Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 4 (Friday, January 6, 2017)

[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: http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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, http://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, http://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, http://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 http://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 http://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