of Lassics lupine habitat, likely due to the soil water demands of trees (Imper 2012).

Summer rainfall, when it occurs, appears to be the climate factor that is the most beneficial for Lassics lupine survival, and mortality tends to be lower in years with more late spring and summer rainfall (Imper 2012). Information also suggests that Lassics lupine cannot survive if soil temperatures become too high, particularly in late summer after soils have dried out. High photosynthetically active radiation (light) levels have been correlated with higher soil temperatures, and therefore shading from trees and topography are important factors in the kind of habitat necessary for Lassics lupine survival (Imper 2012). Erosion from rills and deposition of sediment or gravel may contribute to mortality of Lassics lupine plants during significant rainstorms, particularly if Lassics lupine habitat is not protected by snow cover.

To summarize, available information suggests that Lassics lupine mortality appears to be highest when summer rainfall is low and summer temperatures are high, and the effects of these conditions are exacerbated by early snowmelt.

POPULATION TRENDS

Lassics lupine was first described in 1983 and the results of extensive surveys of the Lassics suggest that Lassics lupine has always been restricted to small areas of suitable habitat. Anecdotal observations of severe population declines and of the absence of Lassics lupine plants in previously occupied areas led to the beginning of annual quantitative monitoring in 2001 (Carothers 2005, Kurkjian et al. 2016). Monitoring is conducted jointly by the U.S. Forest Service, California Native Plant Society and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There are currently four Lassics lupine monitoring transects, identified as Red, Saddle, Forest, and Terrace (S. Carothers pers. comm. 2017). The Red monitoring transect was established in 2001 and includes all plants at the Red Lassic Population. The Saddle transect was established in 2002 and includes most plants in the saddle between Peaks 2 and 3 of Mt. Lassic. The Forest transect was established in 2005 and includes all of the plants on the lower forested north slope of Mt. Lassic. The Red, Saddle, and Forest transects were positioned to capture as much of the population as possible, and include approximately half of the entire Lassics lupine population. The Terrace monitoring transect was established in 2016 and is located on the upper terrace of Mt. Lassic Peak 3. Population counts and demographic information is collected within the monitoring transects in the summer. Information collected includes location of the plant, life stage, plant size, number of inflorescences, number of fruits, evidence of herbivory and/or seed predation, predation intensity, and whether the plant is caged. In addition, Lassics lupine plants outside of the monitoring transects are counted to the extent possible, and binoculars are used to count plants on steep erodible slopes. Counts of plants outside of monitoring transects have

varied in completeness from year to year, and the overall population size is likely underestimated to some small degree in most years (S. Carothers pers. comm. 2017).

The population trends of adult Lassics lupine plants from 2005 to 2017 are presented in Figure 7. Adult Lassics lupine plants are those plants that have survived one growing season after germination, and are no longer seedlings. The number of adult Lassics lupine plants increased gradually from 2005 to 2011, and reached highs of over 700 adult plants in 2012 and 2014, likely due to efforts to protect reproductive plants with wire cages. This caging began in 2003 and reduced the effects of small mammal seed predation on Lassics lupine populations (Kurkjian et al. 2016). Lassics lupine populations suffered a significant decline in 2015 due to negligible winter snowpack in the Lassics during the winters of 2013-14 and 2014-15, historic drought, and the 2015 Lassics Fire. The number of adult Lassics lupine plants remained low in 2016 as the drought continued. In 2017, the number of adult plants increased significantly after approximately 340 centimeters (134 inches) of precipitation fell in the Lassics area in the fall, winter and spring of 2016-2017, which is the most precipitation between monitoring visits since the monitoring began (PRISM 2017).

A significant contraction of the area occupied by Lassics lupine plants was documented at the south end of the Saddle transect between 2002 and 2015, with a significant contraction coinciding with the drought conditions of 2014 and 2015 (Imper and Elkins 2016). The area occupied by Lassics lupine at the south end of the Saddle transect expanded after high precipitation in the Lassics area in the fall, winter and spring of 2016-2017.

A population viability analysis for Lassics lupine was conducted using the demographic data described above from the Red, Saddle, and Forest transects, and information from seed experiments (Kurkjian 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Kurkjian et al. 2016). The population viability analysis estimated that, without protecting any reproductive plants from seed predation, the probability of quasi-extinction of Lassics lupine (defined as 10 or less adult plants remaining) in the next 50 years is between 68.4 and 100 percent. If approximately 30 percent of reproductive Lassics lupine plants are protected from seed predation by caging, the probability of quasi- extinction in the next 50 years is reduced to between 0.7 and 31.5 percent. If all reproductive Lassics lupine plants are caged, the probability of quasi-extinction in the next 50 years is reduced to between 0 and 1.8 percent. Of the three transects studied, the Saddle transect has the best chance of persisting over the next 50 years if the current practice of caging approximately 30 percent of reproductive individuals is continued. The population viability analysis model was most sensitive to changes in survival and growth rates of the reproductive class, yet despite this, reductions in predispersal seed predation from caging had a major positive effect on stochastic growth rate and population viability. These results show that current efforts to cage reproductive plants are critical for preventing the extinction of Lassics lupine.

The population viability analysis did not attempt to model predicted changes due to climate change, and did not account for impacts to Lassics lupine populations from reduced snowpack, drought, or the 2015 Lassics Fire. In fact, the population of adult Lassics lupine plants suffered a significant decline in 2015 despite the ongoing caging of reproductive plants (Kurkjian et al. 2016). The starting population sizes are now smaller than the population sizes used for the population viability analysis, which will likely reduce the modeled viability of the population. The 2015 Lassics Fire may have also altered vital rates in ways that will affect the viability of the population.

900 Red Lassic Transect

777 800 Saddle Transect 724 Forest Transect 700

All Transects 582 600 Total (All Transects + Slope Counts)

500 454 438 431 413

Count of AdultPlants Countof 400 352 357 353

287 321 293 293 300 267 227 244 188 199 193 200 132 139 155 146 132 109

100 30 26

0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Monitoring Year (data collected in summer) After the Lassic Fire (September 2015)

Source: S. Carothers Unpublished Data 2017

Figure 7. Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei) Population Trends

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei)

FACTORS AFFECTING THE ABILITY TO SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE

Predation and Herbivory

Pre-dispersal seed predation by rodents has the potential to drive Lassics lupine to extinction (Kurkjian 2012a, Kurkjian et al. 2016).

Extreme pre-dispersal seed predation (removal of seeds while they are still attached to the plant) of Lassics lupine fruits was first observed by Crawford and Ross in 2003 during the course of a Lassics lupine pollination study. They found that approximately 72 percent of the 67 inflorescences observed suffered from heavy seed predation, with the greatest predation occurring early in fruit development. Plants with the greatest number of inflorescences were subject to particularly severe seed predation. Significant Lassics lupine seed predation has been subsequently observed in most years. Seventy-two uncaged plants were observed during the 2010 growing season, and all of them sustained some level of seed predation while the fruits developed on reproductive plants, and before seeds had matured and dispersed, with all developing fruits removed from most plants (Kurkjian 2011). Pre-dispersal seed predation often results in mortality of the seed, and can therefore have serious effects on populations of rare plant species (Dangremond et al. 2010, Kurkjian et al. 2016). There is no evidence indicating that seeds and fruits removed by seed predators are cached or otherwise survive.

Several animal species, particularly rodents, have been identified as consumers of Lassics lupine seeds, flowers, and vegetation (Six Rivers National Forest 2015). Cameras placed near Lassics lupine plants have captured images of deer mice (Peromyscus spp.), chipmunks (Tamias spp.), mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus), and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) preying upon Lassics lupine seeds and/or flowers (Figure 8, Photo 5), and black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) has been observed consuming an entire Lassics lupine individual (Cate 2016, D. Barton pers. comm. 2017). Herbivory of Lassics lupine flowers and vegetation is also frequently observed during demographic monitoring, in some cases resulting in excavation of the root crown and death of the plant.

Other animals in the vicinity of Lassics lupine populations may also consume Lassics lupine seeds or vegetation. Monitoring of small mammals via live trapping has been conducted since 2005, and small mammals known to occur within and near Lassics lupine habitat include three species of deer mice (Peromyscus boylii, P. maniculatus, and P. truei), two species of chipmunks (Tamias sonomae and T. senex), and two species of woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes and N. cinereus) (Cate 2016, G. Falxa unpublished data). Based on live trapping and camera trap detection, deer mice appear to have the highest relative abundance in areas near the Mt. Lassic Population of Lassics lupine, followed by California ground squirrels, chipmunks, black- tailed jackrabbit, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), woodrats, and fox sparrows (Passerella iliaca) (Cate 2016, G. Falxa unpublished data).

A surrogate seed predation experiment using cameras directed at sugar snap pea pods placed in different habitats at Mt. Lassic captured deer mice, black-tailed jackrabbits, and California ground squirrels all removing the snap peas (Cate 2016). All snap peas placed in the chaparral habitat were removed within 70 hours, and almost all of the snap peas placed in the more exposed upper terrace and saddle areas of the experiment were also removed within 70 hours. Approximately half of the snap peas placed in the forest habitat were removed within 70 hours. Because snap peas in the forest survived at a higher rate than other habitats, Lassics lupine in the forest may be at a lower risk of seed predation than plants in other habitats; however, Cate (2016) did not find strong experimental support for this conclusion. This experiment was

Photo 5: California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) eating Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) flowers (D. Barton pers. comm. 2017)

Photo 6: Wire cage used to protect Lassics lupine fruits from seed predation

Figure 8. Photographs of a Seed Predator and Protective Wire Cage

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei)

conducted in 2015 prior to the Lassics Fire and repeated after the fire in 2016, with similar results suggesting that the 2015 Lassics Fire did not alter the spatial patterns of pre-dispersal seed predation risk at Mt. Lassic (D. Barton pers. comm. 2017).

Preliminary studies suggest that herbivory does not have a particularly large effect on the survival of Lassics lupine seedlings (D. Barton pers. comm. 2017).

Based on data from 18 years of monitoring small mammals using live traps, small mammals in the vicinity of Lassics lupine populations are generally most abundant in chaparral habitat, followed by barren serpentine habitat, with lowest abundance in forest habitat (G. Falxa pers. comm. 2017 in Appendix B). An analysis of the movements of small mammals near the Mt. Lassics population was conducted using live trapping, marking and recapturing, and passive remote detection technology (Cate 2016). Chipmunks were found to move between habitats (chaparral, forest, and serpentine) at a higher rate than deer mice. Models also suggest that the probability for small mammal movement between the chaparral and serpentine habitats is highest, the probability for movement between forest and chaparral is lowest, and the probability for movement between forest and serpentine is intermediate (Cate 2016). Although most animals tended to remain within the same habitat, animals did move between habitats, and therefore seed predators from adjacent communities have the potential to influence Lassics lupine populations (Cate 2016). Furthermore, high amounts of movement into and out of the barren serpentine habitat suggests that forest and chaparral habitats act as refuges for seed predators. Lassics lupine plants that are closer to the cover provided by chaparral habitat are therefore likely to be at a greater risk of pre-dispersal seed predation than plants farther from refuge habitat (Kurkjian 2011, Cate 2016). Indeed, for a variety of plant species, the risk of seed predation by seed predators has been demonstrated to be higher in areas that are closer to vegetation that provides refuge to seed predators (Myster and Pickett 1993, Notman et al. 1996, McCormick and Meiners 2000, Wenny 2000, Dangremond et al. 2010).

As described in the Population Trends section of this Status Review, a population viability analysis has shown that seed predation has the potential to drive Lassics lupine to extinction (Kurkjian 2012a, Kurkjian et al. 2016). The population viability analysis estimated that, without protecting any reproductive plants from seed predation, the probability of quasi-extinction of Lassics lupine (defined as 10 or less adult plants remaining) in the next 50 years is between 68.4 and 100 percent, but if all reproductive Lassics lupine plants are caged, preventing seed predation, the probability of quasi-extinction in the next 50 years is reduced to between 0 and 1.8 percent (Kurkjian 2012a, Kurkjian et al. 2016). These results demonstrate that protecting reproductive Lassics lupine plants from seed predation is critical for preventing the extinction of Lassics lupine.

After dispersal, Lassics lupine seeds can also remain exposed on the ground for several months before becoming covered with snow. Small mammals find and remove Lassics lupine seeds from the ground following dispersal from mature fruits. In an experiment, Kurkjian (2011) found that approximately 10 percent of Lassics lupine seeds placed on the ground surface within Lassics lupine habitat had been removed within five days, representing a considerable level of post-dispersal seed foraging.

Other animals may also consume Lassics lupine. Arthropods may prey on Lassics lupine plants, and evidence of insect herbivory is recorded during annual demographic monitoring. Unidentified grasshoppers were observed consuming small portions of a Lassics lupine fruit in camera trap photos taken one time in 2014 and one time in 2015 (D. Barton pers. comm. 2017 in Appendix B). Two arthropods were found on many Lassics lupine plants in 2003; a small

unidentified, grey beetle was observed opening the keel and eating pollen, and a red mite was found in flowers and on other parts of the plant (Crawford and Ross 2003). Historically, the Lassics were within two range allotments, and feral cattle may still be present and could consume Lassics lupine if they encountered a population, although there is no evidence that this has occurred.

Predation and herbivory, particularly by small mammals, are significant threats to Lassics lupine’s ability to survive and reproduce.

Climate Change

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia (IPCC 2014). Experimental and empirical evidence indicates that climate change is impacting wildlife species and natural systems across the globe (Parmesan and Yohe 2003, Parmesan 2006). According to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, climate change is now considered one of the greatest threats to California’s ecosystems, and over the current century, climate change will alter the fundamental character, production, and distribution of the ecosystems in California (Snyder et al. 2002, Snyder and Sloan 2005, California Energy Commission 2009b). Climate change is a major challenge to the conservation of California’s natural resources, and it will amplify existing risks and create new risks to natural systems.

Numerous studies indicate that by the end of the century California’s climate will be considerably warmer than today’s, more winter precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, snowpack will be substantially diminished, and snowpack will melt much earlier in the year (Kim et al. 2002; Knowles and Cayan 2002; Snyder et al. 2002; Miller et al. 2003; Hayhoe et al. 2004; Leung et al. 2004; Vanrheenen et al. 2004; California Energy Commission 2009a, 2009b; Melillo et al. 2014). California is also more vulnerable to climate fluctuations relative to the rest of the U.S. because it derives a disproportionate percentage of its water supply from only a small number of winter storms, typically in the form of “atmospheric rivers” (Dettinger 2011, Dettinger et al. 2011). Mountaintop species face a particularly high threat from climate change because as the climate system warms, potentially suitable habitat for many species is expected to shift upwards in elevation, and suitable habitat for mountaintop species may disappear (Parmesan 2006, Cochrane 2011). Furthermore, the topographic isolation and harsh abiotic environments often found on mountaintops correspond with high levels of adaptation and isolation, and specialist species utilizing these environments may not be able to compete with generalist species as habitats change and species move (Xu et al. 2009).

Department staff conducted an assessment of the vulnerability of Lassics lupine to climate change using the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index Version 3.02 (CDFW 2017, Natureserve 2017). Based upon the Department’s assessment, Lassics lupine has a climate change vulnerability index value of Highly Vulnerable (HV), indicating that abundance and/or range extent within the geographical area of the species is likely to decrease significantly by the year 2050. The confidence in this vulnerability index score is very high based on the results of a Monte Carlo simulation (Young et al. 2015).

As described in the Climate and Hydrology section of this report, available information suggests that Lassics lupine mortality appears to be highest when summer rainfall is low and summer temperatures are high, and the effects of these conditions are exacerbated by early snowmelt. Climate change scenarios for northern California in the vicinity of the Lassics generally include similar annual precipitation levels, higher temperatures, and less snow pack (Cayan et al. 2009,

Girvetz et al. 2009). Based upon available evidence discussed in the Climate and Hydrology section of this Status Review, Lassics lupine is sensitive to climate extremes, and the higher summer temperatures and diminished winter snowpack in the future are expected to increase Lassics lupine mortality and reduce the amount of suitable habitat.

Climate change may have also contributed to the observed encroachment of Jeffrey pine and incense cedar forest into Lassics lupine habitat on Mt. Lassic, and may have also contributed to chaparral succession on Mt. Lassic’s south slope (Rochefort et al. 1994, Carothers 2008). Climate change is predicted to increase the rate and intensity of disturbance events, such as drought, exotic species invasions, insect and pathogen outbreaks, and wildfire. The fire hazard severity rating over the majority of North America is predicted to increase as a result of climate change (Dale et al. 2001).

All of these changes have the potential to change the distribution of vegetation in the Lassics, and consequently alter the abundance and movement of animal species, including consumers of Lassics lupine seeds, flowers, and vegetation.

Climate change is a significant threat to Lassics lupine’s ability to survive and reproduce.

Vegetation Encroachment

A vegetation study prepared by Carothers (2008) involving analysis of historic photographs and aerial imagery clearly shows that forest and chaparral have become more dense and have expanded their distribution up the slopes of Mt. Lassic since the 1930s (Figure 9). Jeffrey pine- incense cedar forest has spread into the Lassics lupine population on Mt. Lassic’s north slope, and the chaparral community on the south side of Mt. Lassic has also matured and become denser (Carothers 2008). Approximately 0.8 to 1.2 hectares (2 to 3 acres) of suitable habitat has been encroached upon by forest. This area may have supported Lassics lupine in the past, when forest was absent or less dense. Furthermore, a dense layer of leaf litter accumulates under forest trees which may suppress germination of Lassics lupine and other seeds.

Fire suppression has contributed to the encroachment of vegetation on Mt. Lassic over the past 80 years (Carothers 2017). Jeffery pine seedlings also establish most successfully on bare mineral soil (Jenkinson 1990), and chipmunks tend to cache Jeffrey pine seeds in bare mineral soil away from existing trees (Vander Wall 1993). Chipmunks have therefore likely contributed to the migration of Jeffrey pine forest into Lassics lupine habitat. Climate change and resulting shifts in species’ ranges may have also contributed to the vegetation encroachment (Carothers 2008). Based upon the trend since the 1930s, forest encroachment is expected to continue into the future.

In August 2015, Mt. Lassic and the surrounding area was subject to an approximately 7,490- hectare (18,200-acre) lightning-caused fire called the Lassics Fire. The effects of the Lassics Fire on vegetation encroachment are discussed in this section, and the Lassics Fire is also discussed in the Fire section of this Status Review.

As described below, the Mt. Lassic Population is threatened by encroaching vegetation in two primary ways: (1) encroaching vegetation provides cover for consumers of Lassics lupine seeds, flowers, and vegetation (Kurkjian 2011, Cate 2016), and (2) the encroaching forest is less suitable for Lassics lupine survival and reproduction than the treeless upper terrace and north slope ecological settings (Carothers 2008, Imper 2012).

Photos 7 and 8: Looking west from Mt. Lassic Peak 2 to the vegetation on the northeast slope of Mt. Lassic Peak 3: (A) in 1930s (Photo by V. Coleman); and (B) in 2008 (Photo by D. Imper). Lines reference landmarks present at both time periods. Source: Carothers 2008.

Figure 9. Mt. Lassic Peak 3 (Signal Peak) Photograph Comparison

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei)

Cover Vegetation for Small Mammals Consuming Lassics Lupine Seeds

As described in the Predation section of this Status Review, without protection from wire cages, seed predation is projected to drive Lassics lupine to extinction. This seed predation was presumably not as severe in the past because Lassics lupine populations have persisted until now. The cause of this recent intensification of seed predation on Lassics lupine is therefore likely due to changes in habitat conditions at the Lassics, and vegetation encroachment is the likely cause. Predators that consume small mammals likely have less impact on small mammal populations when there is more cover for small mammals to utilize. A relationship between distance to cover vegetation and risk of seed predation has been demonstrated in a variety of plant species (Myster and Pickett 1993, Notman et al. 1996, McCormick and Meiners 2000, Wenny 2000, Dangremond et al. 2010), and seed predation experiments conducted in 2010 and 2015 also suggest that Lassics lupine plants closer to vegetation, particularly chaparral vegetation, are at greater risk from seed predation (Kurkjian 2011, Cate 2016).

The August 2015 Lassics Fire may have altered the amount of refuge available for seed predators, their abundance, or their movements in a way that could reduce the impact of seed predation on Lassics lupine; however, studies show that the abundance of small mammals could go up, down, or stay the same after fire (Lawrence 1966; Masters et al. 1998; Converse et al. 2006a, 2006b; Amacher et al. 2008; Zwolak et al. 2010). Recolonization of burned areas by small mammals may be dependent upon the density of the regenerating vegetation (Monamy and Fox 2000).

The Lassics Fire burned the chaparral on the south side of Mt. Lassic with high intensity. Cate (2016) ran an exploratory analysis of the small mammal community after the Lassics Fire with one trapping session performed in October 2015; however, the post-fire data was limited to only one night of trapping and 12 animal captures, which may not provide a strong basis to draw conclusions. Seven of the 12 animals caught were recaptures from before the fire, demonstrating that a significant number of small mammals survived the fire.

In August 2017, D. Barton reported preliminary results of small mammal trapping investigations at the Mt. Lassic Population. Deer mice remain very abundant on the upper terrace and in unburned shrub cover, moderately abundant in the now-resprouting chaparral and the barren saddle, and at low abundance in the forest. This pattern has remained relatively consistent after the Lassics Fire. Chipmunks have remained unusually rare, and 2017 had the lowest abundance of chipmunks since small mammal monitoring began. The abundance of small mammals is generally lower in the forest and chaparral than it was prior to the 2015 Lassics Fire (D. Barton pers. comm. 2017). Despite the lower small mammal abundance, seed predation and herbivory of Lassics lupine by a California ground squirrel was observed in 2017, and a small systematic sample of caged and uncaged plants that bore fruit in 2017 suggests that pre- dispersal seed predation risk remains high, and that caging mitigates this risk (D. Barton pers. comm. 2017).

Habitat Suitability for Lassics Lupine

Areas that have been encroached upon by forest have a lower density of Lassics lupine plants, and the Lassics lupine plants that are present in the forest are smaller and have lower reproductive vigor than Lassics lupine plants in open habitat (Carothers 2008, Imper 2012) (see Figure 5). Forest may be less suitable for Lassics lupine due to tree leaf litter and competition with forest trees for light and moisture. The forest also retains snow later into the year, which may also have an effect on Lassics lupine. Open habitats that represent the most suitable

habitat for Lassics lupine from the standpoint of plant density and reproductive vigor are relatively barren of leaf litter. The litter layer in the forest likely inhibits the germination of Lassics lupine seeds unless it is removed by fire or other means. The forest also provides more canopy cover, and less solar radiation, which likely also contribute to reduced Lassics lupine density and reproductive vigor (Imper 2012). Finally, soil moisture dries down rapidly in the forest after snowmelt, likely due to the water needs of the forest trees, and this may also contribute to the reduced plant density and reproductive vigor of Lassics lupine in the forest (Imper 2012).

The August 2015 Lassics Fire was not adequate to kill a significant number of trees or completely remove the litter layer in the encroaching forest on Mt. Lassic. Despite the fire, the encroaching forest habitat has not been reduced.

Vegetation encroachment is a significant threat to Lassics lupine’s ability to survive and reproduce, particularly at the Mt. Lassic Population.

Vulnerability of Small Populations

Lassics lupine has a narrow distribution and the only two populations occupy relatively small areas. Approximately 454 adult Lassics lupine plants were observed during 2017 demographic monitoring. The Department recognizes that species with small numbers of populations and small population sizes are highly vulnerable to extinction due to stochastic (chance), demographic, environmental, and genetic events (Shaffer 1981, 1987; Primack 2006; Groom et al. 2006). Chance events, such as landslide, drought, or fire could result in the loss of all or a significant portion of a Lassics lupine population. A landslide at the Red Lassic Population, for instance, could result in the loss of the entire population. Chance environmental conditions that result in excessive seed germination without subsequent growth and reproduction could also deplete the soil seed bank and threaten the long-term persistence of Lassics lupine.

Impacts to a species that have already taken place may also lead to an “extinction debt,” where species that appear abundant disappear over time (Tilman et al. 1994, Kuussaari et al. 2009). Extinction processes often occur with a time delay and populations living close to their extinction threshold might survive for long periods of time before they go extinct (Hanski and Ovaskainen 2002, Lindborg and Eriksson 2004, Helm et al. 2006, Vellend et al. 2006). Habitat specialist species, such as Lassics lupine, may also be more sensitive to changes in habitat and thus more prone to local extinction than generalist species (Helm et al. 2006, Krauss et al. 2010, Cousins and Vanhoenacker 2011, Guardiola et al. 2013).

Species with small numbers of populations or small populations may also be subject to increased genetic drift and inbreeding (Menges 1991, Ellstrand and Elam 1993). There are two geographically distinct populations of Lassics lupine left; however, they are genetically very similar (Wilson and Hipkins 2004). Cross planting between the two surviving populations could improve the survival probability of the populations, if necessary, by boosting the number of plants in the populations and by introducing new genes that might overcome any inbreeding depression (Wilson and Hipkins 2004).

Due to the small number of Lassics lupine individuals and the presence of only two small Lassics lupine populations, the loss of any portion of either population would represent the loss of a significant portion of Lassics lupine’s total range.

Small population size and small number of populations is a significant factor influencing Lassics lupine’s ability to survive and reproduce.

Fire

Little information is available regarding the fire history in the Lassics prior to the early 1900s. Prior to 1865, local tribes regularly used fire to keep their territory free of underbrush and immature trees, although prehistoric human use of fire in the Lassics is undocumented (Keter 1987 rev. 2015, Carothers 2017). Based on a study of fire-scarred stumps, the mean fire-free interval in the centuries prior to fire suppression in Mad River Ranger District of Six Rivers National Forest was approximately 12.7 years (Carothers 2017). The mean fire return interval for Jeffrey pine forest across its range is approximately 20 years, but may be longer for relatively open stands with low understory fuels, such as those on serpentine substrates (Munnecke 2005).

Fire suppression records date back to 1910 on Six Rivers National Forest, but aggressive fire suppression did not begin until after World War II (Stuart and Salazar 2000). Three relatively small fires were caused by lightning in the Lassics in August 1953, burning 0.4 hectare (1 acre) near Red Lassic, 17 hectares (42 acres) of primarily chaparral southwest of Mt. Lassic, and 32 hectares (78 acres) about 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) north of Black Lassic (Carothers 2017, Six Rivers National Forest 2015). These fires were attacked by crews of four to eight people using hand tools. Three other relatively small fires were recorded within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of Mt. Lassic in the following years. An approximately 2.4 hectare (6 acre) fire was caused by lightning in 1969, an approximately 0.04 hectare (0.1 acre) fire was caused by an incendiary device in 1987, and an approximately 0.2 hectare (0.5 acre) fire with an uncertain cause was recorded in 2003 (Six Rivers National Forest 2015). A total of 18 fires were recorded within the 1,473 hectare (3,640 acre) Lassics Botanical and Geologic Special Interest Area between 1940 and 2014, and 71 percent were under 2 hectares (5 acres) in size (Carothers 2017).

An extensive analysis of historic and current fire regimes on U.S. Forest Service and National Parks lands in California found that fire frequency in northwestern California since 1908 has been “less to much less” than during pre-settlement conditions (Stafford and Van de Water 2014). Furthermore, estimates indicate that the fire return interval within the Lassics Botanical and Geologic Special Interest Area is now 70 to 80 percent less frequent than before fire suppression policies were implemented, except in chaparral where the fire return interval is now 24 percent less frequent (Carothers 2017). These findings suggest that fire is likely less frequent within and near Lassics lupine habitat than it was prior to fire suppression activities.

In August 2015, the Lassics were subject to an approximately 7,490-hectare (18,200-acre) lightning-caused fire called the Lassics Fire. The chaparral on the southern slope of Mt. Lassic and the Red Lassic Population and surrounding area burned at high severity . The forest on the north side of Mt. Lassic burned at mixed severity (see photos from D. Barton pers. comm. in Appendix B). The top of Signal Peak (Peak 3), the highest point on Mt. Lassic, burned patchily at low severity.

Many Lassics lupine plants were killed by the Lassics Fire (see Figure 7). All of the Lassics lupine plants at the Red Lassic Population were killed and many plants at the Mt. Lassic Population were killed as well, particularly in the forest. Despite the Lassics lupine plants killed in 2015, there was an exponential increase in the number of seedlings in 2016 after a relatively wet winter, which resulted in the large numbers of adults in 2017. Most of the adult plants in 2017 were from 2016 seedlings at the Mt. Lassic Population. All of the adults at the Red Lassic Population in 2017 were from 2016 seedlings from the seed bank. The explosion of seedlings in 2016 and their high survival rate may be attributable to precipitation, snowpack from the winter of 2016-2017 (although it was relatively brief), and nutrient flush from the Lassics Fire.

As described in the Climate and Hydrology section of this Status Review, information provided by Imper (2012) suggests that Lassics lupine cannot survive if soil temperatures become too high. The Lassics Fire burned very hot at the Red Lassic Population, eliminating leaf litter and burning up into the Jeffrey pine and incense cedar trees in the area. Many trees in the vicinity of the Red Lassic Population were killed, including some of the large trees that provide canopy shading for the Red Lassic Population during hot summer afternoons. These trees appear to be critical for the suitability of habitat at the Red Lassic Population for Lassics lupine because of the shade that they provide (Imper 2012). The dead trees are still standing, so their trunks and branches continue to provide some protection from solar radiation; however, the trees no longer have leaves, and are at a greater risk of falling over. Without the canopy shade from these trees, habitat at the Red Lassic Population may not be able to support Lassics lupine in the future. The aftermath of the 2015 Lassics Fire is a threat to the continued existence of the Red Lassic Population.

The Lassics Fire was not adequate to kill a significant number of trees or completely remove the litter layer in the encroaching forest on Mt. Lassic, and so it did little to improve habitat for Lassics lupine in the forest. The burning of the chaparral on the south side of Mt. Lassic appears to have lowered the abundance of small mammals in the forest and chaparral; however, seed predation sampling suggests that pre-dispersal seed predation risk for Lassics lupine remains high, and that caging mitigates this risk (D. Barton pers. comm. 2017). The burned areas of chaparral have resprouted, and the vegetation is returning.

Future fires in the Lassics could have both positive and negative effects on Lassics lupine. Fires that eliminate the encroaching forest and chaparral on Mt. Lassic would likely benefit Lassics lupine; however, fires that kill adult plants could have serious population-level effects on the species, particularly during periods of drought or other unfavorable conditions. The effects of fire on population levels could be exacerbated by Lassics lupine’s small population sizes, as described in the Vulnerability of Small Populations section of this Status Review.

The aftermath of the 2015 Lassics Fire is a threat to the ability of the Red Lassic Population of Lassics lupine to survive and reproduce. Future fires may also be a significant factor influencing Lassics lupine’s ability to survive and reproduce.

Recreational Use

Boulders were placed at access points near Forest Road 1S07 to block vehicle access to Lassics lupine populations in 2003. Off-highway vehicle use was precluded at both populations in 2004, and the area containing the Mt. Lassic Population was designated a wilderness in 2006. These efforts appear to have significantly reduced impacts to Lassics lupine from off- highway vehicle use; however, an all-terrain vehicle trespassed into Mt. Lassic Wilderness in 2016 or 2017, and illegal all-terrain vehicle trespass could occur again in the future.

Mt. Lassic is accessible to hikers, although foot traffic is relatively low. Trails were relocated away from Lassics lupine populations in 2004 to reduce pedestrian impacts to Lassics lupine. Off-trail cross country use of the area around Mt. Lassic still occurs, and Lassics lupine plants can be trampled by people in the area, particularly at the relatively flat saddle between Mt. Lassic Peaks 2 and 3.

Recreational use is considered to be a minor threat to individual Lassics lupine plants, but is not considered to be a significant threat to the ability of Lassics lupine to survive and reproduce.

REGULATORY AND LISTING STATUS

Federal

A petition to list Lassics lupine under the federal Endangered Species Act was received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on January 15, 2016. On September 14, 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing Lassics lupine may be warranted, and announced plans to initiate a review of the status of Lassics lupine to determine if listing is warranted. Lassics lupine is currently under review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but it is not listed.

Lassics lupine is designated a sensitive species by Six Rivers National Forest. As a result, management decisions by Six Rivers National Forest are not to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability (USDA 1997).

State

On February 24, 2017, the Commission published its Notice of Findings for Lassics lupine in the California Regulatory Notice Register, designating Lassics lupine a candidate species pursuant to CESA. The provisions of CESA apply to Lassics lupine while it is a candidate species (Fish & G. Code, § 2085). CESA prohibits the import, export, take, possession, purchase or sale of Lassics lupine, or any part or product of Lassics lupine, except in limited circumstances, such as through a permit or agreement issued by the Department under the authority of the Fish and Game Code (Fish & G. Code, § 2080). For example, the Department may issue permits that allow the incidental take of listed and candidate species if the take is minimized and fully mitigated, the activity will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and other conditions are met (Fish & G. Code, § 2081, subd. (b)). The Department may also authorize the take and possession of Lassics lupine for scientific, educational, or management purposes (Fish & G. Code, § 2081, subd. (a)).

Natural Heritage Program Ranking

All natural heritage programs, such as the CNDDB, use the same ranking methodology originally developed by The Nature Conservancy and now maintained by NatureServe (2012). This ranking methodology consists of a global rank describing the rank for a given taxon over its entire distribution, and a state rank describing the rank for the taxon over its state distribution. Both global and state ranks reflect a combination of rarity, threat, and trend factors. Lassics lupine has been assigned a global rank of G1 and a state rank of S1, indicating that the species is critically imperiled both within California and globally, with a very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often five or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors.

California Rare Plant Rank

Some plants in California are assigned a California Rare Plant Rank to identify them as species of conservation concern. The Department works in collaboration with the California Native Plant Society and botanical experts throughout the state to assign rare and endangered plants a California Rare Plant Rank reflective of their status. Lassics lupine has been assigned a California Rare Plant Rank of 1B.1. Plants with a California Rare Plant Rank of 1B are rare throughout their range with the majority of them endemic to California. Most of the plants that are ranked 1B have declined significantly over the last century. The threat code extension of “.1”

indicates that the species is seriously threatened in California, with over 80 percent of occurrences threatened or a high degree and immediacy of threat.

MANAGEMENT EFFORTS

Exclusion Caging

In response to the seed predation described in the Predation section of this Status Review, Six Rivers National Forest and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began placing seed predator and herbivore exclusion cages around flowering and fruiting Lassics lupine plants in 2003 (Kurkjian 2012, Six Rivers National Forest 2015) (see Figure 8, Photo 6). Approximately 20 wire mesh cages were used at the Red Lassic Population in 2003, and caging efforts were expanded to include approximately 60 cages at the Mt. Lassic Population in 2004 (Imper and Elkins 2016). Initial cage designs proved ineffective, and cages were redesigned in 2005. When properly installed, the cages are now capable of preventing all pre-dispersal seed predation by small mammals. Cages are placed around plants in the summer, and cages are removed after seeds are released and before winter snows. Caging efforts have continued every year since 2003, often aided by researchers and volunteers. After significant Lassics lupine population declines were observed in 2015 (see Figure 7), Six Rivers National Forest and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service caged as many reproductive individuals as possible in the summer of 2015 as a stop- gap measure to prevent further decline due to pre-dispersal seed predation and herbivory (Cate 2016). Seedlings have also been caged, as materials have allowed, to prevent herbivory and aid in recruitment. A number of additional cages were constructed and installed in 2017.

Without continued efforts to cage Lassics lupine plants, the population is projected to have a high probability of extinction within the next 50 years (Kurkjian 2012a, Kurkjian et al. 2016). Although the caging efforts are currently critical for preventing the extinction of Lassics lupine, creating and maintaining these cages is labor-intensive, requires funding, and may not be a practical long-term solution.

Exclusion caging and other current conservation measures for Lassics lupine occur at the discretion of the U.S. Forest Service. At the end of the 2012 season, caging was temporarily halted and cages were removed from the Lassics at the direction of the Six Rivers National Forest Supervisor, who cited concerns about compatibility with wilderness and a desire to not have caging used as a long-term strategy. This decision was changed and caging was allowed to resume prior to the 2013 growing season after a Lassics Lupine Conservation Strategy was drafted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service staff.

Population Expansion Attempts

Several attempts have been made to introduce Lassics lupine to new locations that are isolated from the existing populations. Locations for introduction efforts were selected based upon the results of soil analyses described in the Geology and Soils section of this Status Review. A total of 44 unscarified seeds were planted at four locations in 2005, and three of the four sites exhibited germination, but only one retained live plants after June 2007 (Imper 2012, Imper and Elkins 2016). The site that retained live plants was on the north side of Mt. Lassic Peak 1. A total of 310 unscarified seeds were planted at five locations in October 2012, and the cumulative germination rate for those sites ranged from 3-18 percent in June 2014. Of these five planting sites, the two sites that yielded the best germination and survival were the north side of Mt. Lassic Peak 1 (again), and Lower Mule Ridge, located approximately 2.9 kilometers (1.8 miles)

east of the Mt. Lassic Population. Additional seed was planted on the north side of Mt. Lassic Peak 1, and Lower Mule Ridge in November 2014. Plant survival for more than one year was negligible at all sites except for the north side of Mt. Lassic Peak 1. A colony of four reproductive plants, four juveniles, and three seedlings were present on the north side of Mt. Lassic Peak 1 in June 2014, as a result of the seeding efforts. The warm and largely snow-free winter of 2014- 2015 resulted in the loss of the reproductive plants at this colony; however, the north side of Mt. Lassic Peak 1 remains the most promising location for continued attempts to establish a new population of Lassics lupine. In 2015, 60 Lassics lupine seeds were planted on Mt. Lassic at several sites, and the experiment was repeated and expanded in 2017.

Lassics lupine seeds have also been used for off-site germination and propagation experiments. A germination study undertaken in 2007 resulted in high germination. Additional propagation experiments were conducted at Leach Botanical Garden and a local greenhouse with seeds collected in 2014 and 2015 (Guerrant 2007, Six Rivers National Forest 2015). Propagation attempts at Leach Botanical Garden were largely unsuccessful. Additional seeds were scarified and sowed experimentally in a private garden by Mr. John McRae, with initial positive results. In 2017, the University of California Botanical Garden at Berkeley received 50 Lassics lupine seeds collected in 2016, and will attempt to grow Lassics lupine plants.

Wilderness and Special Interest Area Designations

Both populations of Lassics lupine are within the Mad River Ranger District of Six Rivers National Forest. The Mt. Lassic Population is entirely within Mt. Lassic Wilderness, established in 2006. Both populations of Lassics lupine are also within the 1,473 hectare (3,640 acre) Lassics Botanical and Geologic Special Interest Area, a designation by Six Rivers National Forest. Special Interest Areas are established to protect unique ecological, botanical, cultural, and geologic features in national forests, and to promote public use, education, and enjoyment consistent with the values of each area (USDA 1998).

Conservation Seed Banking

Lassics lupine seeds collected in 2005 are stored in a conservation seed bank at the Rae Selling Berry Seed Bank in Portland, Oregon. Additional seeds collected in 2014 and 2015 were sent to the U.S. Forest Service National Seed Bank Lab in Dry Branch, Georgia for processing. From there the seeds were sent to the National Laboratory for Genetic Resource Preservation in Fort Collins, Colorado for long term storage.

Monitoring and Research

Demographic monitoring of Lassics lupine populations began in 2001 and is still being conducted. Information collected during demographic monitoring includes the number and location of plants in monitoring transects, size and stage class of plants (reproductive vegetative, seedling, or dead), number of flower clusters and seed pods, levels and sources of herbivory, and whether or not the plant has been caged. Scientific investigations into Lassics lupine genetics, pollination, population viability, soils, environmental requirements, seed predation, herbivory, fire history, vegetation communities, and nearby animal populations have also been conducted, and data are still being collected on environmental conditions, animal communities, germination, and propagation (Crawford and Ross 2003, Wilson and Hipkins 2004, Alexander 2008, Carothers 2008, Imper 2012, Kurkjian 2012a, Cate 2016, Kurkjian et al. 2016, Hutchinson 2017).

Draft Conservation Strategy

A draft conservation strategy for Lassics lupine has been prepared by Six Rivers National Forest and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but the strategy has not been finalized (Six Rivers National Forest 2015). The draft conservation strategy outlines goals and objectives, studies and management activities conducted to date, key actions that should be initiated or continued, management actions, an adaptive management process, and a proposed schedule of work. Management actions proposed in the draft conservation strategy include: (1) removing small- diameter conifer trees encroaching into and degrading Lassics lupine habitat at the Mt. Lassic Population, (2) thinning chaparral on the south side of Mt. Lassic, and (3) conservation seed banking and continued attempts to grow Lassics lupine in the wild and in captivity.

Impacts of Existing Management Efforts

The caging of reproductive Lassics lupine plants is a critical conservation action, and is likely responsible for preventing significant negative impacts to the Lassics lupine populations over the past 15 years and into the near future. Until a more lasting solution is implemented, continuation of the caging effort is critically important for the continued existence of the species.

Efforts to establish new populations of Lassics lupine have been largely unsuccessful, although the introduction site on the north side of Mt. Lassic Peak 1 is the most promising introduction site identified so far. Establishment of even one additional self-sustaining population of Lassics lupine would be an important step in reducing the risk of extinction. Therefore, while past efforts to establish a new population of Lassics lupine have been largely unsuccessful, they have provided important information for future introduction efforts.

The Special Interest Area designation provides a level of protection for Lassics lupine because Six Rivers National Forest is directed to manage the area with the protection of unique resources in mind. The wilderness designation protects the Mt. Lassic Population from most direct anthropogenic threats except for trampling from foot traffic and illegal off highway vehicle use, however the wilderness designation also makes it harder to implement management actions that are critical for preventing the extinction of Lassics lupine, such as removal of encroaching vegetation (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2006; Six Rivers National Forest 2012a, 2012b).

Conservation seed banking provides an emergency reservoir of genetic material and a last resort for propagation material if the species becomes extinct in the wild. The usefulness of conservation seed bank collections for preventing the extinction of plant species in the wild depends on the size and quality of the collection. Conservation seed bank collections for Lassics lupine should be from a diverse range of individuals in both populations, and collections should be stored separately along maternal lines in an appropriate facility (Guerrant et al. 2004). The collections should also be large enough to ensure that sufficient material will be available for propagation and reintroduction efforts in the future. It is unclear whether existing conservation collections of Lassics lupine seeds meet these standards.

Fortunately, Lassics lupine has been the subject of a number of scientific investigations. The ongoing Lassics lupine demographic monitoring dataset spans over 15 years, and has been the centerpiece for a number of important scientific insights regarding the species. The scientific knowledge of Lassics lupine is the foundation for conservation of the species.

The draft conservation strategy for Lassics lupine outlines measures that would help conserve the species, based on the best available science; however, it is unclear when or if the conservation strategy will be finalized or implemented.

SCIENTIFIC DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE STATUS OF LASSICS LUPINE IN CALIFORNIA

CESA directs the Department to prepare this report regarding the status of Lassics lupine based upon the best scientific information available to the Department (Fish & G. Code, § 2074.6). CESA’s implementing regulations identify key factors that are relevant to the Department’s analyses. Specifically, a “species shall be listed as endangered or threatened ... if the Commission determines that its continued existence is in serious danger or is threatened by any one or any combination of the following factors: 1. Present or threatened modification or destruction of its habitat; 2. Overexploitation; 3. Predation; 4. Competition; 5. Disease; or 6. Other natural occurrences or human-related activities.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (i)(1)(A)).

The definitions of endangered and threatened species in the Fish and Game Code provide key guidance to the Department’s scientific analyses. An endangered species under CESA is one “which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over exploitation, predation, competition, or disease” (Fish & G. Code, § 2062). A threatened species under CESA is one “that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management efforts required by [CESA]” (Id., § 2067). A species’ range for CESA purposes is the species’ California range (Cal. Forestry Assn. v. Cal. Fish and Game Com. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1535, 1551).

The preceding sections of this Status Review describe the best scientific information available to the Department, with respect to the key factors identified in the regulations. This section below considers the significance of any threat to the continued existence of Lassics lupine for each of the factors.

Present or Threatened Modification or Destruction of Habitat

Lassics lupine habitat is threatened by climate change and, has been impacted by the 2015 Lassics Fire (particularly at the Red Lassic Population). The Mt. Lassic Population is subject to ongoing habitat degradation and loss from forest encroachment. Lassics lupine faces a particularly severe threat from climate change because as the climate system warms, potentially suitable habitat is expected to shift upwards in elevation, and suitable habitat for Lassics lupine is expected to disappear. Many trees in the vicinity of the Red Lassic Population were killed by the 2015 Lassics Fire, including some of the large trees that provide canopy shading for the Red Lassic Population during hot summer afternoons. These trees, and the shade that they provide, appear to be critical for the Lassics lupine habitat at the Red Lassic Population. The aftermath of the 2015 Lassics Fire is therefore a serious threat to the continued existence of the Red Lassic Population. Aerial imagery clearly shows that the forest has become denser and has encroached into Lassics lupine habitat on Mt. Lassic since the 1930s, a likely result of historical fire suppression activities. Forest is less suitable for Lassics lupine survival and reproduction than the treeless upper terrace and north slope ecological settings. Approximately 0.8 to 1.2 hectares (2 to 3 acres) of habitat with soil that is suitable for Lassics lupine at the Mt. Lassic

Population has been encroached upon by forest, and forest encroachment is expected to continue into Lassics lupine habitat in the future. The Department considers degradation and loss of habitat to be a significant threat to the continued existence of Lassics lupine.

Overexploitation

The Department does not have any information on overexploitation affecting Lassics lupine. The Department does not consider overexploitation to be a significant threat to the continued existence of Lassics lupine.

Predation

Pre-dispersal seed predation by rodents has the potential to drive Lassics lupine to extinction, and post-dispersal seed predation and herbivory are also significant threats to the species. Deer mice, chipmunks, and California ground squirrels are the most abundant seed predators near Lassic lupine populations, and are responsible for most of the seed predation impacts on Lassics lupine. Lassics lupine plants closer to vegetation, particularly chaparral vegetation, appear to be at greatest risk from seed predation, and therefore encroaching vegetation is an important contributing factor to seed predation. The Department considers predation to be a significant threat to the continued existence of Lassics lupine.

Competition

Jeffrey pine and incense cedar forest trees, saplings, and seedlings compete with Lassics lupine for light and moisture, particularly in the encroaching forest on the north slope of Mt. Lassic. The Department considers competition with encroaching trees to be a significant threat to the continued existence of Lassics lupine.

Disease

The Department does not have any information on diseases or parasites affecting Lassics lupine. The Department does not consider disease or parasites to be a significant threat to the continued existence of Lassics lupine.

Other Natural Occurrences or Human-related Activities

The climate of California is certain to change due to warming of the global climate system. Climate change scenarios for northern California in the vicinity of the Lassics generally include similar annual precipitation levels, higher temperatures, and less snow pack. Lassics lupine is sensitive to climate extremes, and mortality appears to be highest when summer rainfall is low and summer temperatures are high, with these effects exacerbated by early snowmelt. Furthermore, as the climate system warms, potentially suitable habitat for mountaintop species such as Lassics lupine is expected to shift upwards in elevation, and suitable habitat may be reduced or disappear. Climate change is therefore expected to increase Lassics lupine mortality, and reduce or eliminate the amount of habitat that is suitable for the species.

Lassics lupine is also a narrowly distributed plant with only two populations and very low numbers of individuals (approximately 454 adult plants during 2017 monitoring). Lassics lupine’s rarity and extremely limited distribution make the species very vulnerable to stochastic (chance) events such as landslide, drought or fire, and to all other threats. The loss of all or a significant

portion of either Lassics lupine population would represent the loss of a significant portion of Lassics lupine’s total range.

The 2015 Lassics Fire killed many trees in the vicinity of the Red Lassic Population, including trees that provide canopy shading that is critical for the suitability of the habitat at this location for Lassics lupine. While these trees are still standing, they are leafless and at greater risk of falling over. The aftermath of the 2015 Lassics Fire is a threat to the ability of the Red Lassic Population of Lassics lupine to survive and reproduce.

Recreational use is considered to be a minor threat to individual Lassics lupine plants, but is not considered to be a significant threat to the ability of Lassics lupine to survive and reproduce.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Lassics lupine is a very rare species that is only known from two populations located in Six Rivers National Forest in northern California. The Mt. Lassic Population is on steep north-facing slopes and relatively flat mountaintop areas on Mt. Lassic. The very small Red Lassic Population is on a southwest-facing slope near Red Lassic, protected from excessively hot afternoon soil temperatures by the nearby tree canopy. Lassics lupine populations occur on several soil units related to serpentine and/or clastic sedimentary rocks. Approximately 454 adult Lassics lupine plants were counted during monitoring of the species in 2017.

Pre-dispersal seed predation by rodents, particularly deer mice, chipmunks, and California ground squirrels, has the potential to drive Lassics lupine to extinction and is the most immediate threat to the species. Post-dispersal seed predation and herbivory are also significant threats. An effort to put wire cages around flowering and fruiting plants to protect them from seed predation was initiated in 2003 and has continued into 2017.

Climate change scenarios for northern California in the vicinity of the Lassics generally include similar annual precipitation levels, higher temperatures, and less snow pack. Lassics lupine is sensitive to climate extremes, and mortality appears to be highest when summer rainfall is low and summer temperatures are high, with these effects exacerbated by early snowmelt. As the climate system warms, potentially suitable habitat for mountaintop species such as Lassics lupine is expected to shift upwards in elevation, and suitable habitat may be reduced or disappear. Climate change is therefore expected to increase Lassics lupine mortality, and reduce or eliminate the habitat that is suitable for the species.

Lassics lupine is also subject to ongoing habitat degradation and destruction from forest encroachment, a likely result of historical fire suppression. Encroaching forest is less suitable for Lassics lupine survival and reproduction than the treeless Lassics lupine habitat on Mt. Lassic. Approximately 0.8 to 1.2 hectares (2 to 3 acres) of habitat with soil that is suitable for Lassics lupine at the Mt. Lassic Population has been encroached upon by forest. Forest encroachment is expected to continue into Lassics lupine habitat.

The Lassics Fire in 2015 killed some of the trees providing canopy shading essential for the Red Lassic Population, but did not kill a significant number of trees in the encroaching forest on Mt. Lassic. The Lassics Fire burned chaparral that provides cover for small mammal seed predators on the south slope of Mt. Lassics. Small mammal abundance appears to have been reduced in the chaparral and forest after the 2015 Lassics Fire; however, the risk of seed predation on Lassics lupine continues to remain high. Lassics lupine’s rarity and extremely limited distribution

make the species very vulnerable to stochastic (chance) events such as landslide, drought, or fire, and to all other threats. The loss of all or a significant portion of either Lassics lupine population would represent the loss of a significant portion of Lassics lupine’s total range.

The information available to the Department regarding the status of Lassics lupine indicates that there are significant threats to the continued existence of the species.

RECOMMENDATION FOR PETITIONED ACTION

CESA directs the Department to prepare this report regarding the status of Lassics lupine in California based upon the best scientific information available to the Department (Fish & G. Code, § 2074.6). CESA also directs the Department to indicate in this Status Review whether the petitioned action is warranted (Fish & G. Code, § 2074.6; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (f)). The Department includes and makes its recommendation in this Status Review as submitted to the Commission in an advisory capacity based on the best available science. Based on the criteria described above, the best scientific information available to the Department indicates that Lassics lupine is in serious danger of becoming extinct in all or a significant portion of its range due to one or more causes including present or threatened degradation and loss of habitat, predation, competition, and other natural occurrences and human-related activities.

The Department recommends that the Commission find the petitioned action to list Lassics lupine as an endangered species to be warranted.

PROTECTION AFFORDED BY LISTING

It is the policy of the state to conserve, protect, restore and enhance any endangered or any threatened species and its habitat (Fish & G. Code, § 2052). If listed as an endangered or threatened species, unauthorized “take” of Lassics lupine will be prohibited, making the conservation, protection, and enhancement of the species and its habitat an issue of statewide concern. Under CESA, “take” is defined as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill (Id., § 86). Any person violating the take prohibition would be punishable under state law. The Fish and Game Code provides the Department with related authority to authorize “take” under certain circumstances (Id., §§ 2081, 2081.1, 2086, 2087, 2089.6, 2089.10 and 2835). As authorized through an incidental take permit, however, impacts of the taking on Lassics lupine caused by the activity must be minimized and fully mitigated according to state standards.

Additional protection of Lassics lupine following listing could also occur with required public agency environmental review under CEQA, and its federal counter-part, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQA and NEPA both require affected public agencies to analyze and disclose project-related environmental effects, including potentially significant impacts on endangered, rare, and threatened special status species. Under CEQA’s “substantive mandate,” for example, state and local agencies in California must avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects to the extent feasible. While both CEQA and NEPA would require analysis of potential impacts to Lassics lupine regardless of their listing status under CESA, the acts contain specific requirements for analyzing and mitigating impacts to listed species. In common practice, potential impacts to listed species are examined more closely in CEQA and NEPA documents than potential impacts to unlisted species. State listing,

in this respect, and required consultation with the Department during state and local agency environmental review under CEQA, may benefit the species. However, because Lassics lupine occurs entirely on land under federal jurisdiction, and only actions that require discretionary approval by a state or local agency trigger CEQA, it is unlikely that there will be CEQA environmental review related to actions affecting the species.

If Lassics lupine is listed under CESA, it may increase the likelihood that state and federal land and resource management agencies will allocate funds towards protection and recovery actions. It is the policy of the U.S. Forest Service to assist states in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species (USDA 2005). However, funding for species recovery and management is limited, and there is a growing list of threatened and endangered species. Six Rivers National Forest has stated that it will consider pursuing partnerships with the Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if Lassics lupine becomes listed under CESA (Appendix A).

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND RECOVERY MEASURES

CESA directs the Department in its Status Review to include recommended management activities and other recommendations for recovery of Lassics lupine (Fish & G. Code, § 2074.6; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (f)). Department staff generated the following list of recommended management actions and recovery measures based on considerations from federal agencies, researchers, non-profits, and interested parties. The following list is not a detailed conservation strategy for Lassics lupine; however, it outlines major components of a plan to prevent the extinction of the species. The Department recommends that the following actions be coordinated by the U.S. Forest Service as the primary land manager, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department, researchers, and other partners, consistent with the Forest Service Handbook, and California’s goals of preventing the extinction of rare, threatened, and endangered species.

 Continue to cage reproductive Lassics lupine plants with wire cages to reduce seed predation.  Finalize and implement the draft Lassics lupine conservation strategy (Six Rivers National Forest 2015).  Continue demographic monitoring of Lassics lupine populations.  Continue monitoring small mammal populations near Mt. Lassic.  Continue investigations into the relationship between vegetation and seed predation.  Conduct other research, as necessary, to inform future conservation actions.  Ensure there is at least one high quality collection of Lassics lupine seeds maintained at a qualified plant conservation institution. Collections should represent the range of variation in the Lassics lupine populations, and there should be a sufficient number of seeds in conservation storage to be used for reintroduction and propagation efforts in the future (Guerrant et al. 2004). The plant conservation institution used should allow seeds to be withdrawn from conservation storage for propagation and reintroduction purposes, as necessary.  Design and implement a research project to establish a self-sustaining population of Lassics lupine on the north slope of Mt. Lassic Peak 1 or other suitable habitat, including habitat previously occupied by the species. Such a project should involve propagating a large number of Lassics lupine seeds and plants off-site, and outplanting the seeds and plants over several years to establish a permanent population and soil seed bank.

 Design and implement a pilot project to remove encroaching forest vegetation from the north slope of Mt. Lassic, and evaluate the effectiveness of the project.  Design and implement a pilot project to remove chaparral vegetation from summit, and east and south slopes of Signal Peak (Mt. Lassic Peak 3), and evaluate the effectiveness of the project.  Implement a monitoring and adaptive management plan for Lassics lupine based on the results of the vegetation removal pilot projects. This management plan should identify the scope of vegetation treatment projects, propose a long-term schedule for repeated treatments, and include a process for the ongoing evaluation of results.  Conduct a follow-up population viability analysis with all demographic data collected thus far.

PUBLIC RESPONSE

Comments were invited in response to the Petition in a Department press release dated August 3, 2017, and distributed to media outlets in the vicinity of Humboldt County, and in a letter mailed to the principal land management agency for Lassics lupine, Six Rivers National Forest, on April 27, 2017. The Department received two e-mail messages in response to the press release, and six public comments on the Department’s Facebook page, which are included in Appendix A. The Department also received a letter from Six Rivers National Forest on July 10, 2017, which is also included in Appendix A.

PEER REVIEW

Independent experts familiar with the plants and animals of the Lassics were invited to review the Status Review report before submission to the Commission. All comments received are included in Appendix B. The Department’s response to the independent peer review is included in Appendix B. Independent experts that reviewed the Status Review are listed in Table 2, below.

Table 2. Status Review Peer Reviewers Name Affiliation Dr. Daniel C. Barton Humboldt State University Ms. Sydney Carothers independent Dr. Gary A. Falxa independent Dr. Erik S. Jules Humboldt State University Mr. John McRae Six Rivers National Forest

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Department would like to thank Dr. Daniel C. Barton, Ms. Sydney Carothers, Dr. Gary A. Falxa, Dr. Erik S. Jules and Mr. John McRae for providing scientific peer review for this Status Review.

LITERATURE CITED

The following sources were used during the preparation of this Status Review report:

Alexander, E.B., R.G. Coleman, T. Keeler-Wolf, and S. Harrison. 2007. Serpentine geoecology of western North America: geology, soils, and vegetation. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.

Alexander, E.B. 2008. A soil survey of serpentine landscapes in the Lassics area. Unpublished report submitted to Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, California.

Alexander, E.B. 2011. Serpentine soils and why they limit plant survival and growth. Fremontia 28/29:28-31.

Amacher, A.J., R.H. Barrett, J.J. Moghaddas, and S.L. Stephens. 2008. Preliminary effects of fire and mechanical fuel treatments on the abundance of small mammals in the mixed-conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada. Forest Ecology and Management 255:3193-3202.

Anderson, D.E., T.W. Nelson, and S. Dowty. 1972. Voucher Specimen of Lupinus constancei (collection #5602). Humboldt State University Herbarium. HSC32156.

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies USDI/USDA. 2006. Policies and guidelines for fish and wildlife management in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness (as amended June 2006).

Bailey, E.H., W.P. Irwin, and D.L. Jones. 1964. Franciscan and related rocks and their significance in the geology of western California (Vol. 183). California Division of Mines and Geology.

Baskin, C.C. and J.M. Baskin. 1998. Seeds: ecology, biogeography, and evolution of dormancy and germination. Academic Press. San Diego, California.

Bittman, R. 2001. The California Natural Diversity Database: A Natural Heritage Program for Rare Species and Vegetation. Fremontia 29:3-4.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016. Report to the Fish and Game Commission, Evaluation of the Petition from Mr. David Imper and Ms. Cynthia Elkins to List the Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei) as an Endangered Species under the California Endangered Species Act. 19 pp.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2017. Climate change vulnerability assessment for Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) using the Natureserve Climate Change Vulnerability Index. Release 3.02.

California Energy Commission. 2009a. Projections of potential flood regime changes in California. CEC-500-2009-050-D. March 2009. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California.

California Energy Commission. 2009b. The impact of climate change on California’s ecosystem services. CEC-500-2009-025-D. March 2009. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California.

Carothers, S. 2008. Lassics Lupine Vegetation Study. Prepared for: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2, California. 9 pp.

Carothers, S. 2013a. Brief Summary of monitoring results for 2012 field visits to Lupinus constancei (T.W. Nelson and J.P. Nelson) monitoring sites in the Lassics Botanical and Geologic Area. Unpublished document dated April 1, 2013, on file Six Rivers National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Eureka, California.

Carothers, S. 2013b. Brief Summary of monitoring results for 2013 field visits to Lupinus constancei (T.W. Nelson and J.P. Nelson) monitoring sites in the Lassics Botanical and Geologic Area. Unpublished document dated September 28, 2013, on file Six Rivers National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Eureka, California.

Carothers, S. 2017. Wildfire History in Lassics Lupine Habitat on the Six Rivers National Forest. Unpublished document dated April 30, 2017, on file Six Rivers National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Eureka, California.

Cate, E.B. 2016. Consumer movement among successional communities in relation to the rare, endemic plant Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei). A thesis presented to the faculty of Humboldt State University. Arcata, California. 74 pp.

Cayan, D.R., M. Tyree, M.D. Dettinger, H. León, G. Hugo, T. Das, E.P. Maurer, P. Bromirski, N. Graham, and R. Flick. 2009. Climate change scenarios and sea level rise estimates for California, 2008 Climate Change Scenarios Assessment. California Climate Change Center. CEC-500-2009-014-F.

CCH (Consortium of California Herbaria). 2017. Data Provided by the Participants of the Consortium of California Herbaria. Available online at: ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/. [Accessed April 12, 2017].

CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database). 2017. Rarefind 5 [Internet]. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. [Accessed August 4, 2017].

CNPS (California Native Plant Society) Rare Plant Program. 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (Online Edition, v8-03 0.39). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Available online at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. [Accessed June 23, 2017].

Cochrane, M. 2011. The Fate of Alpine Species in the Face of Climate Change: A Biogeographic Perspective. Macalester Reviews in Biogeography: Vol. 2, Article 1.

Converse, S. J., Block, W. M., and G. C. White. 2006a. Small mammal population and habitat responses to forest thinning and prescribed fire. Forest Ecology and Management 228:263-273.

Converse, S. J., White, G. C., and W. M. Block. 2006b. Small mammal responses to thinning and wildlife in ponderosa pine-dominated forests of the Southwestern United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1711-1722.

Cousins, S.A.O. and D. Vanhoenacker. 2011. Detection of Extinction Debt Depends on Scale and Specialization. Biological Conservation 144:782-787.

Dale, V.H., L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson, M.P. Ayres, M.D. Flannigan, P.J. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lugo, C.J. Peterson, D. Simberloff, F.J. Swanson, B.J. Stocks, and B. M. Wotton. 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances. BioScience 51:723-734.

Dangremond, E., E. Pardini, and T. Knight. 2010. Apparent competition with an invasive plant hastens the extinction of an endangered lupine. Ecology 91:2261-2271.

Dettinger, M. 2011. Climate change, atmospheric rivers, and floods in California: A multimodel analysis of storm frequency and magnitude changes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 47:514-523.

Dettinger, M.D., F.M. Ralph, T. Das, P.J. Neiman, and D.R. Cayan. 2011. Atmospheric rivers, floods, and the water resources of California. Water 3:445-478.

Ellstrand, N.C. and D.R. Elam. 1993. Population Genetic Consequences of Small Population Size: Implications for Plant Conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24:217- 242.

Girvetz, E.H., C. Zganjar, G.T. Raber, E.P. Maurer, P. Kareiva, and J.J. Lawler. 2009. Applied Climate-Change Analysis: The Climate Wizard Tool. PLoS ONE 4(12): e8320. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008320. [Accessed August 4, 2017].

Groom, M.J., Meffe, G.K., and C.R. Carroll. 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology, Third Edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Guardiola, M., J. Pino, and F. Rodá. 2013. Patch history and spatial scale modulate local plant extinction and extinction debt in habitat patches. Diversity and Distributions 19:825-833.

Guerrant, E.O., K. Havens, and M. Maunder, eds. 2004. Ex situ plant conservation: supporting species survival in the wild (Vol. 3). Appendices I-IV. Island Press. Washington D.C.

Guerrant, E.O. 2007. Propagation of Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei): Investigations into the need for seed scarification for germination and effects of soil inoculants on growth. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office, Arcata California.

Hanski, I. and O. Ovaskainen. 2002. Extinction debt at extinction threshold. Conservation Biology 3: 666.

Hayhoe, K., D. Cayan, C.B. Field, P.C. Frumhoff, E.P. Maurer, N.L. Miller, S.C. Moser, S.H. Schneider, K.N. Cahill, E.E. Cleland, L. Dale, R. Drapek, R.M. Hanemann, L.S. Kalkstein, J. Lenihan, C.K. Lunch, R.P. Neilson, S.C. Sheridan, and J.H. Verville. 2004. Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101:12422-12427.

Helm, A., I. Hanski, and M. Pärtel. 2006. Slow response of plant species richness to habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecology Letters 9:72-77.

Hutchinson, J.L. 2017. Lassics lupine working group meeting minutes. April 19, 2017. On file with United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office. 2 pp.

Imper, D. and C. Elkins. 2016. Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List the Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei) as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act.

IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

Jimerson, T.M., L.D. Hoover, E.A. McGee, G. DeNitto, and R.M. Creasy. 1995. A field guide to serpentine plant associations and sensitive plants in northwestern California. Technical Publication R5-ECOL-TP-006. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. San Francisco, California.

Jenkinson, J.L. 1990. Pinus jeffreyi Grev & Balf Jeffrey pine. In Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers. Agriculture Handbook 654. USDA, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 1:675.

Kaplan, T.A. 1984. The Lassic outlier, an outlier of Coast Range ophiolite, northern California. Franciscan Geology of Northern California. 14:203-219.

Keter, T.S. 1987 rev. 2015. Indian burning: managing the environment before 1865 along the North Fork. Paper presented to the Society for California Archeology. Fresno, California. http://solararch.org/ethnography.html. [Accessed October 10, 2017].

Kim, J., T. Kim, R.W. Arritt, and N.L. Miller. 2002. Impacts of increased CO2 on the hydroclimate of the western United States. Journal of Climate 15:1926-1942.

Knowles, N. and D.R. Cayan. 2002. Potential effects of global warming on the Sacramento/San Joaquin watershed and the San Francisco estuary. Geophysical Research Letters 29:38-1-38-4.

Krauss, J., R. Bommarco, M. Guardiola, R.K. Heikkinen, A. Helm, M. Kuussaari, R. Lindborg, E. Öckinger, M. Pärtel, J. Pino, J. Pöyry, K.M. Raatikainen, A. Sang, C. Stefanescu, T. Teder, M. Zobel, and I. Steffan-Dewenter. 2010. Habitat fragmentation causes immediate and time- delayed biodiversity loss at different trophic levels. Ecology Letters 13:597-605.

Kruckeberg, A.R. 1985. California serpentines: flora, vegetation, geology, soils, and management problems (Vol. 78). University of California Press. Berkeley, California. 196 pp.

Krueger, S.W. 1990. Tectonic evolution of Franciscan and related rocks in the Lassics Peaks region, northern California Coast Ranges. Ph.D Thesis. University of California, Berkeley. 226 pp.

Kurkjian, H.M. 2011. Seed predation study on Mount Lassic. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office, Arcata California. 6 pp.

Kurkjian, H.M. 2012a. A population viability analysis of the Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei). Thesis presented to the faculty of Humboldt State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in Biology, Arcata, California. 52 pp.

Kurkjian, H.M. 2012b. Lassics lupine seed production study, 2010-2011. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Field Office, Arcata California. 10 pp.

Kurkjian, H.M., S.K. Carothers, and E.S. Jules. 2016. Seed predation has the potential to drive a rare plant to extinction. Journal of Applied Ecology 54:862-871.

Kuussaari, M., R. Bommarco, R.K. Heikkinen, A. Helm, J. Krauss, R. Lindborg, E. Ockinger, M. Pärtel, J. Pino, F. Rodà, C. Stefanescu, T. Teder, M. Zobel, and I. Steffan-Dewenter. 2009. Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:564-71.

Lawrence G.E. 1966. Ecology of vertebrate animals in relation to chaparral fire in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Ecology 47:278-291.

Leung, L.R., Y. Qian, X. Bian, W.M. Washington, J. Han, and J.O. Roads. 2004. Mid-century ensemble regional climate change scenarios for the western United States. Climatic Change 62:75-113.

Lindborg, R. and O. Eriksson. 2004. Historical landscape connectivity affects present plant species diversity. Ecology 7:1840.

Masters, R.E., R.L. Lochmiller, S.T. McMurry, and G. A. Bukenhofer. 1998. Small mammal response to pine-grassland restoration for red-cockaded woodpeckers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:148-158.

McCormick, J. T. and S. J. Meiners. 2000. Season and distance from forest- old field edge affect seed predations by white-footed mice. Northeastern Naturalist 7:7-16.

Melillo, J. M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, Eds. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. 841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.

Menges, E.S. 1991. The application of minimum viable population theory to plants. pp. 45-61 in D.A Falk and K.E. Holsinger (eds.). Genetics and conservation of rare plants. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.

Miller, N.L., K.E. Bashford, and E. Strem. 2003. Potential impacts of climate change on California hydrology. Journal of American Water Resources Association 39:771-784.

Monamy, V. and B.J. Fox. 2000. Small mammal succession is determined by vegetation density rather than time elapsed since disturbance. Austral Ecology 25:580-587.

Munnecke, M. 2005. Rapid assessment reference condition model: R1PIJE, Jeffrey Pine. URL: https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/pdfs/PNVGs/California/R1PIJE.pdf. [Accessed August 30, 2017].

Myster, R.W. and S.T.A. Pickett. 1993. Effects of litter, distance, density and vegetation patch type on postdispersal tree seed predation in old fields. Oikos 66:381-388.

NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Methodology for Assigning Ranks. NatureServe Report Revised Edition June 2012. Available online at http://www.natureserve.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/natureserveconservationstatusme thodology_jun12_0.pdf. [Accessed August 4, 2017].

NatureServe. 2017. Climate Change Vulnerability Index. Release 3.02. Available online at http://www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/climate-change-vulnerability-index. [Accessed August 4, 2017].

Nelson, T.W. and J.P. Nelson. 1982. Voucher Specimen of Lupinus constancei (collection #7079). Humboldt State University Herbarium. HSC79474.

Nelson, T.W. and J.P. Nelson. 1983. Two new species of Leguminosae from serpentine of Humboldt County, California. Brittonia 35:180-183.

Notman, E., D. L. Gorchov, and F. Cornejo. 1996. Effect of distance, aggregation, and habitat on levels of seed predation for two mammal-dispersed neotropical rain forest tree species. Oecologia 106:221-227.

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37:637-669.

Parmesan, C. and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37-42.

Primack, R.B. 2006. Essentials of conservation biology, Fourth Edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

PRISM Climate Group. 2017. Oregon State University. Available online at: http://prism.oregonstate.edu. [Accessed July 31, 2017].

Rochefort, R.M., R. L. Little, A. Woodward, and D. L. Peterson. 1994. Changes in subalpine tree distribution in western North America: a review of climatic and other causal factors. The Holocene 4:89-100.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evans. 2009. A manual of California vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, California.

Shaffer, M.L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. Bioscience 31:131-134.

Shaffer, M.L. 1987. Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty. pp. 69-86 in M.E. Soule (ed.). Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Sholars, T. 2012. Lupinus. pp. 764-778 in Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, eds. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Six Rivers National Forest. 2012a. Forest Service manual direction, wilderness and other policies. Briefing statement submitted by the Forest Botanist to management, dated April 6, 2012. 4 pp.

Six Rivers National Forest. 2012b. Forest Service role and options for the Lassics Lupine. Position statement submitted by the Forest Botanist to management, dated April 6, 2012. 2 pp.

Six Rivers National Forest. 2015. Draft Conservation Strategy for the Lassics Lupine. Unpublished report dated December 18, 2015. 23 pp.

Snyder, M.A., J.L. Bell, and L.C. Sloan. 2002. Climate responses to doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide for a climatically vulnerable region. Geophysical Research Letters 29:9-1 to 9-4.

Snyder, M.A. and L.C. Sloan. 2005. Transient Future Climate over the Western U.S. using a Regional Climate Model. Earth Interactions 9:1.

Safford, H.D. and K.M. Van de Water. 2014. Using fire return interval departure (FRID) analysis to map spatial and temporal changes in fire frequency on national forest lands in California. Research Paper PSW-RP-266. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, California. 59 pp.

Stuart, J. D. and L. A. Salazar. 2000. Fire history of white fir forest in the coastal mountains of northwestern California. Northwest Science 79:280-285.

Tilman, D., R.M. May, C.L. Lehman, and M.A. Nowak. 1994. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371:65–66.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Forest Service Manual 2670. Sensitive species. http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsm?2600. [Accessed September 12, 2017].

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1998. Special interest area management strategy for Six Rivers National Forest. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. Version 1.0. 137 pp.

Vander Wall, S.B. 1993. Cache site selection by chipmunks (Tamias spp.) and its influence on the effectiveness of seed dispersal in Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi). Oecologia 96: 246-252.

Vanrheenen, N.T., A.W. Wood, R.N. Palmer, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2004. Potential implications of PCM climate change scenarios for Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin hydrology and water resources. Climate Change 62:257-281.

Vellend, M., K. Verheyen, H. Jacquemyn, A. Kolb, H. Van Calster, G. Peterken, and M. Hermy. 2006. Extinction debt of forest plants persists for more than a century following habitat fragmentation. Ecology 87:542-548.

Wenny, D.G. 2000. Seed dispersal, seed predation, and seedling recruitment of a neotropical montane tree. Ecological Monographs 70:331-351.

Wilson, B.L and V. Hipkins. 2004. Genetic variation in Lupinus constancei: Implication for seed transfer between colonies. Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Arcata Field Office, Arcata, California. 5 pp.

Xu, J., R.E. Grumbine, A. Shrestha, M. Eriksson, X. Yang, Y. Wang, and A. Wilkes. 2009. The melting Himalayas: cascading effects of climate change on water, biodiversity, and livelihoods. Conservation Biology 23:520-530.

Young B.E., E. Byers, G. Hammerson, A. Frances, L. Oliver, and A. Treher. 2015. Guidelines for using the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index Release 3.0. Arlington, Virginia.

Zwolak, R., D.E. Pearson, Y.K. Ortega, and E. E. Crone. 2010. Fire and mice: seed predation moderates fire’s influence on conifer recruitment. Ecology 91:1124-1131.

Personal Communication

E-mail message from Dr. Daniel Barton regarding 2017 small mammal monitoring results. August 3, 2017.

E-mail message from Sydney Carothers regarding monitoring methodology and 2017 monitoring results. August 8, 2017.

Peer Review of Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei) by Ms. Sydney Carothers. December 7, 2017. (Appendix B).

Peer Review of Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei) by Dr. Daniel Barton. December 7, 2017. (Appendix B).

Peer Review of Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei) by Dr. Gary Falxa. December 5, 2017. (Appendix B).

APPENDIX A: Comments from Affected and Interested Parties on the Petitioned Action

52 State of California – Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Habitat Conservation Planning Branch 1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 www.wildlife.ca.gov

April 27, 2017

Mr. Merv George Jr., Forest Supervisor United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Six Rivers National Forest 1330 Bayshore Way Eureka, California 95501

Dear Mr. George:

Petition to List the Lassics Lupine Under the California Endangered Species Act

The purpose of this letter is to (1) notify the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) of a petition to list the Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), (2) request any information the USFS has on Lassics lupine, and (3) provide the USFS an opportunity to submit comments on the petition.

On July 15, 2016, the State of California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) received a petition from Mr. David Imper and the Center for Biological Diversity to list the Lassics lupine as an endangered species pursuant to CESA (Fish & G. Code § 2050 et seq.). As required pursuant to Section 2073.5 of the Fish and Game Code, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prepared and submitted an initial petition evaluation report to the Commission that recommended there was sufficient scientific information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. On February 8, 2017, the Commission accepted the petition for consideration and designated the Lassics lupine a candidate species pursuant to CESA. CDFW is now in the process of preparing a peer-reviewed report on the status of the Lassics lupine that is due to the Commission by February 24, 2018.

There are two known populations of the Lassics lupine, both within Six Rivers National Forest. The largest population occurs on Mt. Lassic within Mt. Lassic Wilderness. A smaller population occurs on Red Lassic, approximately 300 feet outside of Mt. Lassic Wilderness. CDFW is particularly interested in receiving comments from USFS on the petition because USFS is the principal land manager for all populations of Lassics lupine.

The petition and CDFW’s initial petition evaluation report are available on the Commission’s website at: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/CESA/index.aspx#ll

Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

CDFW Seeks Information Related to Lassics Lupine | CDFW News https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2017/08/03/cdfw-seeks-information-rel...

CDFW News

ENDANGERED SPECIES, PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

CDFW Seeks Information Related to Lassics Lupine

AUGUST 3, 2017 | DANAMICHAELS2013 The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is seeking information relevant to a proposal to list the Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) as an endangered species.

There are two known populations of the Lassics lupine, both within Six Rivers National Forest. The largest population occurs on Mt. Lassic, within Mt. Lassic Wilderness in Humboldt County. A smaller population occurs on Red Lassic, which is in Trinity County and outside Mt. Lassic Wilderness.

In July 2016, a petition to formally list Lassics lupine as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act was submied to the California Fish and Game Commission. The listing petition described a variety of threats to the survival of Lassics lupine, including forest encroachment, small mammal seed predation, fire, climate change and off-road vehicles. The Commission followed CDFW’s recommendation and voted to advance the species to candidacy on Feb. 8, 2017. The Commission published findings

1 of 2 10/30/2017, 4:31 PM CDFW Seeks Information Related to Lassics Lupine | CDFW News https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2017/08/03/cdfw-seeks-information-rel...

of this decision on Feb. 24, 2017, triggering a 12-month period during which CDFW will conduct a status review to inform the Commission’s decision on whether to list the species.

As part of the status review process, CDFW is soliciting information from the public regarding Lassics lupine ecology, genetics, life history, distribution, abundance, habitat, the degree and immediacy of threats to reproduction or survival, adequacy of existing management and recommendations for management of the species. Comments, data and other information can be submied in writing to:

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Native Plant Program th 1416 Ninth Street, 12 Floor Sacramento, CA 95814

Comments may also be submied by email to [email protected] (mailto:native- [email protected]). If submiing comments by email, please include “Lassics Lupine” in the subject heading.

All comments received by Sept. 8, 2017 will be evaluated prior to submission of the CDFW report to the Commission. Receipt of the report will be placed on the agenda for the next available meeting of the Commission after delivery, and the report will be made available to the public at that time. Following receipt of the CDFW report, the Commission will allow a 30-day public comment period prior to taking any action on CDFW’s recommendation.

The listing petition and CDFW’s petition evaluation for Lassics lupine are available at www.fgc.ca.gov/CESA/index.aspx#ll (hp://www.fgc.ca.gov/CESA/index.aspx#ll).

####

Lassics lupine photo by Jeb Bjerke

Media Contacts: Jeb Bjerke (mailto:[email protected]), CDFW Native Plant Program, (916) 651-6594 Dana Michaels (mailto:[email protected]), CDFW Communications, (916) 322-2420

BOTANY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION CANDIDATE SPECIES CDFW DEADLINE ENDANGERED HABITAT CONSERVATION HUMBOLDT COUNTY LASSICS LUPINE LISTING MT. LASSIC PUBLIC COMMENTS RARE PLANT RED LASSIC TRINITY COUNTY

2 of 2 10/30/2017, 4:31 PM From: Mark Echavarria Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 8:54 PM To: Wildlife Native Plants Subject: Lassics Lupine

Hello , Mark Echavarria here, just a heads up, I recognize the plant, I've seen this plant in the Mojave Dessert ca. Along with hundreds different species of cattuse. From: Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 6:52 PM To: Wildlife Native Plants Subject: Lassics Lupine

With only 2 populations of this particular Lupine, I feel very strongly that they should be listed under the ESA. The Red Lupine being very rare no matter what type.

Norma Campbell

Nature uses as little as possible of anything. Man on the other hand uses as much as he can. Fully knowing he will have excess which he will waste.

Humans are the most territorial and destructive species on Earth.

APPENDIX B: Comments from Peer Reviewers on the Lassics Lupine Status Review Report

53 State of California – Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Habitat Conservation Planning Branch 1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 www.wildlife.ca.gov

November 7, 2017

Daniel C. Barton, Ph.D. Department of Wildlife Humboldt State University 1 Harpst Street Arcata, California 95521 [email protected]

Dear Dr. Barton:

Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei); California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Peer Review

Thank you for agreeing to serve as a scientific peer reviewer for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) Status Review of Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei) (Status Review). Please review the peer review draft of the Department’s Status Review, dated November 9, 2017, that is included with this letter. The Department seeks your expert analysis and input regarding the scientific validity of the Status Review and its assessment of the status of Lassics lupine in California. The Department would appreciate receiving your peer review comments on or before December 7, 2017.

The California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) received the petition to list Lassics lupine as an endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) on July 19, 2016. On February 24, 2017, the Commission published findings formally designating Lassics lupine a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered under CESA. Lassics lupine is currently protected under CESA in California in that capacity.

The Department seeks your scientific peer review as part of formal proceedings pending before the Commission under CESA. As you may know, the Commission is a constitutionally established entity distinct from the Department, exercising exclusive statutory authority under CESA to list species as endangered or threatened (Fish & G. Code, § 2070). The Department serves in an advisory capacity during CESA listing proceedings, charged by the Fish and Game Code to provide a report to the Commission based on the best scientific information available indicating whether the petition to list the species is warranted and recommending actions for recovery of the species (Fish & G. Code, § 2074.6).

The peer review draft of the Department’s Status Review forwarded to you today reflects the Department’s effort to identify and analyze the best scientific information

Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

Daniel C. Barton November 7, 2017 Page 3

Enclosures

ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Tina Bartlett, Acting Deputy Director Ecosystem Conservation Division [email protected]

Isabel Baer, Acting Program Manager Timberland Conservation and Native Plant Programs Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected]

Cherilyn Burton, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) Native Plant Program Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected]

Jeb Bjerke, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) Native Plant Program Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected]

Comments on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Peer Review Draft of the Status Review of Lassics Lupine, dated November 2017. Comments submitted by Daniel Barton, Humboldt State University, 12/5/2017.

Lines 8 and 9 on p. 12 – Could be useful to clarify that drought or lack of snow in 2014 and 2015 refers to winters of 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Lines 27 and 28 on p. 13 – At least 3 individually marked plants that germinated in 2016 also bloomed in 2017 in the main (i.e. Mt. Lassic) population – directly observed because of the seedling herbivory experiment (by me).

Lines 50 and 51 on p.13 – Not sure if it’s necessary given the more detailed description later, but small mammals consume fruits and pre-dispersal seeds, in addition to mature seeds.

Line 22 on p. 17 – “encroached up” is somewhat awkward use of verb, maybe “expanded distribution upslope”?

Lines 3-6 on p. 22 – I would suggest rephrasing this interpretation to clarify that in Kirkjian et al.’s population viability analysis (PVA):

1) Population growth was most sensitive to changes in survival and growth rates of the reproductive class, yet despite this, reductions in predispersal seed predation via the management action of caging – even though this is manipulation of a vital rate with a lower effect on population growth – had a major effect on stochastic growth rate and population viability. 2) This PVA was conducted with data collected before the 2015 Lassics Fire, and used starting population sizes larger than the current population sizes. The fire may have substantially reduced population viability and increased the susceptibility of the population to extinction due to environmental stochasticity, since the starting population size is simply smaller now. 3) The fire may have altered the vital rates of the population that were estimated from pre-fire data and used in the PVA, and it not clear how.

Line 4 on p. 24 – I think it might be useful to describe the snap pea experiment as a “surrogate” approach, to explain the use of snap peas (rather than Lassics lupine).

Line 12 on p. 24 – This experiment was conducted pre-fire (2015) and repeated post-fire (2016), with similar results (Barton pers. comm) suggesting that the 2015 Lassic Fire did not alter spatial patterns of pre-dispersal seed predation risk at Mt. Lassic.

Lines 19-20 on p. 24 – Suggest rephrasing or use of commas for clarity in this passage.

Lines 11-17 on p. 25 – Unidentified grasshoppers were observed consuming small portions of a Lassics lupine fruit in camera trap photos taken in 2014 and 2015 (once each year).

Lines 47-49 on p. 28 – It was a systematic sample but a small one. Further, two uncaged plants were observed via camera trap as the victims of folivory and/or seed predation by California Ground Squirrel in 2017.

General comments: The document is well-written, well-referenced, and accurately represents my knowledge of the status of and threats to Lassics lupine population viability and extinction risk. 2015 Photo repeats – all initial photos taken in 2014, all repeats taken 10/3/2015 post-Lassic fire on visit to Mt. Lassic by D. Barton and G. Falxa, photos by D. Barton 2014 and 2015, Canon 40D w/ 17-40 mm f/4L lens, original RAW images matched to similar exposures in processing 1: saddle looking west towards Signal Peak 2: Signal Peak looking northeast towards Black Lassic 3: Signal Peak looking southeast towards Red Lassic 4: New trail, looking downhill and southwest over chaparral patch 5: New trail, looking southeast towards Red Lassic over chaparral patch 6: Black Lassic viewed from Signal Peak 7: Signal Peak looking northwest over old trail towards fir stand 8: Signal Peak looking west over top of chaparral patch and towards fir stand

Peer Review Comments from Dr. Daniel Barton on Lassics Lupine Status Review and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Responses

Page Line Reviewer Comment Department Response N/A N/A Please find attached my comments on the November Photos provided by Dr. Barton have been included in this 2017 CDFW Lassics Lupine Status Review. I have also appendix (Appendix B), and are referenced in the Fire attached a document that contains before (fall 2014) section of the Status Review. and after (fall 2015) photo repeats from the Mt. Lassic site, which may be useful for relating the effects of the 2015 Lassics Fire on vegetation communities at the site.

Overall, I found the status review well-written, well- referenced, and to be an accurate representation of what I know about the current status and conservation threats of Lassics lupine. My comments in the attached document are suggestions that I hope improve the status review further. 12 8, 9 Could be useful to clarify that drought or lack of snow in Text updated for clarification 2014 and 2015 refers to winters of 2013-14 and 2014- 15. 13 27, 28 At least 3 individually marked plants that Text updated germinated in 2016 also bloomed in 2017 in the main (i.e. Mt. Lassic) population – directly observed because of the seedling herbivory experiment (by me). 13 50, 51 Not sure if it’s necessary given the more detailed Text updated to indicate that small mammals also description later, but small mammals consume fruits and consume both fruits and pre dispersal seeds. pre-dispersal seeds, in addition to mature seeds. 17 22 “encroached up” is somewhat awkward use of verb, Text updated maybe “expanded distribution upslope”? Page Line Reviewer Comment Department Response 22 3-6 I would suggest rephrasing this interpretation to clarify Paragraph rephrased and divided into two paragraphs to that in Kirkjian et al.’s population viability analysis (PVA): incorporate Dr. Barton’s comment. Some of the 1) Population growth was most sensitive to changes in comment language has been paraphrased. survival and growth rates of the reproductive class, yet despite this, reductions in predispersal seed predation via the management action of caging – even though this is manipulation of a vital rate with a lower effect on population growth – had a major effect on stochastic growth rate and population viability. 2) This PVA was conducted with data collected before the 2015 Lassics Fire, and used starting population sizes larger than the current population sizes. The fire may have substantially reduced population viability and increased the susceptibility of the population to extinction due to environmental stochasticity, since the starting population size is simply smaller now. 3) The fire may have altered the vital rates of the population that were estimated from pre-fire data and used in the PVA, and it not clear how. 24 4 I think it might be useful to describe the snap pea Text updated to include the word surrogate. experiment as a “surrogate” approach, to explain the use of snap peas (rather than Lassics lupine). 24 12 This experiment was conducted pre-fire (2015) and Text updated for clarification repeated post-fire (2016), with similar results (Barton pers. comm) suggesting that the 2015 Lassic Fire did not alter spatial patterns of pre-dispersal seed predation risk at Mt. Lassic. 24 19-20 Suggest rephrasing or use of commas for clarity in this Commas added passage. 25 11-17 Unidentified grasshoppers were observed consuming Text updated to include observations small portions of a Lassics lupine fruit in camera trap photos taken in 2014 and 2015 (once each year) Page Line Reviewer Comment Department Response 28 47-49 It was a systematic sample but a small one. Further, two Text updated for clarification uncaged plants were observed via camera trap as the victims of folivory and/or seed predation by California Ground Squirrel in 2017 General The document is well-written, well-referenced, and No response needed accurately represents my knowledge of the status of and threats to Lassics lupine population viability and extinction risk.

State of California – Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Habitat Conservation Planning Branch 1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 www.wildlife.ca.gov

November 7, 2017

Ms. Sydney Carothers

Dear Ms. Carothers:

Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei); California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Peer Review

The peer review draft of the Department’s Status Review forwarded to you today reflects the Department’s effort to identify and analyze the best scientific information available regarding the status of Lassics lupine in California. At this time, the Department believes that the best available science indicates that listing the species as

Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

Sydney Carothers November 7, 2017 Page 3

ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Tina Bartlett, Acting Deputy Director Ecosystem Conservation Division [email protected]

Isabel Baer, Acting Program Manager Timberland Conservation and Native Plant Programs Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected]

Cherilyn Burton, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) Native Plant Program Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected]

Jeb Bjerke, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) Native Plant Program Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected] Peer Review Comments on Status Review of Lassics Lupine Sydney Carothers 12/6/2017

Peer Review of Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei)

Pg. (line) Comments (strikethrough = suggested deletion; green highlight = suggested addition; *= comment)

4 (15) on a south-facing slope near of...Red Lassic

4 (16) ...Mt. Lassic, and in

4 (17) ...near the top of on Mount Lassic and nearby areas its adjoining peak.

4 (19) ...suitable habitat in the Lassics based on extensive surveys within the Lassics range.

4 (20) Anecdotal observations Quantitative monitoring of Lassics lupine populations began in 2001 after ) anecdotal observations of severe population declines and of the absence of plants in previously occupied areas 4 (21) led to annual quantitative monitoring of Lassics lupine, initiated in 2001. *(While there were sites mapped elsewhere in the Lassics on old maps hand-transcribed from 15" quad maps to 7.5"quad maps, plants have never been located in modern visits to these sites; likely they were mapping errors)

4 (30) seeds by small mammals such as chipmunks and field mice and consumption of vegetation and flowering stems by large mammals such as deer, rabbits, and ground squirrels.

6 (14) Reproductive plants may reach a diameter of approximately 30 centimeters (average 18 cm)

6 (38) shaggy-hairy and produce 1-5 multicolored tan seeds (average 2 per pod). *(based on 7-year seed production study undertaken in 2010 & 2011 by Kurkjian and continued 2012-2016 by Carothers)

8 (46) kilometers to the southeast, near on Red Lassic.

13 (27) Of the Lassic lupine plants seeds that germinated naturally in 2016 after a 2015 fire consumed all adults at the 13 (28) Red Lassic Population in 2016 reproduced , 73% reproduced in the 2017 growing season (Carothers 2017), ...

14 (32) ...is on a crest midslope of a the southwest-facing slope of the peak. with It has an overstory of Jeffrey pine... *(crest alone sounds like the top of the peak) 14 (33) * in fact here Jeffrey pines were mostly killed/injured by the 2015 fire; protective value may have decreased. 14 (36) ...retains a relatively high amount of soil moisture late into the summer. *(which drains downslope to the population and may provide summer moisture) 14 (38) *Leaf (needle) litter since 2015 is primarily dead needles from dying/ailing Jeffrey pines. Prior to the fire, litter mainly consisted of piles of cone scales directly under the trees from cones dismantled by squirrels collecting pine seed, but this was (still is) a very exposed site.

14 (42) Optimum habitat...appears to be the areas with flat...

14 (43) moderate slopes that have little to no tree overstory

15 (Fig 5) *The Red Lassic figure looks a little askew to me; in reality lupines are lower than the depression/pond and partially under canopy of a few large trees at northeast (upper) edge of the population.

Peer Review Comments on Status Review of Lassics Lupine Sydney Carothers 12/6/2017

16 (31) ...Pinus jeffreyi-Calocedrus decurrens/Ceanothus pumilus *C. pumilus is not in the Lassics. Maybe P. jeffreyi/Quercus vaccinifolia?

16 (43) ...prostrate buckbrush (Ceanothus prostratus) *Not in Lassics. oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), 16 (44) ... sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) (crossed-out taxa are not IN lupine habitat) 16 (45) Oregon oak (Quercus garryana var. breweri) ... 16 (49) ... Tracy's collomia (Collomia tracyi), Greene's buckwheat (Eriogonum strictum var. greenei), 17 (1) naked buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum), Siskiyou fritillary (Fritillaria glauca), Scarlet fritillary (Fritillaria recurva), 17 (3) (Minuartia nuttallii var gregaria), naked broomrape (Orobanche uniflora), ...white-veined 17 (4) wintergreen (Pyrola picta), pale yellow stonecrop (Sedum laxum ssp. flavidum), and mountain jewelflower 17 (5) (Streptanthus tortuosus),and mountain violet (Viola purpurea).

20 (3) *Only anecdotal observations from 2015 support this, but mortality on these steep slopes appeared high over winter due to rain storms causing rill erosion on the steep slopes of the saddle and Mt. Lassic north slope. Many plants that would normally have been protected by snow cover likely were washed out (we found several excavated adults) and/or buried by running water/gravels.

20 (7,8) *See comments on 4 (20, 21)

20 (13) in 2002 and includes many most plants in the saddle...

20 (14) ...and includes some all of the plants on the lower forested north slope.

25 (9) *Is predation the correct term here? post-dispersal foraging?

25 (44) ...Furthermore, the topographic isolation...

26 (34) ...and chaparral have become more dense and have encroached

26 (36) ...provide a strong basis to make draw conclusions.

29 (8) ...are relatively barren

29 (23) ...distribution and the only two populations

29 (26) ...due to stochastic (chance),

29 (45) ...genetically very genetically similar

31 (4) *There was an exponential increase in numbers of seedlings in 2016 after a relatively wet winter, which resulted in the large numbers of adults in 2017 (most of these from 2016 seedlings on Mt. Lassic, all adults from 2016 seedlings on Red Lassic; i.e. from the seed bank). The explosion of seedlings and their high survival rate may be attributable to precipitation, winter 2016 snowpack (albeit relatively brief), and nutrient flush from the fire.

31 (28) *and shrubs are resprouting

32 (1) *but off-trail cross county use still occurs

Peer Review Comments on Status Review of Lassics Lupine Sydney Carothers 12/6/2017

32 (24-30) *Even on federal lands?

34 (8) Lassic Peak 1 is remains the most promising location

34 (9-10) *? First I've heard of it...with what results?

34 (13) A germination study occurred undertaken in 2007 resulted in high germination and. Additional propagation...

34 (14) Garden using unscarified seeds have been were largely unsuccessful. The local experiment using scarified seed resulted in high germination and three reproductive plants the first year (add McRae 2016).

34 (16) ,and an additional 800 Lassics lupine seeds were collected in 2016 (Hutchinson 2017). *The ~800 seeds collected in 2016 were from a seed production study, not collected specifically for dissemination to experiments or seed banks. Some of these seeds were sown in 2017 at the sites from which they were collected.

34 (17) Berkeley agreed to receive 75 Lassics lupine seeds collected in 2016, and will attempt...

34 (21) *To be consistent with the heading, put the Wilderness sentence first.

36 (32) ...habitat is threatened by climate change

38 (14) ...The Mt. Lassic population is on steep north-facing

38 (25) them from extreme seed predation...

39-41 *I concur.

Peer Review Comments from Ms. Sydney Carothers on Lassics Lupine Status Review and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Responses

Page Line Reviewer Comment Department Response N/A N/A I am attaching my comments for what they're worth. As No response needed stated at the top of the list, suggested deletions were struck through, suggested additions were highlighted green, and comments I had that may be meaningful or not are asterisked. Any questions, please ask. All in all this is an impressive document and I concur with your summary and recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to review the report. 4 15 on a south-facing slope near of...Red Lassic Text updated 4 16 ...Mt. Lassic, and in Text updated 4 17 ...near the top of on Mount Lassic and nearby areas its Text updated adjoining peak. 4 19 ...suitable habitat in the Lassics based on extensive Text updated surveys within the Lassics range. 4 20-21 Anecdotal observations Quantitative monitoring of Text updated Lassics lupine populations began in 2001 after )anecdotal observations of severe population declines and of the absence of plants in previously occupied areas led to annual quantitative monitoring of Lassics lupine, initiated in 2001. *(While there were sites mapped elsewhere in the Lassics on old maps hand-transcribed from 15" quad maps to 7.5"quad maps, plants have never been located in modern visits to these sites; likely they were mapping errors) 4 30 seeds by small mammals such as chipmunks and field Text updated to list consumption of vegetation and flowers by mice and consumption of vegetation and flowering stems animals (herbivory) as a significant threat farther down in the by large mammals such as deer, rabbits, and ground paragraph. The list of animals contributing to herbivory of squirrels. Lassics lupine was not included in the executive summary so the summary would not exceed one page in length. 6 14 Reproductive plants may reach a diameter of Text updated approximately 30 centimeters (average 18 cm) Page Line Reviewer Comment Department Response 6 38 shaggy-hairy and produce 1-5 multicolored tan seeds Text updated (average 2 per pod). *(based on 7-year seed production study undertaken in 2010 & 2011 by Kurkjian and continued 2012-2016 by Carothers) 8 46 kilometers to the southeast, near on Red Lassic. Text updated 13 27 Of the Lassic lupine plants seeds that germinated Text updated in response to this comment and comments from naturally in 2016 after a 2015 fire consumed all adults at other peer reviewers the 13 28 Red Lassic Population in 2016 reproduced , 73% Text updated reproduced in the 2017 growing season (Carothers 2017), ... 14 32 ...is on a crest midslope of a the southwest-facing slope of Text updated the peak. with It has an overstory of Jeffrey pine... *(crest alone sounds like the top of the peak) 14 33 * in fact here Jeffrey pines were mostly Sentence added to explain that most of the Jeffrey pine that killed/injured by the 2015 fire; protective value protects the population was killed or injured by the 2015 Lassics may have decreased. Fire. 14 36 ...retains a relatively high amount of soil moisture late Text updated into the summer. *(which drains downslope to the population and may provide summer moisture) 14 38 *Leaf (needle) litter since 2015 is primarily dead needles Text updated with a more detailed description of litter at the from dying/ailing Jeffrey pines. Prior to the fire, litter Red Lassic Population. mainly consisted of piles of cone scales directly under the trees from cones dismantled by squirrels collecting pine seed, but this was (still is) a very exposed site. 14 42 Optimum habitat...appears to be the areas with flat... Text updated 14 43 moderate slopes that have little to no tree overstory Text updated 15 Figure 5 *The Red Lassic figure looks a little askew to me; in Figure updated to show Lassic lupine plants farther down the reality lupines are lower than the depression/pond and slope, and an illustration of a tree was added at the crest of the partially under canopy of a few large trees at northeast slope. (upper) edge of the population. Page Line Reviewer Comment Department Response 16 31 ...Pinus jeffreyi-Calocedrus decurrens/Ceanothus pumilus Text updated to remove mention of the Pinus jeffreyi- *C. pumilus is not in the Lassics. Maybe P. Calocedrus decurrens/Ceanothus pumilus association. jeffreyi/Quercus vaccinifolia? 16 43 ...prostrate buckbrush (Ceanothus prostratus) *Not in Text updated Lassics. oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), 16 44 ... sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) (crossed-out taxa are Text updated not IN lupine habitat) 16 45 Oregon oak (Quercus garryana var. breweri) ... Text updated 16 49 ... Tracy's collomia (Collomia tracyi), Greene's buckwheat Text updated (Eriogonum strictum var. greenei), 17 1 naked buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum), Siskiyou fritillary Text updated (Fritillaria glauca), Scarlet fritillary (Fritillaria recurva), 17 3-5 (Minuartia nuttallii var gregaria), naked broomrape Text updated (Orobanche uniflora), ...white-veined wintergreen (Pyrola picta), pale yellow stonecrop (Sedum laxum ssp. flavidum), and mountain jewelflower (Streptanthus tortuosus),and mountain violet (Viola purpurea). 20 3 *Only anecdotal observations from 2015 support this, Text updated to include a tentative statement about possible but mortality on these steep slopes appeared high over negative effects from rill erosion and sediment deposition. winter due to rain storms causing rill erosion on the steep slopes of the saddle and Mt. Lassic north slope. Many plants that would normally have been protected by snow cover likely were washed out (we found several excavated adults) and/or buried by running water/gravels. 20 7, 8 *See comments on 4 (20, 21) Text updated 20 13 in 2002 and includes many most plants in the saddle... Text updated 20 14 ...and includes some all of the plants on the lower Text updated forested north slope. 25 9 *Is predation the correct term here? post-dispersal Text updated foraging? 25 44 ...Furthermore, the topographic isolation... Text updated Page Line Reviewer Comment Department Response 26 34 ...and chaparral have become more dense and have Text updated encroached 26 36 ...provide a strong basis to make draw conclusions. Text updated 29 8 ...are relatively barren Text updated 29 23 ...distribution and the only two populations Text updated 29 26 ...due to stochastic (chance), Text updated 29 45 ...genetically very genetically similar Text updated 31 4 *There was an exponential increase in numbers of Text updated to incorporate suggestion seedlings in 2016 after a relatively wet winter, which resulted in the large numbers of adults in 2017 (most of these from 2016 seedlings on Mt. Lassic, all adults from 2016 seedlings on Red Lassic; i.e. from the seed bank). The explosion of seedlings and their high survival rate may be attributable to precipitation, winter 2016 snowpack (albeit relatively brief), and nutrient flush from the fire. 31 28 *and shrubs are resprouting Text updated 32 1 *but off-trail cross county use still occurs Text updated 32 24-30 *Even on federal lands? The provisions of the California Endangered Species Act apply to the actions of individuals and other entities under the authority of California law. No change needed. 34 8 Lassic Peak 1 is remains the most promising location Text updated 34 9-10 *? First I've heard of it...with what results? Clarified this comment with Ms. Carothers. Text updated. 34 13 A germination study occurred undertaken in 2007 Text updated resulted in high germination and. Additional propagation... 34 14 Garden using unscarified seeds have been were largely Clarified this comment with Ms. Carothers. Text updated. unsuccessful. The local experiment using scarified seed resulted in high germination and three reproductive plants the first year (add McRae 2016). Page Line Reviewer Comment Department Response 34 16 ,and an additional 800 Lassics lupine seeds were Text updated. collected in 2016 (Hutchinson 2017). *The ~800 seeds collected in 2016 were from a seed production study, not collected specifically for dissemination to experiments or seed banks. Some of these seeds were sown in 2017 at the sites from which they were collected. 34 17 Berkeley agreed to receive 75 Lassics lupine seeds Text updated collected in 2016, and will attempt... 34 21 *To be consistent with the heading, put the Wilderness Text updated sentence first. 36 32 ...habitat is threatened by climate change Text updated 38 14 ...The Mt. Lassic population is on steep north-facing Text updated 38 25 them from extreme seed predation... Text updated 39-41 *I concur. No response needed

Gary A. Falxa, Ph.D.

Dear Dr. Falxa:

Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei); California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Peer Review

Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

Gary A. Falxa, Ph.D. November 7, 2017 Page 3

ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Tina Bartlett, Acting Deputy Director Ecosystem Conservation Division [email protected]

Isabel Baer, Acting Program Manager Timberland Conservation and Native Plant Programs Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected]

Cherilyn Burton, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) Native Plant Program Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected]

Jeb Bjerke, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) Native Plant Program Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected] Gary A. Falxa, PhD

To: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch (Attn: Mr. Jeb Bjerke) From: Gary Falxa Subject: Peer review of Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei) Date: 5 December, 2017

Dear Mr. Bjerke and California Department of Fish and Wildlife,

I have reviewed your Department's "Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei)" (Status Review), provided to me in early November. Below, I provide specific detailed comments, which are relatively minor. I found the Status Review to contain and use the best available scientific information, and to represent a thorough, scientifically-valid assessment of the status of the Lassics Lupine with respect to the different population and life history categories addressed by the Status Review. I concur with the finding of the Status Review that listing the species as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act is warranted. The information provided in the review supports the finding that the species is at serious risk of becoming extinct in the foreseeable future due to multiple threats, including climate change (warming temperatures, reduced snowpack), habitat degradation associated with forest and shrub vegetation encroaching into lupine habitat, pre-dispersal seed predation by small mammals, and risks associated with small populations. The findings of the Status Review are also consistent with my own observations of the species, which are based on my work on Lassics Lupine conservation, which focused on its potential seed predators, and included multiple annual field trips since 2005 to monitor small mammal populations in and near the main lupine population on Mount Lassic.

Specific Comments:

Page 4, line 29: Suggest specifying (and defining) "pre-dispersal seed predation" (removal of seeds while still attached to the parent plant) as the most immediate threat. Also define herbivory, to clarify if herbivory as used here refers to consumption of lupine foliage or flowers, or includes pre- dispersal seed predation. Consumption of lupine foliage and flowers occurs, as it does for many plant species. However, I am not aware of information that indicates it to be a threat to the lupine at the population level, at a magnitude comparable to that posed by seed predation, or, in my opinion, by climate change. If such herbivory is included here, the limited information I am aware of suggests that mule deer, black-tailed jackrabbits, and California ground squirrels may be the primary herbivores, rather than deer mice or chipmunks.

Page 8, line 22: Suggest stating that the Special Interest Area is a designation by the Six Rivers National Forest.

Page 14, line 42: It might be more accurate to state that the Upper Terrace currently appears to be optimal (or higher-quality) habitat. Habitat suitability at different sites appears to be changing and dynamic. When I began field work at Mt Lassic in 2005, the Saddle and North Slope areas supported the greatest number of, and most robust, lupine plants.

Page 15, Figure 5: The figures are helpful in understanding the different ecological settings. It might be helpful to also include a map or aerial photo showing the different occupied habitats on Mt. Lassic (Upper Terrace, Saddle/North Slope, Forest/Swale).

Page 20, line 3: I wonder if reduced snowfall and snowpack may be equally important as the date of snowmelt. Potential benefits of greater snow cover include reduced desiccation of of overwintering lupines and greater infiltration into soils, compared to precipitation as rainfall.

Page 20, Population Trends: I believe that David Imper has documented a substantial range contraction of lupines from the southern end of the Saddle over the past 5-plus years. If this information is available, it could be worth noting in the document, as this coincided with the multiyear drought.

Page 21, Figure 6: Suggest defining "adult" plants in the legend or text of the Status Review.

Page 22, lines 13 and 16: Suggest specifying "pre-dispersal" seed predation.

Page 24, line 17: If this statement represents the results of small mammal monitoring that others and I have conducted, I would characterize it as "Based on data from 18 years of monitoring small mammals using live traps, small mammals are generally most abundant in the chaparral habitat, followed by the open serpentine (lupine) habitat, with lowest abundance in forest habitat." I can provide supporting data, if needed.

Page 24, line 37-42: In my opinion, the support is weak for these correlative relationships representing cause and effect relationships. Also, I believe that the correlations reported by Imper in 2012 between rodent abundance and weather factors are weaker with the addition of more years of data.

Page 24, line 45: Kurkjian looked at pre-dispersal seed predation.

Page 33, line33-34: As a regulatory consideration, caging and other current conservation measures occur at the discretion of US Forest Service management. At the end of the 2012 season, caging was temporarily halted and cages (exclosures) were removed from the Lassics at the direction of the Forest Supervisor of Six Rivers National Forest, who cited concerns about compatibility with wilderness status and a desire to not have exclosures used as a long-term strategy. This decision was changed and caging allowed to resume prior to the 2013 growing season, upon drafting of a Lassics Lupine Conservation Strategy by US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Forest Service staff.

Page 36, line 32: "change" not "chang"

Page 40, line 46: There may also be value in removing chaparral vegetation from the peak and east slopes of Mount Lassic (Signal Peak), which were not burned in the 2015 fire. Chaparral in these areas remains in close proximity to occupied lupine habitat, notably the Upper Terrace.

2 Peer Review Comments from Dr. Gary Falxa on Lassics Lupine Status Review and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Responses

Page Line Reviewer Comment Department Response N/A N/A I have reviewed your Department's "Status Review of Lassics No response needed Lupine (Lupinus constancei)" (Status Review), provided to me in early November. Below, I provide specific detailed comments, which are relatively minor. I found the Status Review to contain and use the best available scientific information, and to represent a thorough, scientifically-valid assessment of the status of the Lassics Lupine with respect to the different population and life history categories addressed by the Status Review. I concur with the finding of the Status Review that listing the species as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act is warranted. The information provided in the review supports the finding that the species is at serious risk of becoming extinct in the foreseeable future due to multiple threats, including climate change (warming temperatures, reduced snowpack), habitat degradation associated with forest and shrub vegetation encroaching into lupine habitat, pre-dispersal seed predation by small mammals, and risks associated with small populations. The findings of the Status Review are also consistent with my own observations of the species, which are based on my work on Lassics Lupine conservation, which focused on its potential seed predators, and included multiple annual field trips since 2005 to monitor small mammal populations in and near the main lupine population on Mount Lassic. Page Line Reviewer Comment Department Response 4 29 Suggest specifying (and defining) "pre-dispersal seed Added text to define pre-dispersal seed predation. Moved the predation" (removal of seeds while still attached to text regarding herbivory to near the end of the paragraph. the parent plant) as the most immediate threat. Also define herbivory, to clarify if herbivory as used here refers to consumption of lupine foliage or flowers, or includes predispersal seed predation. Consumption of lupine foliage and flowers occurs, as it does for many plant species. However, I am not aware of information that indicates it to be a threat to the lupine at the population level, at a magnitude comparable to that posed by seed predation, or, in my opinion, by climate change. If such herbivory is included here, the limited information I am aware of suggests that mule deer, black-tailed jackrabbits, and California ground squirrels may be the primary herbivores, rather than deer mice or chipmunks. 8 22 Suggest stating that the Special Interest Area is a designation Added text stating that the Special Interest Area is a designation by the Six Rivers National Forest. by the Six Rivers National Forest. 14 42 It might be more accurate to state that the Upper Terrace Updated the text to include the word “currently”. currently appears to be optimal (or higher-quality) habitat. Habitat suitability at different sites appears to be changing and dynamic. When I began field work at Mt Lassic in 2005, the Saddle and North Slope areas supported the greatest number of, and most robust, lupine plants. 15 Figure 5 The figures are helpful in understanding the different Additional figure created and added to the Status Review. ecological settings. It might be helpful to also include a map or aerial photo showing the different occupied habitats on Mt. Lassic (Upper Terrace, Saddle/North Slope, Forest/Swale). 20 3 I wonder if reduced snowfall and snowpack may be equally Added two sentences at the end of the paragraph beginning on important as the date of snowmelt. Potential benefits of page 19, line 14 regarding the factors that could contribute to greater snow cover include reduced desiccation of early snow melt, and the potential benefits to Lassics lupine overwintering lupines and greater infiltration into soils, from greater snow cover. compared to precipitation as rainfall. Page Line Reviewer Comment Department Response 20 Population Trends I believe that David Imper has documented a substantial range A paragraph has been added to provide information on changes contraction of lupines from the southern end of the Saddle in the area occupied by Lassics lupine at the south end of the over the past 5-plus years. If this information is available, it Saddle transect between 2002 and 2017. could be worth noting in the document, as this coincided with the multiyear drought. 21 Figure 6 Suggest defining "adult" plants in the legend or text of the A sentence defining adult plants was added on page 20. Status Review. 22 13 and 16 Suggest specifying "pre-dispersal" seed predation. Text updated to specify pre-dispersal 24 17 If this statement represents the results of small mammal Text updated monitoring that others and I have conducted, I would characterize it as "Based on data from 18 years of monitoring small mammals using live traps, small mammals are generally most abundant in the chaparral habitat, followed by the open serpentine (lupine) habitat, with lowest abundance in forest habitat." I can provide supporting data, if needed. 24 37-42 In my opinion, the support is weak for these correlative Paragraph removed relationships representing cause and effect relationships. Also, I believe that the correlations reported by Imper in 2012 between rodent abundance and weather factors are weaker with the addition of more years of data. 24 45 Kurkjian looked at pre-dispersal seed predation. Reference to (Kurkjian 2012a, Kurkjian et al. 2016) added.

33 33-34 As a regulatory consideration, caging and other current Paragraph added regarding the removal of Lassics lupine cages conservation measures occur at the discretion of US under the direction of the Six Rivers National Forest Supervisor Forest Service management. At the end of the 2012 in 2012. season, caging was temporarily halted and cages (exclosures) were removed from the Lassics at the direction of the Forest Supervisor of Six Rivers National Forest, who cited concerns about compatibility with wilderness status and a desire to not have exclosures used as a long-term strategy. This decision was changed and caging allowed to resume prior to the 2013 growing season, upon drafting of a Lassics Lupine Conservation Strategy by US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Forest Service staff. 36 32 "change" not "chang" Text updated Page Line Reviewer Comment Department Response 40 46 There may also be value in removing chaparral vegetation from Text updated the peak and east slopes of Mount Lassic (Signal Peak), which were not burned in the 2015 fire. Chaparral in these areas remains in close proximity to occupied lupine habitat, notably the Upper Terrace.

November 7, 2017

Erik S. Jules, Ph.D. Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State University 1 Harpst St. Arcata, California 95521 [email protected]

Dear Dr. Jules:

Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei); California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Peer Review

The peer review draft of the Department’s Status Review forwarded to you today reflects the Department’s effort to identify and analyze the best scientific information

Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

Erik S. Jules November 7, 2017 Page 3

Enclosures

ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Tina Bartlett, Acting Deputy Director Ecosystem Conservation Division [email protected]

Isabel Baer, Acting Program Manager Timberland Conservation and Native Plant Programs Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected]

Cherilyn Burton, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) Native Plant Program Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected]

Jeb Bjerke, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) Native Plant Program Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected]

November 13, 2017 Jeb Bjerke Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Planning Branch 1416 Ninth St., 12th floor Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mr. Bjerke,

I appreciate the opportunity to read and comment on CDFW’s Lassics Lupine Status Review. I have read the entire document with special focus on the sections related to life history, population trends, and the population viability analysis.

Overall, this is an incredibly thorough and well-written document. I commend you and CDFW on such a solid review of what is currently known about the Lassics lupine. The document is an exceptional review of all of the work that has been done over several decades on the lupine.

I am somewhat sheepish to write that have very few corrections to recommend, but here they are nonetheless:

o Page 23, lines 6-8: This sentence seems somewhat misleading (unintentionally I believe). It suggests that the PVA was conducted prior to (among other things) climate change. I think a better way to state this is that the PVA did not attempt to model predicted changes due to climate change.

o Page 23, line 21: Insert “of” where “Seventy-two percent of seed…”

o Page 26, lines 41-44: This sentence seems to suggest that there is empirical evidence (from Vander Wall 1993) that increased litter suppresses germination. Is that true? The actual citation doesn’t seem to be about germination. What is the evidence?

Sincerely,

Erik S. Jules Professor Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State University [email protected] Peer Review Comments from Dr. Erik S. Jules on Lassics Lupine Status Review and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Responses

Page Line Reviewer Comment Department Response N/A N/A I appreciate the opportunity to read and comment on CDFW’s No response needed Lassics Lupine Status Review. I have read the entire document with special focus on the sections related to life history, population trends, and the population viability analysis. Overall, this is an incredibly thorough and well-written document. I commend you and CDFW on such a solid review of what is currently known about the Lassics lupine. The document is an exceptional review of all of the work that has been done over several decades on the lupine. I am somewhat sheepish to write that have very few corrections to recommend, but here they are nonetheless: 23 6-8 This sentence seems somewhat misleading Text updated as suggested to clarify the sentence. (unintentionally I believe). It suggests that the PVA was conducted prior to (among other things) climate change. I think a better way to state this is that the PVA did not attempt to model predicted changes due to climate change. 23 21 Insert “of” where “Seventy-two percent of seed…” Comment unclear. There is no reference to 72 percent of seed in the Status Review, only a reference to approximately seventy-two percent of inflorescences, and 72 uncaged plants. No change was made in response to this comment, but the Crawford and Ross 2003 reference was re-checked, and some of the text on page 22 of the Status Review was revised for clarity. 26 41-44 This sentence seems to suggest that there is empirical evidence The references in this paragraph were re-checked, the (from Vander Wall 1993) that increased litter suppresses paragraph was split into two paragraphs, and the text was germination. Is that true? The actual citation doesn’t seem to revised for clarity and to more accurately reference the be about germination. What is the evidence? appropriate citations.

November 7, 2017

Mr. John McRae Six Rivers National Forest 1330 Bayshore Way Eureka, California 95501 [email protected]

Dear Mr. McRae:

Status Review of Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei); California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Peer Review

Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

John McRae November 7, 2017 Page 3

Enclosures

ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Tina Bartlett, Acting Deputy Director Ecosystem Conservation Division [email protected]

Isabel Baer, Acting Program Manager Timberland Conservation and Native Plant Programs Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected]

Cherilyn Burton, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) Native Plant Program Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected]

Jeb Bjerke, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) Native Plant Program Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected]

From: McRae, John ‐FS Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 10:10 AM To: Bjerke, Jeb@Wildlife Cc: Hoover, Lisa D ‐FS; David Imper; Carothers, Sydney ‐ FS Subject: Peer draft review of status of Lassics lupine (Lupinus constancei)

Jeb,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the status review for Lupinus constancei. The scientific determinations regarding the status of the Lassics lupine are well documented in the review and I have nothing to add to them. I do have a few comments to add regarding other facts presented in the document which I’ve outlined below.

Page 4, line 46 – ‘vegetation encroachment, and impacts from wildfire’. Although the 2015 Lassics wildfire did impact the species, wildfire is a natural disturbance in the Lassics and it is highly likely that it has adapted to the presence of wildfire in the landscape. I think it is important to include wildfire suppression here. Years of wildfire suppression is partly responsible for the vegetation encroachment. Including wildfire suppression adds support to a case that can be made for reintroducing prescribed fire to the Lassics should this tool become available.

Page 8, lines 45 and 46 state that the distance between the Red Lassic population and the Mt. Lassic population is 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) which is different than the distance shown on page 11, line 21 and 22 where it states that the distance is 0.9 kilometer (0.6 miles)

Page 11, line 6 should state that ‘The Lassics consist of three peaks. Peak 3 is Mount Lassic which is also known as Signal Peak.’ Photo 3 also needs to be edited to show Peak 3 as Mount Lassic (Signal Peak).

Page 34, line 18 – The University of California Botanical Garden received 50, not 75, seed.

Page 34, line 30 – should read ‘sent to the U.S. Forest Service National Seed Bank Lab in Dry Branch, Georgia for processing. From there the seed was sent to the National Laboratory for Genetic Resource Preservation in Fort Collins, Colorado for long term storage.’

Page 40, line 9 – following ‘action.’ State that ‘It is the policy of the Forest Service to assist states in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species. (USDA 2005). The reference for this would be;

Page 40, line 34 – should read ‘Ensure there is at least one high quality collection of Lassics lupine seeds is maintained at the National Laboratory for Genetic Resource Preservation in Fort Collins, Colorado. There is not a need to impact the natural seed bank by maintaining a redundant collection especially considering the physical integrity of the facility in Fort Collins.

Page 40 – a bullet needs to be added to the bulleted list that states; ‘Continue in situ and ex situ seed propagation to investigate methods of reestablishing plants at the Lassics via direct sowing of seed and the transplanting of plants grown off site.

Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. John

John McRae Assistant Forest Botanist Forest Service Six Rivers National Forest p: 707-441-3513 [email protected] 1330 Bayshore Way Eureka, CA 95501 www.fs.usda.gov/srnf

Caring for the land and serving people

This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately. Peer Review Comments from Mr. John McRae on Lassics Lupine Status Review and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Responses

Page Line Reviewer Comment Department Response N/A N/A Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the status No response needed review for Lupinus constancei. The scientific determinations regarding the status of the Lassics lupine are well documented in the review and I have nothing to add to them. I do have a few comments to add regarding other facts presented in the document which I’ve outlined below. 4 46 ‘vegetation encroachment, and impacts from Text updated to include fire suppression. wildfire’. Although the 2015 Lassics wildfire did impact the species, wildfire is a natural disturbance in the Lassics and it is highly likely that it has adapted to the presence of wildfire in the landscape. I think it is important to include wildfire suppression here. Years of wildfire suppression is partly responsible for the vegetation encroachment. Including wildfire suppression adds support to a case that can be made for reintroducing prescribed fire to the Lassics should this tool become available. 8 45 and 46 lines 45 and 46 state that the distance between the Red Lassic Text updated to correct inconsistency population and the Mt. Lassic population is 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) which is different than the distance shown on page 11, line 21 and 22 where it states that the distance is 0.9 kilometer (0.6 miles) 11 6 line 6 should state that ‘The Lassics consist of three peaks. As used in the Status Review, ‘the Lassics’ is used to refer to the Peak 3 is Mount Lassic which is also known as Signal Peak.’ three principal mountains of the Lassics mountain range Photo 3 also needs to be edited to show Peak 3 as Mount collectively (Mt. Lassic, Red Lassic, and Black Lassic), or the Lassic (Signal Peak). Lassics mountain range in its entirety. ‘Mt. Lassic’ is used to refer to the three principal peaks of Mt. Lassic collectively (Peak 1, Peak 2, and Signal Peak (Peak 3)). Using the term ‘Lassics’ to refer to the three principal peaks of Mt. Lassic would therefore be inconsistent with the rest of the Status Review. No change needed. 34 18 The University of California Botanical Garden received 50, not Text updated to reflect the correct number of seeds 75, seed. Page Line Reviewer Comment Department Response 34 30 should read ‘sent to the U.S. Forest Service National Seed Bank Text updated Lab in Dry Branch, Georgia for processing. From there the seed was sent to the National Laboratory for Genetic Resource Preservation in Fort Collins, Colorado for long term storage.’ 40 9 following ‘action.’ State that ‘It is the policy of the Forest Text updated Service to assist states in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species. (USDA 2005). The reference for this would be;

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2005. Forest Service Manual 2670 ‐ Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. Chapter 2670 ‐ Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals. 2670.32 – Sensitive Species. 40 34 should read ‘Ensure there is at least one high quality collection Text updated to remove the recommendation for redundant of Lassics lupine seeds is maintained at the National Laboratory collections. for Genetic Resource Preservation in Fort Collins, Colorado. There is not a need to impact the natural seed bank by maintaining a redundant collection especially considering the physical integrity of the facility in Fort Collins 40 a bullet needs to be added to the bulleted list that states; The text of the 8th bullet has been revised to more clearly ‘Continue in situ and ex situ seed propagation to investigate recommend a project to establish an additional self-sustaining methods of reestablishing plants at the Lassics via direct Lassics lupine population via propagation and outplanting. sowing of seed and the transplanting of plants grown off site.

Lassics Lupine (Lupinus constancei)

Fish and Game Commission Meeting April 19, 2018 Jeb McKay Bjerke Native Plant Program Presentation Overview Purpose: Summarize the Status Review 1. Species Information 2. Threats 3. Department Recommendation 2

Species Information • Herbaceous perennial (can live for more than one year) • 2 populations • Less than 4 acres 4

Mt. Lassic Population Red Lassic Population Habitat • In and near serpentine soils • Mostly barren of other vegetation • Needs protection from high soil temperatures • Four ecological settings

Red Lassic Population

Threats

• Seed Predation and Herbivory • Climate Change • Vegetation Encroachment • Small Population Size • 2015 Lassics Fire

12 Seed Predation

13 14 Population Viability Analysis: Seed predation could lead to Lassics lupine extinction

without protection: 68.4 - 100% chance of extinction (≤ 10 adults) in next 50 years

(Kurkjian et al. 2016) 15 16 Climate Change

• Lassics lupine is sensitive to climate extremes (Imper 2012)

• Warmer winters and summers, less snowpack

• Mountaintop species generally at greater risk from climate change (Cochran 2011)

17 Vegetation Encroachment

• Fire suppression is a contributing factor (Carothers 2017) • Forest is less suitable habitat • Provides more cover for seed predators

Source: Carothers 2008 18 Small Population Size

19 After the Lassic Fire (September 2015) 20 2015 Lassic Fire • 18,200 Acres Burned, centered on Mt. Lassic

21 Source: Oliver Cory, Redheaded Blackbelt

Summary of Threats to Extinction 1. Seed Predation and Herbivory 2. Climate Change 3. Vegetation Encroachment 4. Small Population Size 5. Aftermath of Lassic Fire 23 Department Recommendation The Department recommends that the Commission find the petitioned action to list Lassics lupine as an endangered species to be warranted.

24 Questions  Thank You

Jeb McKay Bjerke Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) (916) 651-6594

[email protected] 25