Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Eriogonum gypsophilum, 1657-1665 [2016-31764]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1657-1665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31764]



[[Page 1657]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0119; FXES11130900000 178 FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-BB87


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Eriogonum 
gypsophilum From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month petition finding; request for 
comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 
propose to remove Eriogonum gypsophilum (gypsum wild-buckwheat) from 
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (List) due to 
recovery. This determination is based on thoroughly reviewing the best 
scientific and commercial data available, which indicates the species 
has recovered and no longer meets the Act's endangered or threatened 
definitions. We are seeking information, data and public comments on 
this proposed rule. This document also serves as our 12-month finding 
on a petition to remove Eriogonum gypsophilum (gypsum wild-buckwheat) 
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

DATES: To ensure we can consider your comments on this proposed rule, 
they must be received or postmarked on or before March 7, 2017. Please 
note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 
ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 
p.m. Eastern Time on this date. We must receive requests for public 
hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section by February 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2016-0119, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left 
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the 
Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment 
by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2016-0119; Division of Policy, 
Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 220411-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Copies of Documents: This proposed rule and supporting documents 
are available on https://www.regulations.gov. In addition, the 
supporting file for this proposed rule will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the New 
Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Road NE., 
Albuquerque, NM 87113; telephone 505-346-2525.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wally Murphy, Field Supervisor, New 
Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone 505-
346-2525; facsimile 505-346-2542. If you use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at 
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested

    Any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on 
the best scientific and commercial data available and will be as 
accurate as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information 
from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the 
scientific community, industry, or other interested parties concerning 
this proposed rule. The comments that will be most useful and likely to 
influence our decisions are those supported by data or peer-reviewed 
studies and those that include citations to, and analyses of, 
applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific 
as possible and explain their basis. In addition, please include 
sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate 
any scientific or commercial data you reference or provide. In 
particular, we seek comments concerning the following:
    (1) New information concerning Eriogonum gypsophilum's general 
conservation status;
    (2) New information on historical and current Eriogonum gypsophilum 
status, range, distribution, and population size, including any 
additional population locations, and;
    (3) New information regarding Eriogonum gypsophilum life history, 
ecology and habitat use.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action being considered, without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) section 
4(b)(1)(A) directs that determinations as to whether any species is an 
endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of 
the best scientific and commercial data available.''
    Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will 
consider all comments and any additional information we receive. Such 
information may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal. 
All comments and recommendations, including names and addresses, will 
become part of the administrative record.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not consider 
comments sent by email, fax, or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. 
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
submission--including any personal identifying information--will be 
posted on the Web site. Please note that comments posted to this Web 
site are not immediately viewable. When you submit a comment, the 
system receives it immediately. However, the comment will not be 
publicly viewable until we post it, which might not occur until several 
days after submission.
    If you mail or hand-deliver hardcopy comments that include personal 
identifying information, you may request at the top of your document 
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we 
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the 
electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we 
receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy submissions 
on https://www.regulations.gov.
    In addition, comments and materials we receive, as well as 
supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will 
be available for public inspection in two ways:
    (1) You can view them on https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search 
box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2016-0119, which is the docket number for this 
rulemaking.
    (2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to 
view the comments and materials in person at

[[Page 1658]]

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's New Mexico Ecological Services 
Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

Public Hearing

    The Act, Section 4(b)(5)(E) enables one or more public hearings on 
this proposed rule, if requested. We must receive requests for public 
hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT by the date shown in DATES. We will schedule public hearings on 
this proposal, if any are requested, and hearing locations, as well as 
how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register at 
least 15 days before the first hearing.

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) of the Act requires 
that any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants must contain substantial scientific or 
commercial information that the petitioned action may be warranted. We 
must make a finding within 12 months of petition receipt. In this 
finding, we will determine that the petitioned action is: (1) Not 
warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but immediate regulation 
proposal implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other 
pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or 
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove 
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants.
    Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a petition for 
which the requested action is found to be warranted but precluded as 
though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring a 
subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must publish these 
12-month findings in the Federal Register. This document: (1) Serves as 
our 12-month warranted finding on a July 16, 2012, petition dated July 
12, 2012, from New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, Jim Chilton, New 
Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, New Mexico Federal Lands Council, and 
Texas Farm Bureau requesting that we ``delist'' Eriogonum gypsophilum 
(that is, remove Eriogonum gypsophilum from the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants (List)) under the Act; and (2) proposes to remove 
Eriogonum gypsophilum from the List due to recovery.

Previous Federal Actions

    Eriogonum gypsophilum was listed on January 19, 1981, as a 
threatened species (46 FR 5730). When the species was listed, an area 
that covered 95 percent of the only known population, now known as the 
Seven Rivers Hills population, was designated as critical habitat (46 
FR 5730; January 19, 1981). The written critical habitat description 
listed two section numbers in the correct township but incorrect 
ranges. The accompanying map correctly demonstrated the designated 
lands. On December 21, 1984, we published a correction to the written 
critical habitat description (49 FR 49639). However, that correction 
was also incorrect because the range descriptions did not accurately 
describe the designated critical habitat displayed on the accompanying 
map. The correct written description should read T20S R25E Section 24: 
N\1/2\ NE\1/4\, N\1/2\ S\1/2\ NE\1/4\, NE\1/4\ NW\1/4\, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\ 
NW\1/4\;; and T20S R26E Section 19: N\1/2\, N\1/2\ NE\1/4\ SE\1/4\, 
N\1/2\ NW\1/4\ SE\1/4\; gypsum soils.
    On February 2, 2005, we initiated a Eriogonum gypsophilum 5-year 
review (70 FR 5460). On November 9, 2007, we completed a 5-year review, 
which recommended Eriogonum gypsophilum be delisted. The 2007 5-year 
review noted that Eriogonum gypsophilum threats identified at the time 
of listing and in the recovery plan were no longer deemed significant 
and that two new populations, of between 11,000 and 18,000 plants each, 
were discovered.
    On July 16, 2012, we received a petition dated July 12, 2012, from 
New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, Jim Chilton, New Mexico Farm 
and Livestock Bureau, New Mexico Federal Lands Council, and Texas Farm 
Bureau requesting that we delist Eriogonum gypsophilum and other 
species, under the Act. The petitioners' request to delist Eriogonum 
gypsophilum was based entirely upon the scientific and commercial 
information contained within our 2007 5-year review.
    On May 31, 2013, we received a complaint from the same petitioners 
alleging we failed to make a 90-day finding on the petition.
    On September 9, 2013, we published a 90-day finding (78 FR 55046) 
that delisting Eriogonum gypsophilum may be warranted. This 90-day 
finding also announced our initiation of an Eriogonum gypsophilum 5-
year review. Following this 90-day finding, the parties agreed to a 
stipulated dismissal of the pending lawsuit.
    On November 20, 2015, the petitioners filed a second lawsuit. This 
lawsuit sought to compel the Service to complete a 12-month finding 
regarding Eriogonum gypsophilum, and other species.
    On November 4, 2016, we completed our second Eriogonum gypsophilum 
5-year review, which also recommended delisting due to recovery. The 
2016 five-year review supports this proposed rule. The review concluded 
that the threats identified at the time of listing and in the recovery 
plan are no longer deemed significant. In addition, two new populations 
have been discovered since the listing, thus exceeding the recovery 
plan's population goals.

Species Information

Species Description
    Eriogonum gypsophilum is a rare, regionally endemic plant species 
presently known to occur in three populations in Eddy County in 
southeastern New Mexico. Eriogonum gypsophilum was first collected by 
Wooten and Standley in 1909, on a hill southwest of Lakewood, New 
Mexico (Wooten and Standley, 1913). It is a small, erect herbaceous 
perennial, a member of the knotweed family, and measures about 8 inches 
high.
Distribution
    Three Eriogonum gypsophilum populations are known and all are 
located in Eddy County, southeastern New Mexico. Only one population 
(Seven Rivers Hills) was known at the time of listing and recovery plan 
development. After Eriogonum gypsophilum was listed as threatened, 
other suitable habitats were surveyed and two additional populations 
were found in 1985. Eriogonum gypsophilum distribution within its 
populations is patchy and follows suitable gypsum outcrops geographic 
patterns, which are generally elongated and narrow. The occupied 
outcrops are approximately 2.7 kilometers (km) (1.7 miles (mi)) long 
for the Seven Rivers Hills population, 1.6 km (1 mi) long for the Black 
River population, and 3.5 km (2.2 mi) long for the Ben Slaughter Draw 
population. Eriogonum gypsophilum patches within populations are also 
relatively small. The occupied habitat is only 16.3 hectares (ha) (40.3 
acres (ac)) at Seven Rivers Hills, little more than 11.9 ha (29.5 ac) 
at Black River, and 66.4 ha (164.1 acres) at Ben Slaughter Draw 
(including Hay Hollow). Therefore, this species occupies an approximate 
total range wide habitat of 94.7 ha (233.9 ac) (Sivinski 2005, p. 6; 
Sivinski 2013, p. 1).
    A population of Eriogonum gypsophilum was previously reported near 
Hay Hollow by Knight (1993, p. 34) and then discounted following 
negative surveys (Sivinski 2000; pp. 2-3). In 2013, Sivinski 
rediscovered this population, considered an extension of the Ben 
Slaughter population, and he estimated 1,000 to 1,500 plants across

[[Page 1659]]

less than 4 ha (10 ac) (Sivinski 2013, p. 1).
Habitat
    Eriogonum gypsophilum occupies Permian-age Castile Formation gypsum 
soils and gypsum outcrops. These habitats are dry and nearly barren 
except for common of gypsophilic (gypsum-loving) plant species, 
including Eriogonum gypsophilum, hairy crinklemat (Tiquilia 
hispidissima), gypsum blazingstar (Mentzelia humilis), and Pecos gypsum 
ringstem (Anulocaulis leiosolenus var. gypsogenus) (NMRPTC 2015, https://nmrareplants.unm.edu).
Biology
    Eriogonum gypsophilum is a perennial species that reproduces both 
by producing seed and asexually by producing clone rosettes from 
rhizomes or root-sprouts. Seed production has been observed 
(Spellenberg 1977, p. 22), but seedlings are rarely seen and most 
propagation occurs by asexual reproduction, or during infrequent 
climatic episodes suitable for seed germination and seedling 
establishment (Spellenberg 1977, p. 31; Knight 1993, p. 25). Densities 
within Eriogonum gypsophilum patches range from 0.03 to 2.04 individual 
rosettes per square meter (m\2\) (0.003 to 0.19 per square feet 
(ft\2\)) (Knight 1993, pp. 28-32). Plant densities within three 
monitoring plots at the Seven Rivers Hills population indicated a 
slight increase from 1987 to 1993 (Knight 1993, p. 28).

Five Factors Information Summary

    Section 4 (16 U.S.C. 1533) of the Act and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures to add species to, removing 
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under Section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, a species may be determined endangered or threatened based on 
any of the following five factors, acting alone or in combination:
    (A) The present or threatened habitat or range destruction, 
modification or curtailment;
    (B) Commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 
overutilization;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) Inadequate regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    When delisting a species, we must consider both these five factors 
and how conservation actions have removed or reduced the threats. We 
may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best 
available scientific and commercial data indicate the species is 
neither endangered nor threatened for the following reasons:
    (1) The species is extinct;
    (2) The species has recovered and is no longer endangered or 
threatened; or
    (3) The original scientific data used at the time the species was 
classified were erroneous.
    In making this finding, Eriogonum gypsophilum five factors 
information provided in the Act, Section 4(a)(1), is discussed below. 
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond mere species exposure to the factor to determine whether the 
species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual species 
impacts. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a 
positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure 
and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we 
then attempt to determine if that factor rises to threat level, meaning 
that it may drive or contribute to species extinction risk such that 
the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as 
the Act defines those terms. This does not necessarily require 
empirical threat proof. Combining exposure and some corroborating 
evidence indicating how the species is likely impacted could suffice. 
Merely identifying factors that could impact a species negatively is 
not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we 
require evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on 
the species to the point that the species meets the definition of an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act.
    In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we considered and 
evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information.
    The 1981 Eriogonum gypsophilum threatened status listing 
determination (46 FR 5730; January 19, 1981) cited off-road vehicles 
(ORVs), grazing, and Brantley Dam project impacts as potential species 
threats. At the time of listing, the Seven Rivers Hills population was 
the only known Eriogonum gypsophilum population. Losing any plants or 
habitat from the only known population would have been considered a 
significant loss at that time, making the species vulnerable to 
extinction in the near future. However, two additional Eriogonum 
gypsophilum populations have since been documented at Black River and 
Ben Slaughter Draw, and have been included in this species 
reassessment. With the discovery of two additional populations and 
subsequent increase in species redundancy, combined with the Federal 
resource management practices implemented since the time of listing 
(see discussion below), the threats identified at the time of listing 
and in the recovery plan are no longer considered significant for 
Eriogonum gypsophilum.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Habitat or Range Destruction, 
Modification or Curtailment

    All Eriogonum gypsophilum habitat occurs in areas with high 
potential for mineral extraction and associated development, especially 
oil and gas. Although the three populations of Eriogonum gypsophilum 
comprise a small geographic area, making the species vulnerable to such 
land use changes, the majority of remaining suitable habitat is located 
on Federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 
significant portions of each Eriogonum gypsophilum population have been 
designated by BLM as Special Management Areas (SMAs). By definition, 
SMAs are areas where specific management attention is required and can 
be designated to protect important resources, including special status 
species like Eriogonum gypsophilum. The Seven Rivers Hills SMA includes 
95 percent of the Seven River Hills population of Eriogonum 
gypsophilum, the Black River SMA includes 50 percent of the Black River 
population, and the Ben Slaughter SMA includes 50 percent of the Ben 
Slaughter population. Potential threats to Eriogonum gypsophilum as a 
result of mineral extraction and oil and gas associated development, 
such as directly removing occupied habitat during construction or 
pipeline leaks impacts, have been offset by BLM's designation of 
significant portions of each Eriogonum gypsophilum population as an 
SMA. Specifically, these SMAs provide management guidance, and in the 
case of Eriogonum gypsophilum, do not allow surface occupancy for most 
surface-disturbing activities. The Bureau of Land Management has 
committed to keeping similar protections for special status species and 
sensitive soil outcrops through a revised resource management plan, 
which will include specific land designations and the implementation of 
best management practices. The Service has participated in the 
development of this resource management plan, and will continue to work 
closely with BLM throughout the implementation phase. A final resource 
management plan is expected to be signed by BLM in 2017. As a BLM 
special status species,

[[Page 1660]]

conservation of Eriogonum gypsophilum is expected to continue into the 
foreseeable future as BLM manual 6840, titled Special Status Species 
Management, directs. BLM special status species are federally listed or 
proposed and Bureau sensitive species, which include both Federal 
candidate species and delisted species (BLM 2008, entire).
    The area designated as Eriogonum gypsophilum critical habitat at 
Seven Rivers Hills was given BLM SMA status in 1988 (BLM 1988, p. C-2) 
and protects about 95 percent of the habitat this population occupies. 
A few hectares of occupied habitat fall outside the SMA boundaries on 
adjacent BLM and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) lands. The 1988 BLM 
Resource Management Plan also created a Springs Riparian Habitat SMA to 
restrict land use in critical riparian habitat within the Chihuahuan 
Desert Ecosystem. This SMA includes lands occupied by the Ben Slaughter 
Draw Eriogonum gypsophilum population (BLM 1988, p. C-14). The 1997 BLM 
Resource Management Plan Amendment included the Black River SMA that 
covers the Black River Eriogonum gypsophilum population (BLM 1997, pp. 
AP4:9, AP4:15-17). SMA management prescriptions at the three 
populations on public lands include:
     Apply no surface occupancy stipulation to all future oil 
and gas leases.
     Avoid future right-of-way actions through SMA area.
     Withdraw from mining claim location, and close to mineral 
material disposal and solid material leasing.
     Complete limited ORV designation and implementation plan 
to restrict vehicles to designated routes.
     Restrict fire suppression and geophysical operations to 
comply with ORV designation.
     Restrict surface disturbance, including plant collections 
and camping within the area.
    Proposed actions related to lease rights acquired prior to the SMA 
designations are analyzed for impacts and designed to reduce or remove 
the impacts under BLM Manual 6840 directions, and using conditions-of-
approval on the permit. SMA guidance can also affect actions that cross 
both public lands and adjacent non-Federal lands (e.g., pipelines, 
power lines), due to the actions being connected through a Federal 
nexus, thus affording species conservation. The occupied habitats are 
relatively small in acreage and can typically be avoided by surface 
disturbing activities.
Mineral Extraction and Related Activities
    All Eriogonum gypsophilum habitats are within areas with high 
potential for fluid minerals leasing and extraction. Oil and gas well 
pads, roads, and pipelines are proliferating in this region of New 
Mexico. The BLM SMA where the Seven Rivers Hills population's 
designated critical habitat occurs presently eliminates this threat by 
requiring ``no surface occupancy'' for mineral leases within the 
designated critical habitat. If the critical habitat designation were 
removed, no land use change is expected to occur as BLM has committed 
to continue protecting sensitive gypsum soils and the special status 
species that occur there, including Eriogonum gypsophilum. Roads and 
pipelines associated with mineral development also must avoid this 
area. The Seven Rivers Hills SMA protects about 95 percent of the 
occupied habitat from this land use. SMAs with ``no surface occupancy'' 
stipulations for oil and gas leases were also administratively placed 
on BLM jurisdictions containing Eriogonum gypsophilum habitats at the 
Black River and Ben Slaughter Draw populations in 1997 (BLM 1988, pp. 
C-15; BLM 1997, pp. AP4:9, AP4:15-17). These SMAs protect approximately 
50 percent of the total habitat at Black River and Ben Slaughter Draw 
from oil and gas development (Sivinski 2005, p. 6). Approximately 65 
percent of total habitat area in all three Eriogonum gypsophilum 
populations is presently protected from surface impacts associated with 
oil and gas development and these impacts would be avoided into the 
foreseeable future under BLM manual 6840 direction.
    Knight (1993, p. 57) concluded that oil and gas mineral 
development, and possibly gypsum, were the only serious potential 
threats to Eriogonum gypsophilum. At this time, surface disturbance 
associated with Federal mineral development is very unlikely to occur 
on Eriogonum gypsophilum habitats within the BLM SMAs. Mineral 
development could potentially affect nearly 50 percent of the Black 
River population that occurs on private or State lands. In fact, there 
is presently an active gas well established within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of 
Eriogonum gypsophilum habitat on the State trust land portion of this 
population (Sivinski 2000, p. 2). The private land portion, 
approximately 20 percent of the Black River population, could also be 
impacted by future minerals development. However, approximately 50 
percent of the Black River habitat, about 95 percent of the Seven 
Rivers Hills habitat, and approximately 50 percent of Ben Slaughter 
Draw habitats are protected by the BLM SMAs ``no surface occupancy'' 
stipulation (Sivinski 2005, p. 6). Oil and gas may be leased on these 
lands, but must be extracted by directional drilling from outside the 
SMAs. Directional drilling allows a company to develop fluid minerals 
without being directly above (vertical of) the target, meaning this 
technology affords greater avoidance options to conserve sensitive 
habitats. The SMAs require that road and pipeline rights-of-way 
associated with oil and gas development must also avoid SMA 
disturbance.
    The Seven Rivers Hills and Ben Slaughter Draw SMAs also withdrew 
minerals, such as gypsum, sulfur, and salts, from claim and mine 
development, but mineral claims are not specifically withdrawn from the 
Black River SMA. Chemical analysis found the gypsum outcrops Eriogonum 
gypsophilum occupied to be from the Castile Formation, composed of 85 
percent hydric gypsum, which is suitable quality for mining (Weber and 
Kottlowski 1959, p. 52; Knight 1993, p. 42). However, gypsum mining 
potential for the Castile formation is low because of large deposits of 
higher quality gypsum presently being mined elsewhere in New Mexico 
(Knight 1993, p. 42).
    Other potential impacts to the Seven Rivers Hills Eriogonum 
gypsophilum population have not occurred, partly due to the Act's 
protections. Due to the species occurring in three geographically 
separate populations, there is a lesser potential of a single project 
affecting the entire population of Eriogonum gypsophilum. For example, 
U.S. Highway 285 widening was accomplished without impacting the plants 
in or near this right-of-way (Sivinski 2000, pp. 1-2) and would have 
only affected one of the three populations. Common land use activities, 
such as mineral development or livestock grazing, are addressed in the 
BLM resource management plan and would be managed through the BLM 
permitting process, which considers all sensitive species and their 
habitats.
Reservoir Development and Flooding
    The populations at Black River and Ben Slaughter Draw are not near 
any existing or proposed reservoirs and, therefore, are not threatened 
by flooding. At the time of listing, we considered the possibility of 
flooding to the Seven Rivers Hills population from the Brantley 
Reservoir. However, this impact has not occurred because the dam 
spillway does not allow the water

[[Page 1661]]

level to rise to the level necessary to flood populations (BOR 2009, p. 
2). The spillway elevation is 993.5 meters (m) (3,259.5 feet (ft)) mean 
sea level. Water level peaked on March 29, 2015 (U.S. Geological Survey 
2016, https://waterdata.usgs.gov), at approximately 4.0 m (13 ft) above 
the spillway at 997.5 m (3,272.5 ft) elevation. Even at this highest 
level, the pool remained east of U.S. Highway 285 and the Eriogonum 
gypsophilum population. Knight (1993, pp. 53-54) analyzed potential 
Brantley Reservoir impacts reaching the maximum flood pool with the 
assumption that the water level would rise similarly across U.S. 
Highway 285. Under this assumption, the maximum flood event pool in 
Brantley Reservoir could temporarily flood a few hectares of Eriogonum 
gypsophilum habitat. He found eight Eriogonum gypsophilum plants at or 
below the 1,002.8 m (3,290 ft) level on the west side of U.S. Highway 
285. The soils in this area would become saturated for a time after a 
flood and could potentially be invaded by salt cedar (Tamarix spp.), an 
invasive tree that often lines reservoir banks. Knight (1993, pp. 53-
54) surveyed another 6 m (20 ft) vertical up to the 1,009 m (3,310 ft) 
level where salt cedar might become established and located an 
additional 44 Eriogonum gypsophilum plants. In 1993, 52 plants were in 
the hypothetical maximum flood impact zone. A flood event could 
potentially impact about 100 plants in this population of several 
thousand plants. However, at the highest water level recorded in 2015, 
which was at the maximum safe flood control level, the water did not 
reach U.S. Highway 285 and Eriogonum gypsophilum was not impacted. 
Therefore, flooding from the Brantley Reservoir is not a significant 
threat to Eriogonum gypsophilum.
Off-road Vehicle (ORV) Use
    ORV traffic is not presently an Eriogonum gypsophilum threat. 
Little to no ORV traffic evidence has been observed in recent years in 
any of the three Eriogonum gypsophilum populations (Knight 1993, pp. 
52-53; Sivinski 2000, p. 2; Chopp 2016, p. 1). ORV traffic absence at 
the Black River and Ben Slaughter Draw SMAs may be attributed to their 
remote locations and stands of thorny mesquite shrubs surrounding the 
Eriogonum gypsophilum populations (Knight 1993, p. 53). BLM has 
established SMA restrictions for ORV traffic that protect 95 percent of 
the Seven Rivers Hills habitat and 50 percent of the Ben Slaughter Draw 
habitat from this potential impact. These SMA restrictions cannot 
eliminate occasional ORV violations, but severe impacts from frequent 
ORV use will not likely be tolerated by BLM. These protections are 
likely to continue into the future due to protections described in the 
resource management plan and BLM manual 6840, which is the principal 
policy instrument detailing BLM management of special status species 
(BLM 2008, entire). To prevent unauthorized ORV traffic, in 2010, BLM 
installed pipe-rail fencing along portions of existing roads and trails 
at all three known populations, which will continue to be maintained as 
a condition of the revised resource management plan (BLM 2010, entire). 
Fencing was not installed at the Ben Slaughter Draw population Hay 
Hollow portion, but there are no easy access routes to this area (Chopp 
2016, p. 1). Therefore, there is little to no ORV threat at this site 
now or in the foreseeable future.
Livestock Grazing
    Livestock grazing is the predominant land use in all Eriogonum 
gypsophilum habitats. Cattle will not usually eat Eriogonum gypsophilum 
plants, and grazing does not appear to have a negative effect (Sivinski 
2000, p. 2). Forage production on these gypsum outcrops is relatively 
low and does not attract or concentrate livestock. The Eriogonum 
gypsophilum recovery plan did not identify livestock grazing as a 
serious potential designated critical habitat threat at Seven Rivers 
Hills (Service 1984, entire).
    Livestock using the habitat in the Black River population has 
little effect on Eriogonum gypsophilum, and the river is remote enough 
from the gypsum outcrop to preclude concentrated livestock activity 
(Knight 1993, p. 52; Sivinski 2000, p. 2).
    The Brantley Dam conservation pool was anticipated to be in close 
proximity to the Seven Rivers Hills Eriogonum gypsophilum population 
such that it was expected to concentrate livestock that could trample 
plants and make erosion-prone trails through this habitat. Over the 
past 30 years, the actual conservation pool has remained more than 1.6 
km (1 mi) away from this population, and livestock have not 
concentrated in this habitat.
    The Ben Slaughter population is immediately adjacent to Ben 
Slaughter Spring and Jumping Spring, which are water sources that 
concentrate livestock use. Livestock trailing and trampling Eriogonum 
gypsophilum plants in this population has been reported by Knight 
(1993, p. 52), especially in the Ben Slaughter Spring immediate 
vicinity. Knight (1993, p. 54) observed that plants trampled by 
livestock tended to produce smaller rosettes than plants not affected, 
thus shifting that population portion towards higher juvenile form 
percentages. The Bureau of Land Management has partly mitigated this 
impact by erecting a livestock-proof fence that encloses 8 ha (20 ac) 
around Ben Slaughter Spring, including a few hectares of Eriogonum 
gypsophilum habitat with several hundred plants. This fenced enclosure 
occurs within the 146-ha (360-ac) BLM SMA that protects the spring and 
surrounding upland from land-use surface occupancy. The Bureau of Land 
Management enclosure gate is not always closed to livestock entry 
(Sivinski 2000, p. 2), but does give the opportunity to manage grazing 
effects.
    All three Eriogonum gypsophilum populations occur near, or within a 
few kilometers, of permanent natural waters sources. Therefore, the 
habitats at these populations have experienced more than a century of 
livestock use that, at times, could have been very intense and 
aggressive. In fact, the recent heavy livestock concentrations within 
the Ben Slaughter Draw population have not likely exceeded the 
livestock amounts concentrated in this area for many decades. These 
gypsum outcrop habitats may have been modified by this long history of 
livestock use, but continue to support large species populations. More 
than 75 percent of the Eriogonum gypsophilum habitats occur on BLM 
lands. Currently, BLM livestock stocking rates appear to have little, 
or no, impact on the Seven Rivers Hills and Black River populations. It 
is also evident that heavy livestock concentrations at Ben Slaughter 
Draw have not caused the population to decline. It is unlikely that 
livestock grazing will become a serious species threat in most of its 
habitats, especially at the Seven Rivers Hills and Black River 
populations, now or in the foreseeable future.

Factor B. Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 
Overutilization

    There are no immediate threats from commercial or recreational 
Eriogonum gypsophilum collection . The species has no recreational 
value, and it is not offered for sale within the horticultural market 
at this time. It is a handsome plant, with early-season green stems 
that turn dark red after hoisting bright yellow flowers, which could 
attract rock garden hobbyists, but may not be suitable for non-gypseous 
garden soils. Scientific collection permits have been confined to a few 
vouchered specimens to document new species locations.
    In addition to alleviating threats, positive steps have been taken 
to inform

[[Page 1662]]

and educate the public about Eriogonum gypsophilum. The New Mexico Rare 
Plants Web site was established in 1998 by the New Mexico Rare Plant 
Technical Council (NMRPTC) to provide information to the public on 
rare, threatened and endangered plant species (NMRPTC 2015, https://nmrareplants.unm.edu). This Web site prominently displays descriptive 
Eriogonum gypsophilum information and illustrations. This effort has 
helped fulfill the intent to provide information to the public and 
foster Eriogonum gypsophilum conservation support.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    There are no known documented or anecdotal Eriogonum gypsophilum 
disease or predation reports.

Factor D. Inadequate Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Federal regulatory mechanisms have been effective in removing or 
managing many Eriogonum gypsophilum threats that could threaten 
extinction now or in the foreseeable future. The previously identified 
threats are nearly identical between the three populations, and all 
three populations include Federal and non-Federal lands. The SMAs 
afford conservation on Federal lands and adjacent non-Federal lands for 
linear projects such as roads and pipelines. Using the SMA 
designations, BLM has successfully protected the designated critical 
habitat at Seven Rivers Hills from mineral development and ORV traffic. 
BLM also regulates and manages livestock grazing on significant 
portions of all three of the known populations. These areas will 
continue to be conserved through implementation of BLM's revised 
resource management plan.
    ORV traffic prohibitions are difficult to enforce because of sign 
vandalism, for which law enforcement officers cannot keep a continuous 
watch. However, BLM SMA restrictions on ORV traffic at the Seven Rivers 
Hills designated critical habitat area and Ben Slaughter Draw appear to 
be effective at diminishing ORV impacts. BLM further committed its 
authority by restricting access to the occupied Eriogonum gypsophilum 
habitat by installing protective pipe-rail fences above and beyond the 
SMA description's land use restrictions.
    The Bureau of Land Management SMA at the Black River population 
requires a ``no surface occupancy'' stipulation for all oil and gas 
leases, but does not have prescriptions to protect this area from 
mineral claims or ORV traffic. All three Eriogonum gypsophilum SMA 
designations in the BLM Resource Management Plan will remain in effect 
for the life of that plan and are likely to continue for any future 
amendments.
    The Carlsbad Resource Management Plan does not clearly state that 
future plan revisions shall continue to maintain Eriogonum gypsophilum 
SMA restrictions if this species is removed from the List. However, due 
to the species only occurring in gypsum outcrops, which are regarded as 
a unique resource by BLM, it is expected that BLM would continue to 
protect this habitat and, therefore, Eriogonum gypsophilum in their new 
resource management plan (BLM 2015, p. 1).
    A few hectares of Eriogonum gypsophilum habitat in the Seven Rivers 
Hills population occur on BLM land outside the designated SMA and on 
Federal land in BOR jurisdiction, which is also not within the SMA. 
Land uses that may affect Eriogonum gypsophilum on these lands must 
presently be reviewed by the Service. Protections afforded by this 
review would cease if Eriogonum gypsophilum is removed from the List. 
However, BLM's current resource management plan would continue to 
provide species protections. The Bureau of Land Management has 
committed to continuing these land use restrictions in its revised 
resource management plan to provide species and habitat conservation in 
the foreseeable future.
    There are no regulatory protections for federally listed endangered 
and threatened plant species from surface-disturbing land uses on 
private or State-owned lands, unless the activity is authorized, 
funded, or carried out by a Federal agency. Approximately 50 percent of 
the Eriogonum gypsophilum gypsum habitats at the Black River population 
occurs on private and State-owned land. About 10 percent of the 
occupied habitat in the Ben Slaughter Draw population is on private and 
State-owned land (Sivinski 2005, p. 6). The New Mexico State Land 
Office is aware of the Eriogonum gypsophilum habitats on its State 
trust lands, and Section 75-6-1 (New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978 of 
the New Mexico Administrative Code directs New Mexico's Energy, 
Minerals and Natural Resources Department to investigate all plant 
species in the state for the purpose of establishing a list of State 
endangered plant species. It also authorizes that department to 
prohibit state endangered species take, with the exception of permitted 
scientific collections or propagation and transplantation activities 
that enhance endangered species survival. Should this rule be finalized 
as proposed, state protections for Eriogonum gypsophilum would remain 
in place until the state decides to remove the plant from the list of 
state endangered species.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

    Our previous reviews did not analyze climate change as a factor 
affecting the species. Based on the unequivocal evidence the earth's 
climate is warming from observing increasing average global air and 
ocean temperatures, widespread glacier and polar ice cap melting, and 
rising sea levels recorded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC) Report (IPCC 2007a, entire; 2013, entire), climate change 
is now a factor in all Federal agency decision-making (Government 
Accounting Office 2007, entire). The Service has incorporated climate 
change into its decision-making under the Act (Service 2010, entire). 
Global climate information has been downscaled to our region of 
interest, and projected into the future under two different scenarios 
of possible emissions of greenhouse gases (Alder and Hostetler 2014: 
2). Climate predictions for the Eriogonum gypsophilum area include a 5 
to 6 percent increase in maximum temperature (up to 4 [deg]C (7.2 
[deg]F)), 11 percent decrease in precipitation, and a 25 percent 
increase in evaporative deficit over the next 25 years (National 
Climate Change Viewer, Eddy County Data https://www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/nccv/viewer.asp, accessed May 15, 2016). In 11 
of the last 15 years, moderate to severe drought conditions existed in 
the Eriogonum gypsophilum occupied area, with 11 percent of the time in 
exceptional drought (National Drought Mitigation Center 2015, Eddy 
County Data) with no obvious negative effects on the species.
    Eriogonum is a highly derived taxon that has undergone rapid 
evolution in arid western North American regions (Reveal 2005, p. 1). 
We expect that due to its observable resistance to severe drought 
periods over the past 30 years, Eriogonum gypsophilum is adaptable to 
climate change, and there is no information to indicate that climate 
change will have a detrimental effect on the species.

Factors A through E Cumulative Effects

    Eriogonum gypsophilum was known from only a single population on 
the Seven Rivers Hills when it was listed as a threatened species (46 
FR 5730; January 19, 1981). An area covering 95 percent of this 
population was designated as critical habitat at the time of listing. 
Population monitoring at this

[[Page 1663]]

site from 1987 to 2005 did not reveal any significant increase or 
decrease in plant numbers since the recovery plan was finalized in 
1984. No surface-disturbing activities have occurred in the designated 
critical habitat since 1984, and this habitat remains unchanged. The 
Seven Rivers Hills site remained as the only known extant population 
until 1984. The recovery plan concluded that this threatened species 
could be delisted (due to recovery) when the designated critical 
habitat area was designated an area of critical ecological concern 
(ACEC), or was provided a similar special use designation. The Bureau 
of Land Management designated the critical habitat as a SMA in 1988, 
thus fulfilling this recovery plan criterion.
    Two additional populations were documented in Eddy County since 
this plant was listed in 1981. Plant numbers in those populations also 
appear relatively unchanged since their 1985 discovery; the Black River 
population has a minimum of 16,660 plants, and the Ben Slaughter Draw 
population is estimated at around 18,270 plants. Additionally, an 
estimated 1,000 to 1,500 plants in the Ben Slaughter Draw population 
were observed in 2013, at the nearby Hay Hollow location. These numbers 
are estimates, as it is difficult to estimate plant numbers in each 
population due to variable density and patchy distribution across 
occupied gypsum outcrops. All previous and current plant numbers 
estimates lack precision, but adequately demonstrate substantial 
populations at the three known locations. No Eriogonum gypsophilum 
population extirpations or obvious declines were reported since it was 
listed as a threatened species in 1981.
    Based on extensive survey efforts in New Mexico, it is unlikely 
that other new populations will be discovered. Potentially suitable 
habitat exists in Texas on private land, but no surveys have been 
conducted.
    Eriogonum gypsophilum is currently listed as threatened with 
designated critical habitat. Threats identified at the time of listing 
and in the recovery plan are no longer deemed significant. In addition, 
two new populations have been discovered which contain between 16,000 
and 18,000 Eriogonum gypsophilum plants each. The entire known occupied 
habitat is distributed among three populations totaling 94 ha (239 ac). 
Because BLM's existing resource management plan provides protections 
for significant portions of all populations, that are expected to be 
extended in future versions, lessening the future threat of mineral and 
oil and gas development, there are no longer any threats that are 
expected to cause Eriogonum gypsophilum to be in danger of extinction 
now or in the foreseeable future.

Finding

    As required by the Act, we considered the 5 factors in assessing 
whether Eriogonum gypsophilum is endangered or threatened throughout 
all of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
facing Eriogonum gypsophilum. We reviewed the petition, information 
available in our files, and other available published and unpublished 
information, in addition to consulting with recognized Eriogonum 
gypsophilum experts and other Federal, State, and tribal agencies. 
Threats identified at the time of listing and in the recovery plan are 
no longer significant, which can largely be attributed to current BLM 
land-use restrictions in occupied Eriogonum gypsophilum habitat. In 
addition, two new populations were discovered since the original 
listing decision. Each of these populations adds between 16,000 and 
18,000 plants to the overall population estimate.
    Based on our reviewing the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to the 5 factors, we find that the petitioned 
action to delist Eriogonum gypsophilum is warranted. There is 
sufficient evidence to indicate that, with ongoing BLM land-use 
restrictions to avoid and minimize surface-disturbing activities in 
occupied Eriogonum gypsophilum habitat on public lands, which are 
expected to continue into the foreseeable future, and no information to 
indicate that there are threats occurring now or in the future on 
private and State-owned lands, Eriogonum gypsophilum should be removed 
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
    In making this finding, we have followed the procedures set forth 
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR part 424. 
We intend that any Eriogonum gypsophilum action be as accurate as 
possible. Therefore, we will continue to accept additional information 
and comments from all concerned governmental agencies, the scientific 
community, Native American Tribes, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this finding.

Delisting Proposal

    As noted earlier in this document, Section 4 of the Act and its 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 
for listing, reclassifying or removing species from the Federal Lists 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Act defines 
``species'' as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife 
or plants, and any distinct vertebrate fish or wildlife population 
segment that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the 
``species'' is determined, we then evaluate whether that species may be 
endangered or threatened because of one or more of the five factors 
described in Section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We must consider these same 
five factors in reclassifying or delisting a species. For species that 
are already listed as endangered or threatened, the threat analysis 
must evaluate both the threats currently facing the species and the 
threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the 
foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting (i.e., 
reclassifying a species from endangered to threatened) and removing or 
reducing the Act's protections. We may delist a species according to 50 
CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data 
indicate the species is neither endangered or threatened for the 
following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has 
recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened; and/or (3) the 
original scientific data used at the time the species was classified 
were erroneous. We determine that Eriogonum gypsophilum should be 
delisted due to recovery.
    We have determined that none of the existing or potential threats 
is likely causing Eriogonum gypsophilum to be in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, nor is it likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. We published a final policy 
interpreting the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) (79 
FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The final policy states that: (1) If a species 
is found to be endangered or threatened throughout a significant 
portion of its range, the entire species is listed as endangered or 
threatened, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all 
individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range 
of a species is ``significant'' if the species is not currently 
endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's 
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, 
without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of 
extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable

[[Page 1664]]

future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is 
considered to be the general geographical area within which that 
species can be found at the time the Service makes any particular 
status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or 
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, and the 
population in that significant portion is a valid distinct population 
segment (DPS), we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic 
species or subspecies.
    The procedure for analyzing whether any portion is an SPR is 
similar, regardless of the type of status determination we are making. 
The first step in our analysis of the status of a species is to 
determine its status throughout all of its range. If we determine that 
the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become endangered 
in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range, we list the 
species as an endangered species or threatened species, and no SPR 
analysis will be required. If the species is neither in danger of 
extinction, nor likely to become so throughout all of its range, as we 
have found here, we next determine whether the species is in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of 
its range. If it is, we will continue to list the species as an 
endangered species or threatened species, respectively; if it is not, 
we conclude that listing the species is no longer warranted.
    When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of 
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a 
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways. However, there is no purpose in analyzing portions of 
the range that have no reasonable potential to be significant or in 
analyzing portions of the range in which there is no reasonable 
potential for the species to be endangered or threatened. To identify 
only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine 
whether substantial information indicates that: (1) The portions may be 
``significant''; and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction 
there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Depending 
on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it 
might be more efficient for us to address the significance question 
first or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a 
portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to 
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we 
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion 
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is 
``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the determination that a 
species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its 
range is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some 
way. If the threats to the species are affecting it uniformly 
throughout its range, no portion is likely to have a greater risk of 
extinction, and thus would not warrant further consideration. Moreover, 
if any concentration of threats apply only to portions of the range 
that clearly do not meet the biologically based definition of 
``significant'' (i.e., the loss of that portion clearly would not be 
expected to increase the vulnerability to extinction of the entire 
species), those portions would not warrant further consideration. Our 
analysis indicates that there is no significant geographic portion of 
the range that is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future. Therefore, based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available, no portion warrants further consideration to 
determine whether the species may be endangered or threatened in a 
significant portion of its range.
    On the basis of our evaluation, we propose to remove Eriogonum 
gypsophilum from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants 
(50 CFR 17.12(h)).

Effects of This Proposed Rule

    This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by 
removing Eriogonum gypsophilum from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants. The Act's prohibitions and conservation measures, 
particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to this 
species. Federal agencies would no longer be required to consult with 
the Service under section 7 of the Act, in the event that activities 
they authorize, fund or carry out may affect Eriogonum gypsophilum. 
Critical habitat for the species is designated; therefore, if made 
final, this rule would also remove this plant's critical habitat 
designation at 50 CFR 17.96(a).

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the 
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for 
all species that have been recovered and delisted. This requirement is 
to develop a program that detects delisted species failures to sustain 
itself without the Act's protective measures. If, at any time during 
the monitoring period, data indicate that protective Act status should 
be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if 
appropriate, emergency listing.
    We will coordinate with other Federal agencies, State resource 
agencies, interested scientific organizations, and others as 
appropriate to develop and implement an effective Eriogonum gypsophilum 
post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan.
    The PDM plan will build upon current monitoring practices. The PDM 
plan outlines the monitoring needed to verify that a species delisted 
due to recovery remains secure from extinction after the protections of 
the Act no longer apply. The goals of this PDM plan are to: (1) Outline 
the monitoring plan for species abundance and threats; and (2) identify 
circumstances that will trigger increased monitoring, or to identify 
when there are no longer concerns for Eriogonum gypsophilum and the PDM 
plan requirements have been fulfilled. The draft PDM plan will be made 
available for public comment in a Federal Register notice no later than 
June 30, 2017, and will be finalized concurrently with the final rule 
should we delist the species.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint peer review policy with the National 
Marine Fisheries Service, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy 
for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' was published 
in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and the Office 
of Management and Budget's Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 
Review, dated December 16, 2004, we will seek expert opinions from at 
least three appropriate independent specialists regarding this proposed 
rule's science. Peer review's purpose is to ensure that our delisting 
decision is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions and 
analyses. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer 
reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We 
will invite these peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment 
period, on the specific assumptions and conclusions in this proposed 
Eriogonum gypsophilum delisting. We will summarize the opinions of 
these reviewers in the final decision document, and we will consider 
their input and any additional information we received as part of our 
final decision-making process for this proposal. Such communication may 
lead to a final decision that differs from this proposal.

[[Page 1665]]

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the section or paragraph numbers that are 
unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the 
sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) authority, need not be prepared in 
connection with regulations pursuant to the Act, Section 4(a). We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is 
available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-
0119, or upon request from the New Mexico Ecological Services Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES).

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the New 
Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h) by removing the entry for ``Eriogonum 
gypsophilum'' from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
0
3. Amend Sec.  17.96(a) by removing the critical habitat entry for 
``Family Polygonaceae: Eriogonum gypsophilum (Gypsum Wild Buckwheat).''

    Dated: December 22, 2016.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-31764 Filed 1-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P