[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20336-20348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07374]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0024; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BG21


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Emergency Listing 
of the Dixie Valley Toad as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Temporary rule; emergency action.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), exercise our 
authority pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act), to emergency list the Dixie Valley toad (Anaxyrus williamsi) as 
endangered. Due to the imminent development of a geothermal project in 
Dixie Meadows, Nevada, and the potential resulting effects to the 
geothermal springs relied upon by the Dixie Valley toad, there is a 
significant risk to the well-being of the species. We find that 
emergency listing is necessary in order to provide the protective 
measures afforded by the Act to the Dixie Valley toad. This emergency 
action (emergency rule) provides Federal protection pursuant to the Act 
for a period of 240 days. A proposed rule to list the Dixie Valley toad 
as endangered is published concurrently with this emergency rule in the 
Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

DATES: This temporary rule is effective April 7, 2022, through December 
2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: This temporary rule, the species status assessment report 
and other materials related to this temporary rule, and the proposed 
rule are available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Jackson, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 
Financial Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, Nevada 89502; telephone 775-861-6300. 
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Federal Actions

    We received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity 
(CBD) on September 18, 2017, requesting that the Dixie Valley toad be 
listed as a threatened or endangered species and that the petition be 
considered on an emergency basis (CBD 2017, entire). The Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), does not 
provide a process to petition for emergency listing; therefore, we 
evaluated the petition to determine if it presented substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted. We published a 90-day finding in the Federal 
Register on June 27, 2018 (83 FR 30091), stating that the petition 
presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that listing the Dixie Valley toad may be warranted.

Supporting Documents

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Dixie Valley toad. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, 
in consultation with other scientific experts. The SSA report 
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data 
available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts 
of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) 
affecting the species and its habitat. In accordance with our joint 
policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and 
clarifying the role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we 
will seek expert opinions of at least three appropriate specialists 
regarding the SSA concurrent with the open comment period identified in 
the proposed rule that is published concurrently with this emergency 
action (emergency rule) and found in the Proposed Rules section of this 
issue of the Federal Register. The SSA report and other materials 
related to this emergency rule, including the proposed rule, can be 
found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-
0024. We note that, because we were already conducting a status review 
of the species, we had completed an SSA prior to publishing this 
emergency listing rule. Therefore, we have incorporated the information 
from the SSA here. However, given the purpose of emergency listing 
rules, they do not require this level of detail and analysis.

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
Dixie Valley toad (Anaxyrus williamsi) is presented in the SSA report 
(Service 2022, entire).
    The Dixie Valley toad was described as a distinct species in the 
western toads (Anaxyrus boreas) species complex in 2017 due to 
morphological differences, genetic information, and its isolated 
distribution (Gordon et al. 2017, entire). Forrest et al. (2017, 
entire) also published a paper describing Dixie Valley toad and came up 
with similar results but stopped short of concluding it is a unique 
species. We evaluated both papers and concluded that the Gordon et al. 
(2017, entire) paper provided a better sampling design to answer 
species-level genetic questions and included a more thorough 
morphological analysis. Additionally, the Dixie Valley toad has been 
accepted as a valid species by the two leading authoritative amphibian 
internet sites: (1) Amphibiaweb.org (AmphibiaWeb 2022, website) and (2) 
Amphibian Species of the World (Frost 2021, website). Because both the 
larger scientific community and our own analysis of the best available 
scientific information indicate that the findings of Gordon et al. 
(2017 entire) are well supported, we are accepting their conclusions 
that the Dixie Valley toad is a unique species (Anaxyrus williamsi). 
Therefore, we have determined that the Dixie Valley toad is a listable 
entity under the Act.
    Fourteen different morphological characteristics of Dixie Valley 
toads were measured and compared to several other species within the 
western toads species complex (Gordon et al. 2017, pp. 125-131). While 
all 14 morphological characteristics measured for Dixie Valley toad 
were significantly different from the other species within the western 
toads species complex, the most striking differences were the average 
size of adults (the mean snout-to-vent length (SVL) is 54.6 millimeters 
(mm)

[[Page 20337]]

(2.2 inches (in)), which makes the Dixie Valley toad the smallest 
species within the A. boreas species complex), the close-set eyes and 
perceptively large tympanum (eardrum), and its unique coloration 
(Gordon et al. 2017, pp. 125-131).
    Limited information is available specific to the life history of 
the Dixie Valley toad; therefore, closely associated species are used 
as surrogates where appropriate. Breeding (denoted by observing a male 
and female in amplexus, egg masses, or tadpoles) occurs annually 
between March and May (Forrest 2013, p. 76). Breeding appears 
protracted due to the thermal nature of the habitat and can last up to 
3 months (March-May) with toads breeding early in the year in habitats 
closer to the thermal spring sources and then moving downstream into 
habitats as they warm throughout spring and early summer. Other toad 
species typically have a much more contracted breeding season of 3-4 
weeks (e.g., Sherman 1980, pp. 18-19, 72-73). Dixie Valley toad 
tadpoles hatch shortly after being deposited; time to hatching is not 
known but is likely dependent on water temperature (e.g., black toad 
(Anaxyrus exsul) tadpoles hatch in 7 to 9 days; Sherman 1980, p. 97). 
Fully metamorphosed Dixie Valley toadlets were observed 70 days after 
egg laying (Forrest 2013, pp. 76-77).
    The Dixie Valley toad is a narrow-ranging endemic (highly local and 
known to exist only in their place of origin) known from one population 
in the Dixie Meadows area of Churchill County, Nevada. The species 
occurs primarily on Department of Defense (DoD; Fallon Naval Air 
Station) lands (90 percent) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands 
(10 percent). The wetlands located in Dixie Meadows cover 307.6 
hectares (ha) (760 acres (ac)) and are fed by geothermal springs. The 
potential area of occupancy is estimated to be 146 ha (360 ac) based on 
the extent of wetland-associated vegetation. The species is heavily 
reliant on these wetlands, as it is rarely encountered more than 14 
meters (m) (46 feet (ft)) from aquatic habitat (Halstead et al. 2021, 
p. 7).

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

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

    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.

    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the 
foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as we can 
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' 
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable 
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. 
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide 
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction 
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should 
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the 
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species (Service 2022, entire). The SSA report does not 
represent our decision on whether the species should be listed as an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, it does 
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, 
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and 
its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary 
of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA 
report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0024 on https://www.regulations.gov.
    To assess Dixie Valley toad viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy,

[[Page 20338]]

and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand 
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, 
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to 
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution 
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to 
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, 
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a 
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to 
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental 
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' 
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the 
individual, population, and species levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time. We used this information to inform our regulatory 
decision.
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not 
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also 
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the 
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the 
current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and 
future condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis 
that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then 
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be 
influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. 
Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the 
factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the 
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the 
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

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

Species Needs

Wetted Area
    Dixie Meadows contains 122 known spring and seep sources and 
discharges approximately 1,109,396 cubic meters per year (m\3\/yr) (900 
acre-feet per year (afy)) (McGinley and Associates 2021, pp. 1-2), 
which distributes across the wetland complex water that then flows out 
to the playa or is collected in a large ephemeral pond in the northeast 
portion of the wetland complex. Some of the larger springs have 
springbrooks that form channels while in other areas the water spreads 
out over the ground or through wetland vegetation creating a thin layer 
of water or wet soil that helps maintain the wetland. Spring discharge 
is inherently linked to the amount of wetted area within the wetland 
complex. Spring discharge is important for the viability of the Dixie 
Valley toad because changes to discharge rates likely impact the 
ability of the toad to survive in a particular spring complex.
    Dixie Valley toad is a highly aquatic species rarely found more 
than 14 m (46 ft) away from water (Halstead et al. 2021, pp. 28, 30). 
The species needs wetted area for shelter, feeding, reproduction, and 
dispersal. Any change in the amount of wetted area will directly 
influence the amount of habitat available to the Dixie Valley toad. Due 
to the already restricted range of the habitat, the species needs to 
maintain the entirety of the 1.46-square-kilometer (km\2\) (360-ac) 
potential area of occupancy, based on the extent of the wetland-
associated vegetation.
Adequate Water Temperature
    In addition to the Dixie Valley toad being highly aquatic, the 
temperature of the water is also important to its life history. The 
species needs warm temperatures for shelter and reproduction. The Dixie 
Valley toad selects water or substrate that is warmer compared to 
nearby random paired locations, particularly in spring, fall, and 
winter months (Halstead et al. 2021, pp. 30, 33-34). During spring, 
they select areas with warmer water for breeding (oviposition sites), 
which allows for faster egg hatching and time to metamorphosis 
(Halstead et al. 2021, pp. 30, 33-34). During fall, they select warmer 
areas (closer to thermal springs with dense vegetation), which 
satisfies their thermal preferences as nighttime temperatures decrease 
(Halstead et al. 2021, pp. 30, 33-34). As winter approaches, toads find 
areas with consistent warm temperatures during brumation (hibernation 
for cold-blooded animals), so they do not freeze (Halstead et al. 2021, 
pp. 30, 33-34). This affinity for warm water temperature during 
brumation is unique to the Dixie Valley toad as compared to other 
species within the western toad species complex, which select burrows, 
rocks, logs, or other structures to survive through winter (Browne and 
Paszkowski 2010, pp. 53-56; Halstead et al. 2021, p. 34). Therefore, 
although the exact temperatures are unknown (range between 10-41 
degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (50-106 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)), Dixie 
Valley toad requires water temperatures warm enough to successfully 
breed and survive colder months during the year.
Wetland Vegetation
    The most common wetland vegetation found within Dixie Meadows 
includes Juncus balticus (Baltic rush), Schoenoplectus spp. 
(bulrushes), Phragmites australis (common reed), Eleocharis spp. 
(spikerushes), Typha spp. (cattails), Carex spp. (sedges), and 
Distichilis spicata (saltgrass) (AMEC Environment and Infrastructure 
2014, p. I-1; Tierra Data 2015, pp. 2-25--2-29; McGinley and Associates 
2021, pp. 50-52, 93-99). Several species of invasive and nonnative 
plants also occur in Dixie Meadows including Cicuta maculate (water 
hemlock), Cardaria draba (hoary cress), Lepidium latifolium (perennial 
pepperweed), Eleagnus angustifolius (Russian olive), and Tamarix 
ramosissima (saltcedar) (AMEC Environment and Infrastructure 2014, p. 
3-59). The Dixie Valley toad needs sufficient wetland vegetation to use 
as shelter. At a minimum, maintaining the current heterogeneity of the 
wetland vegetation found in Dixie Meadows is a necessary component for 
maintaining the resiliency of the Dixie Valley toad (Halstead et al. 
2021, p. 34).
Adequate Water Quality
    Amphibian species spend all or part of their life cycle in water; 
therefore, water quality characteristics directly affect amphibians. 
Dissolved oxygen, potential hydrogen (pH), salinity, water 
conductivity, and excessive nutrient concentrations (among other water 
quality metrics) all have direct and indirect impacts to the survival, 
growth,

[[Page 20339]]

maturation, and physical development of amphibian species when found to 
be outside of naturally occurring levels for any particular location 
(Sparling 2010, pp. 105-117).
    Various water quality data have been collected from a few springs 
within Dixie Meadows and from wells drilled during geothermal 
exploration activities (McGinley and Associates 2021, pp. 57-64). The 
exact water quality parameters preferred by the Dixie Valley toad are 
unknown; however, this species has evolved only in Dixie Meadows and is 
presumed to thrive in the current existing, complex mix of water 
emanating from both the basin-fill aquifer and the deep geothermal 
reservoir. Within the unique habitat in Dixie Meadows, and given the 
life history and physiological strategies employed by the species, a 
good baseline of existing environmental water quality factors that are 
most important for all life stages should be studied (Rowe et al. 2003, 
p. 957). The Dixie Valley toad needs the natural variation of the 
current water quality parameters found in Dixie Meadows to maintain 
resiliency.

Threats Analysis

    We reviewed the potential risk factors (i.e., threats, stressors) 
that may be currently affecting the Dixie Valley toad. In this rule, we 
discuss only those factors in detail that could meaningfully affect the 
status of the species.
    The primary threats affecting the status of the Dixie Valley toad 
are geothermal development and associated groundwater pumping (Factor 
A); establishment of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd; hereafter 
referred to as amphibian chytrid fungus), which causes the disease 
chytridiomycosis (Factor C); predation by the invasive American 
bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) (Factor C); groundwater pumping 
associated with human consumption, agriculture, and county planning 
(Factor A); and climate change (Factor A). Climate change may further 
influence the degree to which these threats, individually or 
collectively, may affect the Dixie Valley toad. The risk factors that 
are unlikely to have significant effects on the Dixie Valley toad, such 
as livestock grazing and historical spring modifications, are not 
discussed here but are evaluated in the current condition assessment of 
the SSA report.
Geothermal Development
    Geothermal resources are reservoirs of hot water or steam found at 
different temperatures and depths below the ground. These geothermal 
reservoirs can be used to produce energy by drilling a well and 
bringing the heated water or steam to the surface. Geothermal energy 
plants use the steam or heat created by the hot water to drive turbines 
that produce electricity. Three main technologies are being used today 
to convert geothermal water into electricity: Dry steam, flash steam, 
and binary cycle. Binary technology is the focus for this analysis, 
because that type of geothermal power technology has been approved for 
development at Dixie Meadows.
    Binary cycle power plants use the heat from the geothermal 
reservoir to heat a secondary fluid (e.g., butane) that generally has a 
much lower boiling point than water. This process is accomplished 
through a heat exchanger, and the secondary fluid is flashed into vapor 
by the heat from the geothermal fluid; the vapor drives the turbines to 
generate electricity. The geothermal fluid is then reinjected back into 
the ground to maintain pressure and be reheated.
    General impacts from geothermal production facilities are presented 
below. Because every geothermal field is unique, it is difficult to 
predict what effects from geothermal production may occur.
    Prior to geothermal development, the flow path of water underneath 
the land surface is usually not known with sufficient detail to 
understand and prevent impacts to the surface wetlands dependent upon 
those flows (Sorey 2000, p. 705). Changes associated with surface 
expression of thermal waters from geothermal production are common and 
are expected. Typical changes seen in geothermal fields include, but 
are not limited to, changes in water temperature, flow, and water 
quality, which are all resource needs of the Dixie Valley toad that 
could be negatively affected by geothermal production (Sorey 2000, 
entire; Bonte et al. 2011, pp. 4-8; Kaya et al. 2011, pp. 55-64; Chen 
et al. 2020, pp. 2-6).
    Steam discharge, land subsidence (i.e., gradual settling or sudden 
sinking of the ground surface due to the withdrawal of large amounts of 
groundwater), and changes in water temperature and flow have all been 
documented from geothermal production areas throughout the western 
United States (Sorey 2000, entire). For example:
    (1) Long Valley Caldera near Mammoth, California. Geothermal 
pumping in the period 1985-1998 resulted in several springs ceasing to 
flow and declines in pressure of the geothermal reservoir, which has 
caused reductions of 10-15 [deg]C (50-59 [deg]F) in the reservoir 
temperature and a localized decrease of approximately 80 [deg]C (176 
[deg]F) near the reinjection zone (Sorey 2000, p. 706).
    (2) Steamboat Springs near Reno, Nevada. Geothermal development 
resulted in the loss of surface discharge (geysers and springs) on the 
main terrace and a reduction of thermal water discharge to Steamboat 
Creek by 40 percent (Sorey 2000, p. 707).
    (3) Northern Dixie Valley near Reno, Nevada. Other common changes 
that accompany the loss of surficial water sources, such as geysers and 
thermal springs, from geothermal production include an increase in 
steam discharge and land subsidence (Sorey 2000, p. 705). Both steam 
discharge and land subsidence were detected at an existing 56-megawatt 
(MW) geothermal plant in northern Dixie Valley, Nevada, which has been 
in production since 1985 (Sorey 2000, p. 708; Huntington et al. 2014, 
p. 5). The northern Dixie Valley geothermal plant began pumping water 
from the cold basin fill aquifer (local aquifer) and reinjecting it 
above the hot geothermal reservoir (regional aquifer) to try and 
alleviate land subsidence issues (Huntington et al. 2014, p. 5). This 
approach may have led to an increase in depth to groundwater from 1.8 m 
(6 ft) in 1985 to 4.3-4.6 m (14-15 ft) in 2009-2011 (Albano et al. 
2021, p. 78).
    (4) Jersey Valley near Reno, Nevada. In 2011, a 23.5-MW geothermal 
power plant started production in Jersey Valley, just north of Dixie 
Valley. Measured springflow of 0.08-0.17 cubic feet per second (cfs) 
(35-75 gallons per minute (gpm)) at a perennial thermal spring began to 
decline almost immediately after the power plant began operation (BLM 
2022, p. 1; Nevada Department of Water Resources (NDWR) 2022, 
unpublished data). By 2014, the Jersey Valley Hot Spring ceased flowing 
(BLM 2022, p. 1; NDWR 2022, unpublished data). The loss of aquatic 
insects from the springbrook has diminished the foraging ability of 
eight different bat species that occur in the area (BLM 2022, p. 28). 
To mitigate for the spring going dry, the BLM proposed to pipe 
geothermal fluid 1.1 km (3,600 ft) to the spring source (BLM 2022, p. 
8); however, mitigation has not yet occurred. If a similar outcome were 
to occur in Dixie Meadows, resulting in the complete drying of the 
springs, the Dixie Valley toad would likely be extirpated if mitigation 
to prevent the drying of the springs is not satisfactorily or timely 
achieved.
    In an effort to minimize changes in water temperature, quantity, 
and quality, and to maintain pressure of the

[[Page 20340]]

geothermal reservoir, geothermal fluids are reinjected into the ground, 
though reinjected water is at a lower temperature than when it was 
pumped out of the ground. This practice entails much trial and error in 
an attempt to equilibrate subsurface reservoir pressure. It can take 
several years to understand how a new geothermal field will react to 
production and reinjection wells; however, reinjection does not always 
have the desired effect (Kaya et al. 2011, pp. 55-64).
    Geothermal energy production has been cited as the greatest threat 
to the persistence of Dixie Valley toad (Forrest et al. 2017, pp. 172-
173; Gordon et al. 2017, p. 136; Halstead et al. 2021, p. 35). 
Geothermal environments often harbor unique flora and fauna that have 
evolved in these rare habitats (Boothroyd 2009, entire; Service 2019, 
entire). Changes to these rare habitats often cause declines in these 
endemic organisms or even result in the destruction of their habitat 
(Yurchenko 2005, p. 496; Bayer et al. 2013, pp. 455-456; Service 2019, 
pp. 2-3). Because the Dixie Valley toad relies heavily on wetted area 
and warm water temperature to remain viable, reduction of these two 
resource needs could cause significant declines in the population and 
changes to its habitat that are detrimental to the species and result 
in it being in danger of extinction.
Disease
    Over roughly the last four decades, pathogens have been associated 
with amphibian population declines, mass die-offs, and extinctions 
worldwide (Bradford 1991, pp. 174-176; Muths et al. 2003, pp. 359-364; 
Weldon et al. 2004, pp. 2,101-2,104; Rachowicz et al. 2005, pp. 1,442-
1,446; Fisher et al. 2009, pp. 292-302; Knapp et al. 2011, pp. 8-19). 
One pathogen strongly associated with dramatic declines on all 
continents that harbor amphibians is chytridiomycosis caused by 
amphibian chytrid fungus (Rachowicz et al. 2005, pp. 1,442-1,446). 
Chytrid fungus has now been reported in amphibian species worldwide 
(Fellers et al. 2001, pp. 947-952; Rachowicz et al. 2005, pp. 1,442-
1,446). Early doubt that this particular pathogen was responsible for 
worldwide die-offs has largely been overcome by the weight of evidence 
documenting the appearance, spread, and detrimental effects to affected 
populations (Vredenburg et al. 2010, pp. 9,690-9,692).
    Clinical signs of chytridiomycosis and diagnosis include abnormal 
posture, lethargy, and loss of righting reflex (the ability to correct 
the orientation of the body when it is not in its normal upright 
position) (Daszak et al. 1999, p. 737). Chytridiomycosis also causes 
gross lesions, which are usually not apparent and consist of abnormal 
epidermal sloughing and ulceration, as well as hemorrhages in the skin, 
muscle, or eye (Daszak et al. 1999, p. 737). Chytridiomycosis can be 
identified in some species of amphibians by examining the oral discs 
(tooth rows) of tadpoles that may be abnormally formed or lacking 
pigment (Fellers et al. 2001, pp. 946-947).
    Despite the acknowledged impacts of chytridiomycosis to amphibians, 
little is known about this disease outside of mass die-off events. 
There is high variability between species of amphibians in response to 
being infected including within the western toads species complex. Two 
long-term study sites have documented differences in apparent survival 
of western toads between two different sites in Montana and Wyoming 
(Russell et al. 2019, pp. 300-301). The chytrid-positive western toad 
population in Montana was reduced by 19 percent compared to chytrid-
negative toads in that area--in comparison to the western toad 
population in Wyoming, which was reduced by 55 percent (Russell et al. 
2019, p. 301). Various diseases are confirmed to be lethal to Yosemite 
toads (Green and Sherman 2001, p. 94), and research has elucidated the 
potential role of chytrid fungus infection as a threat to Yosemite toad 
populations (Dodge 2013, pp. 6-10, 15-20; Lindauer and Voyles 2019, pp. 
189-193). These various diseases and infections, in concert with other 
factors, have likely contributed to the decline of the Yosemite toad 
(Sherman and Morton 1993, pp. 189-197) and may continue to pose a risk 
to the species (Dodge 2013, pp. 10-11; Lindauer and Voyles 2019, pp. 
189-193). Amargosa toads are known to have high infection rates and 
high chytrid fungus loads; however, they do not appear to show adverse 
impacts from the disease (Forrest et al. 2015, pp. 920-922). Not all 
individual amphibians that test positive for chytrid fungus develop 
chytridiomycosis.
    Dixie Valley toad was sampled for chytrid fungus in 2011-2012 
(before it was recognized as a species) and 2019-2021 (Forrest 2013, p. 
77; Kleeman et al. 2021, entire); chytrid fungus was not found during 
either survey. However, chytrid fungus has been documented in bullfrogs 
in Dixie Valley (Forrest 2013, p. 77), which is a known vector species 
for spreading chytrid fungus and diseases to other species of 
amphibians (Daszak et al. 2004, pp. 203-206; Urbina et al. 2018, pp. 
271-274; Yap et al. 2018, pp. 4-8).
    The best available information indicates that the thermal nature of 
the Dixie Valley toad habitat may keep chytrid fungus from becoming 
established; therefore, it is imperative that the water maintains its 
natural thermal characteristics (Forrest 2013, pp. 75-85; Halstead et 
al. 2021, pp. 33-35). Boreal toads exposed to chytrid fungus survive 
longer when exposed to warmer environments (mean 18 [deg]C (64 [deg]F)) 
as compared to boreal toads in cooler environments (mean 15 [deg]C (59 
[deg]F)) (Murphy et al. 2011, pp. 35-38). Additionally, chytrid fungus 
zoosporangia grown at 27.5 [deg]C (81.5 [deg]F) remain metabolically 
active; however, no zoospores are produced, indicating no reproduction 
at this high temperature (Lindauer et al. 2020, pp. 2-5). Generally, 
chytrid fungus does not seem to become established in water warmer than 
30 [deg]C (86 [deg]F) (Forrest and Schlaepfer 2011, pp. 3-7). Dixie 
Meadows springhead water temperatures range from 13 [deg]C (55 [deg]F) 
to 74 [deg]C (165 [deg]F), though the four largest spring complexes 
(springs that create the largest wetland areas and are inhabited by a 
majority of the Dixie Valley toad population) range from 16 [deg]C (61 
[deg]F) to 74 [deg]C (165 [deg]F) with median temperatures of at least 
25 [deg]C (77 [deg]F). Additionally, water temperatures measured in 
2019 at toad survey sites throughout Dixie Meadows (i.e., not at 
springheads) ranged from 10 to 41 [deg]C (50 to 106 [deg]F). Any 
reduction in water temperature, including reductions caused by 
geothermal development, would not only affect the ability of Dixie 
Valley toads to survive during cold months, but could also make the 
species vulnerable to chytrid fungus.
Predation
    Predation has been reported in species similar to the Dixie Valley 
toad and likely occurs in Dixie Meadows; however, predation of Dixie 
Valley toads has not been documented. Likely predators on the egg and 
aquatic larval forms of Dixie Valley toad include predacious diving 
beetles (Dytiscus sp.) and dragonfly larvae (Odonata). Common ravens 
(Corvus corax) and other corvids are known to feed on juvenile and 
adult black toads and Yosemite toads (Sherman 1980, pp. 90-92; Sherman 
and Morton 1993, pp. 194-195). Raven populations are increasing across 
the western United States and are clearly associated with anthropogenic 
developments, such as roads and power lines (Coates and Delehanty 2010, 
pp. 244-245; Howe et al. 2014, pp. 44-46). Ravens are known to nest 
within Dixie Valley (Environmental Management and Planning Solutions 
2016, pp. 3-4).

[[Page 20341]]

    The American bullfrog, a ranid species native to much of central 
and eastern North America, now occurs within Dixie Meadows (Casper and 
Hendricks 2005, pp. 540-541; Gordon et al. 2017, p. 136). Bullfrogs are 
recognized as one of the 100 worst invasive species in the world 
(Global Invasive Species Database 2021, pp. 1-17). Bullfrogs are known 
to compete with and prey on other amphibian species (Moyle 1973, pp. 
19-21; Kiesecker et al. 2001, pp. 1,966-1,969; Pearl et al. 2004, pp. 
16-18; Casper and Hendricks 2005, pp. 543-544; Monello et al. 2006, p. 
406; Falaschi et al. 2020, pp. 216-218).
    Bullfrogs are a gape-limited predator, which means they eat 
anything they can swallow (Casper and Hendricks 2005, pp. 543-544). 
Dixie Valley toad is the smallest toad species in the western toads 
species complex and can easily be preyed upon by bullfrogs. Smaller 
bullfrogs eat mostly invertebrates (Casper and Hendricks 2005, p. 544), 
and thus may compete with Dixie Valley toad for food resources. Within 
Dixie Valley, bullfrogs are known to occur at Turley Pond and in one 
area of Dixie Meadows adjacent to occupied Dixie Valley toad habitat 
(Forrest 2013, pp. 74, 87; Rose et al. 2015, p. 529; Halstead et al. 
2021, p. 24).
Climate Change
    Both human settlements and natural ecosystems in the Southwestern 
United States are largely dependent on groundwater resources, and 
decreased groundwater recharge may occur as a result of climate change 
(U.S. Global Change Research Program 2009, p. 133). Furthermore, the 
human population in the Southwest is expected to increase 70 percent by 
mid-century (Garfin 2014, p. 470). Resulting increases in urban 
development, agriculture, and energy-production facilities will likely 
place additional demands on already limited water resources. Climate 
change will likely increase water demand while at the same time shrink 
water supply, since water loss may increase evapotranspiration rates 
and runoff during storm events (Archer and Predick 2008, p. 25).
    In order to identify changing climatic conditions more specific to 
Dixie Meadows, we conducted a climate analysis using the Climate Mapper 
web tool (Hegewisch et al. 2020, online). The Climate Mapper is a web 
tool for visualizing past and projected climate and hydrology of the 
contiguous United States. This tool maps real-time conditions, current 
forecasts, and future projections of climate information across the 
United States to assist with decisions related to agriculture, climate, 
fire conditions, and water.
    For our analysis, we analyzed mean annual temperature and percent 
precipitation using the historical period of 1971-2000 and the 
projected future time period 2040-2069. We examined emission scenarios 
that used representative concentration pathways (RCPs) 4.5 and 8.5 
using ArcGIS Pro.
    Our analysis predicts increased air temperatures in Dixie Meadows, 
along with a slight increase in precipitation. Annual mean air 
temperature is projected to increase between 2.5 and 3.4 [deg]C (4.5 
and 6.1 [deg]F) and result in average temperatures 3.0 [deg]C (5.3 
[deg]F) warmer throughout Dixie Meadows between 2040 and 2069 
(Hegewisch et al. 2020, Geographic Information System (GIS) data). 
Under two emission scenarios, annual precipitation is projected to 
increase by 4.5 to 7.7 percent (Hegewisch et al. 2020, GIS data).
    Climate change may impact the Dixie Valley toad and its habitat in 
two main ways: (1) Reductions in springflow as a result of changes in 
the amount, type, and timing of precipitation, increased 
evapotranspiration rates, and reduced aquifer recharge; and (2) 
reductions in springflow as a result of changes in human behavior in 
response to climate change (e.g., increased groundwater pumping as 
surface water resources disappear). A reduction in springflow could be 
exacerbated by the greater severity of droughts being experienced in 
the Southwestern United States, including Nevada (Snyder et al. 2019, 
pp. 2-4; Williams et al. 2020, pp. 1-5). Higher temperatures and drier 
conditions could result in greater evapotranspiration, leading to 
increased drying of wetland habitat. Impacts vary geographically, and 
identifying the vulnerability of individual springs is challenging. For 
example, a study examining different springs over a 14-year period at 
Arches National Park in Utah found that each spring responded to local 
precipitation and recharge differently, despite similarities to Dixie 
Valley in topographic setting, aquifer type, and climate exposure 
(Weissinger 2016, p. 9).
    Predicting individual spring response to climate change is further 
complicated by the minimal information available about the large 
hydrological connections for most sites and the high degree of 
uncertainty inherent in future precipitation models. Regardless, the 
best available data indicate that Dixie Valley toad may be vulnerable 
to climate change to an unknown degree, but we cannot say with any 
certainty where impacts may be manifested or the greatest.
Groundwater Pumping
    The basin is fully appropriated for consumptive groundwater uses 
(18,758,663 cubic meters per year (m\3\/yr) (15,218 acre-feet per year 
(afy)) of an estimated 18,489,943 m\3\/yr (15,000 afy) perennial 
yield), and the proposed Dixie Valley groundwater export project by 
Churchill County is seeking an additional 12,326,628-18,489,943 m\3\/yr 
(10,000-15,000 afy) (Huntington et al. 2014, p. 2). Total geothermal 
water rights appropriated in Dixie Valley as of 2020 are 15,659,749 
m\3\/yr (12,704 afy) (BLM 2021b, pp. 2-28).
    Increased groundwater pumping in Nevada is primarily driven by 
human water demand for municipal purposes, irrigation, and development 
for oil, gas, geothermal resources, and minerals. Many factors 
associated with groundwater pumping can affect whether or not an 
activity will impact a spring. These factors include the amount of 
groundwater to be pumped, period of pumping, the proximity of pumping 
to a spring, depth of pumping, and characteristics of the aquifer being 
impacted. Depending on these factors, groundwater withdrawal may result 
in no measurable impact to springs or may reduce spring discharge, 
change the temperature of the water, reduce free-flowing water, dry 
springs, alter Dixie Valley toad habitat size and heterogeneity, or 
create habitat that is more suited to nonnative species than to native 
species (Sada and Deacon 1994, p. 6). Pumping rates that exceed 
perennial yield can lower the water table, which in turn will likely 
affect riparian vegetation (Patten 2008, p. 399).
    Determining when groundwater withdrawal exceeds perennial yield is 
difficult to ascertain and reverse due to inherent delays in detection 
of pumping impacts and the subsequent lag time required for recovery of 
discharge at a spring (Bredehoeft 2011, p. 808). Groundwater pumping 
initially captures stored groundwater near the pumping area until water 
levels decline and a cone of depression expands, potentially impacting 
water sources to springs or streams (Dudley and Larson 1976, p. 38). 
Spring aquifer source and other aquifer characteristics influence the 
ability and rate at which a spring fills and may recover from 
groundwater pumping (Heath 1983, pp. 6, 14). Depending on aquifer 
characteristics and rates of pumping, recovery of the aquifer is 
variable and may take several years or even centuries (Heath 1983, p. 
32; Halford and Jackson 2020, p. 70). Yet where reliable records exist, 
most

[[Page 20342]]

springs fed by even the most extensive aquifers are affected by 
exploitation, and springflow reductions relate directly to quantities 
of groundwater removed (Dudley and Larson 1976, p. 51).
    The most extreme potential effects of groundwater withdrawal on 
Dixie Valley toad are likely desiccation and extirpation or extinction. 
If groundwater withdrawal occurs but does not cause a spring to dry, 
there can still be adverse effects to Dixie Valley toads or their 
habitat because reduction in springflow reduces both the amount of 
water and amount of occupied habitat. If the withdrawals also coincide 
with altered precipitation and temperature from climate change, even 
less water will be available. Cumulatively, these conditions could 
result in a delay in groundwater recharge at springs, which may then 
result in a greater effect to the Dixie Valley toad than the effects of 
the individual threats acting alone. Across the Dixie Meadows springs, 
discharge varies greatly, with some springs with low discharge at the 
current time likely due to a combination of influences, both natural 
and anthropogenic. Though there is much uncertainty around the 
magnitude and timing of groundwater withdrawal, and thus the possible 
effects on the Dixie Meadows spring system, we anticipate that the 
future effects of groundwater withdrawal could have significant effects 
on the Dixie Meadows spring system.

Current Condition

Redundancy, Representation, and Resiliency
    Population estimates are not available for the Dixie Valley toad. 
Time-series data of toad abundance are available from various surveys 
conducted by the Service and the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) 
during the period 2009-2012 (before the Dixie Valley toad was 
recognized as a species); however, differences in sample methodology 
between years and low recapture rates indicate that consistent 
reproduction is occurring.
    In 2018, Dixie Valley toads were detected in 38 of 60 randomized 
plots in the Dixie Meadows wetlands, with a 95 percent credible 
interval (Bayesian equivalent of a confidence interval) for probability 
of toad occurrence of 0.55-0.98 in plots of average water temperature 
(18.8 [deg]C (65.8 [deg]F)) (Halstead et al. 2019, p. 9). In other 
words, adult toads currently have high occupancy rates and are 
generally more likely than not to occur across the Dixie Meadows 
wetlands. The 95 percent credible interval for the probability of 
reproduction in an average plot (18.8 [deg]C (65.8 [deg]F) and 45 
percent wetted area) was 0.01-0.26 and increased as a function of 
wetted surface area in plots with adults present (Halstead et al. 2019, 
p. 10). Although larvae have a lower probability of occurring within an 
average plot than adults, warmer water temperatures strongly influence 
the probability of reproduction (Halstead et al. 2019, pp. 10-11). This 
finding suggests that adult toads are seeking out a specific subset of 
habitat for reproduction based in part on water temperature. The 
percentage of the range currently occupied by adults remained similarly 
high throughout 2018-2021 and across seasons (Rose et al. 2022, 
entire).
    The high occupancy rate observed from 2018 through 2021 and 
evidence of reproduction observed in the period 2009-2021 suggest that 
the Dixie Valley toad is currently maintaining resilience to the 
historical and current environmental stochasticity present at Dixie 
Meadows. However, the narrowly distributed, isolated nature of the 
single population of the species indicates that the Dixie Valley toad 
has little ability to withstand stochastic or catastrophic events 
through dispersal. Because the species evolved in a unique spring 
system with little historical variation, we conclude that it has low 
potential to adapt to a fast-changing environment. As a single-site 
endemic with no dispersal opportunities outside the current range, the 
species has inherently low redundancy and representation and depends 
entirely on the continued availability of habitat in Dixie Meadows.
    The following section discusses the potential impacts the Dixie 
Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project could have on both the current 
and future status of the Dixie Valley toad. Based on an expert 
knowledge elicitation (discussed further below) conducted on the 
potential outcomes of this geothermal project, peak change to the 
spring system could occur as early as the current year of 2022 (year 1 
of geothermal pumping), with a 90 percent chance that peak change will 
occur within 10 years of the start of geothermal pumping (Service 2022, 
pp. 42-43).
Dixie Meadows Geothermal Project
    In addition to 50 active geothermal leases within Dixie Valley in 
Churchill County, two geothermal exploration projects were approved in 
Dixie Meadows in 2010 and 2011 (BLM 2010, entire; BLM 2011, entire). 
Most recently, on November 23, 2021, BLM approved and permitted the 
Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project (BLM 2021b, entire) after 
issuing two draft environmental assessments, receiving extensive 
comments from the Service and NDOW, and developing an Aquatic Resources 
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (hereafter referred to as the Monitoring 
and Mitigation Plan). This project will consist of up to two 30-MW 
geothermal power plants on 6.5 ha (16 ac) each; up to 18 well pads 
(107x114 m (350x375 ft)), upon which up to three wells per pad may be 
drilled for exploration, production, or injection; pipelines to carry 
geothermal fluid between well fields and the power plant(s); and either 
a 120-kilovolt (kV) or a 230-kV transmission gen-tie and associated 
access roads and structures (BLM 2021b, p. 1-1). The project proponent 
(Ormat Nevada Inc. (Ormat)) began construction on the first geothermal 
plant the week of February 14, 2022, and plans to begin geothermal 
production by December 2022; therefore, we assume it is possible that 
both construction and production will occur in 2022. To see a more 
detailed overview of the approved and permitted project, refer to the 
BLM environmental assessment (BLM 2021b, entire).
    As mentioned above, two geothermal exploration projects were 
approved by the BLM in 2010 and 2011 (BLM 2010, entire; BLM 2011, 
entire); however, required monitoring and baseline environmental 
surveys for those exploration projects did not occur (BLM 2021a, pp. 3-
17-3-18). As a result, key environmental information (e.g., water 
quality metrics data such as flow, water temperature, and water 
pressure) is lacking to determine the effects of the project on the 
surrounding environment. Most of the information collected during this 
timeframe were singular measurements taken quarterly or annually, which 
do not characterize the variability in environmental conditions 
observed in Dixie Meadows. The lack of robust baseline environmental 
information is part of why we, along with experts from the expert 
knowledge elicitation workshop panel (described below), conclude that 
the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan associated with the Dixie Meadows 
Geothermal Utilization Project, discussed further in the Conservation 
Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms section, below, needs further 
refinement to adequately detect and respond to changes in the wetlands 
and toad populations. The ability of the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan 
to detect changes in baseline conditions, and mitigate those changes, 
is discussed further in the Expert Knowledge

[[Page 20343]]

Elicitation and Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms 
sections, below.
Expert Knowledge Elicitation
    An expert knowledge elicitation workshop was carried out during the 
period August 17-20, 2021, using the [then] proposed Dixie Meadows 
Geothermal Utilization Project, January 2021 draft environmental 
assessment (BLM 2021a, entire) and draft Monitoring and Mitigation Plan 
(BLM 2021a, Appendix H), and a summary of all existing data to 
determine the range of outcomes of the approved project. This analysis 
used a modified version of the Sheffield elicitation framework, which 
follows established best practices for eliciting expert knowledge 
(Gosling 2018, entire; O'Hagan 2019, pp. 73-81; Oakley and O'Hagan 
2019, entire). The expert panel consisted of a multidisciplinary group 
with backgrounds in the geologic structure of basin and range systems, 
various components of deep and shallow groundwater flow, as well as 
geothermal exploration and development. All panelists have direct 
experience in the Great Basin, and most in Dixie Valley and Dixie 
Meadows, specifically. The panelists were asked questions regarding the 
time until peak changes to the spring system would occur, the ability 
of the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan to detect and mitigate change, 
the amount of time it would take to mitigate change if mitigation is 
possible, and what the peak changes to springflow and spring 
temperature could be. For a detailed overview of the expert knowledge 
elicitation process, refer to the SSA report (Service 2022, Appendix 
A).
    The expert panelists concluded that the Dixie Meadows spring system 
will change quickly, and detrimentally, once geothermal energy 
production begins, with a median response time of roughly 4 years and a 
90 percent chance that the largest magnitude changes will occur within 
10 years (Service 2022, Appendix A). Uncertainty within individual 
judgments on response time was related to the efficacy of mitigation 
measures and interactions between short-term impacts from geothermal 
development and longer term impacts from climate change and consumptive 
water use.
    Experts had low confidence in the ability of the Monitoring and 
Mitigation Plan to both detect and mitigate changes to the temperature 
and flow of surface springs in Dixie Meadows. Although the aggregated 
distribution for the ability to detect changes ranged from 0 to 100 
percent, the median expectation was a roughly 38 percent chance of 
detecting changes (Service 2022, Appendix A). These judgments reflect 
an expectation that there is less than 50 percent confidence from the 
experts that the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan could detect changes in 
the spring system due to the complexity and natural variability of the 
system, limited baseline data, and perceived inadequacies of the 
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. The Monitoring and Mitigation Plan was 
perceived as inadequate due in part to limited monitoring locations, 
low frequency of monitoring and reporting, and lack of a statistical 
approach for addressing variability and uncertainty. The degree of 
confidence in the ability to mitigate environmental impacts of the 
project was even lower (median of roughly 29 percent; Service 2022, 
Appendix A) based on previously stated concerns about the plan, lack of 
information on how water quality would be addressed, interacting 
effects of climate change and extractive water use, and questions about 
the motivation to mitigate if measures ran counter to other operating 
goals of the plant.
    The expert panel was asked what timeframe would be required to 
fully mitigate changes in spring temperature and springflow once 
detected--assuming that changes have been detected, it is technically 
feasible to mitigate the problem, and there is a willingness to 
participate from all parties. Based on those assumptions, the experts 
judged that it could take multiple years to mitigate perturbations once 
detected, with a median expectation of 4 years (Service 2022, Appendix 
A).
    At the time the expert knowledge elicitation occurred, the Dixie 
Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project was not approved. However, in 
the discussion about expected peak change in spring temperature and 
springflow, the experts considered how the spring system would change 
if the geothermal project was not approved or the Monitoring and 
Mitigation Plan was improved. Expert judgments on expected peak change 
in spring temperature and springflow that considered the geothermal 
project not getting approved and an improvement in the Monitoring and 
Mitigation Plan were not considered in our analysis because the 
geothermal project was approved (BLM 2021b, entire) in November 2021. 
Additionally, although the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan was changed, 
changes were minimal and did not affect the ability of the plan to 
detect or mitigate changes. Therefore, the results of the expert 
knowledge elicitation completed on the January 2021 draft environmental 
assessment and the then-existing Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (BLM 
2021a, entire) would not have changed meaningfully in response to the 
final approved environmental assessment and Monitoring and Mitigation 
Plan (BLM 2021b, entire).
    Although there is large uncertainty in the magnitude of expected 
changes from the approved project, there is a high degree of certainty 
that geothermal energy development will have severe and negative 
effects on the geothermal springs relied upon by the Dixie Valley toad, 
including reductions in spring temperature and springflow, which 
directly affect the resource needs of the species. The plausible range 
of changes to spring temperatures ranged from a lower limit of a 55- 
[deg]C (99- [deg]F) decrease to an upper limit of a 10- [deg]C (18- 
[deg]F) decrease (Service 2022, Appendix A). This uncertainty is due to 
the wide spatial variation in spring temperatures across the spring 
system and reflects the expectation that the spring temperatures could 
plausibly drop to ambient levels (i.e., a complete loss of geothermal 
contributions). Similarly, the lower limit of the aggregated expert 
judgments considered it plausible that springs in Dixie Meadows could 
dry up (no surface discharge) as the geothermal contribution was 
reduced, with an upper limit of a 31-percent decrease in surface 
discharge. These judgments reflect the high anticipated pumping rates 
of the proposed plants, perceived inadequacies with the Monitoring and 
Mitigation Plan, and the fact that drying of surface springs has been 
documented at other nearby geothermal development projects (BLM 2019, 
p. 1).

Scenario Considerations for Current and Future Conditions

    In the SSA report, we analyzed four scenarios based on the expert 
knowledge elicitation. As mentioned earlier, these scenarios could 
plausibly affect both the current and future condition of the species. 
Three of the scenarios (scenarios 1-3) assume the Dixie Meadows 
Geothermal Utilization Project will begin construction as approved, 
while scenario 4 assumes there will be no geothermal development or the 
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan will be significantly improved before 
project implementation. Scenario 4 was not considered in this decision 
given the approval of the geothermal project, the beginning of 
construction on the project, and the lack of substantive improvements 
to the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. As discussed above in the Expert 
Knowledge Elicitation section, we have low confidence in the ability of 
the Monitoring and Mitigation

[[Page 20344]]

Plan to detect or mitigate changes to the spring system. Therefore, 
only scenarios 1-3 were considered for this decision.
    The scenarios incorporated the following considerations from the 
expert knowledge elicitation: The efficacy of the Monitoring and 
Mitigation Plan; how the surficial spring system will respond to 
geothermal production; and changes in temperature, evapotranspiration, 
and extreme precipitation events related to climate change. For all 
scenarios, we project that the basin will remain over-allocated. The 
lower bound of scenarios (scenario 1) projects that the Monitoring and 
Mitigation Plan is ineffective, the springs dry completely, and there 
are increases in air temperature, evapotranspiration, and extreme 
precipitation events seen under RCP 8.5. This scenario represents the 
low confidence the experts have in the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan 
and reflects the results in a similar situation that occurred in Jersey 
Valley where geothermal production caused the spring system to go dry 
within 3 years of the start of operation (BLM 2022, p. 1; NDWR 2022, 
unpublished data). The upper bound of scenarios (scenario 3) projects 
that the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan is moderately effective, 
geothermal production has moderate effects on the surficial spring 
system, and increases in temperature, evapotranspiration, and moderate 
changes in precipitation seen under RCP 4.5 occur. Because the experts 
expressed less than 50 percent confidence in the ability of the 
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan to both detect and mitigate change, it 
was logical for this scenario to represent the upper bound of 
plausibility.
    These scenarios include the range of peak changes to spring 
temperature and springflow as discussed earlier (a 55- [deg]C (99- 
[deg]F)) decrease to a 10- [deg]C (18- [deg]F) decrease in spring 
temperature and a 100-percent decrease to a 31-percent decrease in 
springflow). These projected changes in spring temperature and flow 
were used as inputs into a multistate, dynamic occupancy model, which 
is described further in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 61-64). 
Scenario 1 results in complete reproductive failure because of the 
drying of springs, and scenarios 2 and 3 project a risk of reproductive 
failure after 1 year of geothermal production (lower credible interval 
of 0 percent of the range occupied by larvae). Under scenario 2, the 
mean percentage of the range occupied by larvae drops to 0 percent by 
2024 with an upper credible interval of 2 percent of the range occupied 
by larvae. Scenario 3 projects a mean of 1 percent of the range 
occupied by larvae with an upper credible interval of 5 percent of the 
range occupied by 2026. All scenarios result in a high level of risk of 
reproductive failure for the Dixie Valley toad in the near future.
    Although the occupancy model described above represents the best 
available projection framework for the Dixie Valley toad, not all 
demographic and risk factors relevant to understanding species 
viability are included. One major threat not accounted for is the 
synergistic effect of changes in temperature with the risk posed by 
exposure to the fungal pathogen chytrid fungus that causes the disease 
chytridiomycosis (see Disease, above). Chytrid fungus growth and 
survival are sensitive to both cold and hot temperatures, with optimal 
growth conditions in culture occurring between 15 and 25 [deg]C (59 and 
77 [deg]F). There is equivocal evidence on whether colder temperatures 
limit the effects of chytrid fungus (Voyles et al. 2017, pp. 367-369); 
however, hot geothermal waters above 25 [deg]C (77 [deg]F) appear to 
provide protection against chytrid fungus by allowing individuals to 
raise body temperatures through behavioral fever (Forrest and 
Schlaepfer 2011, entire; Murphy et al. 2011, p. 39). This information 
indicates that future decreases in water temperature associated with 
scenarios 2 and 3 are likely to increase the risk that chytrid fungus 
could become established within the Dixie Valley toad population. If 
chytrid fungus becomes established within the Dixie Valley toad 
population, there would be negative, and plausibly catastrophic, 
effects to the species.
    The seasonal timing of changes in water temperature is also 
particularly important. Dixie Valley toads strongly rely on aquatic 
environments throughout their life cycle (Halstead et al. 2021, 
entire). Unlike Western toads that may be found hundreds to thousands 
of meters from aquatic breeding sites, in surveys Dixie Valley toads 
are almost always found in water (Halstead et al. 2021, pp. 30-31). 
When not detected in water, Dixie Valley toads are found 4.2 m (13.8 
ft) from water on average and are found both in and above water during 
brumation (Halstead et al. 2021, p. 30). Autumn brumation sites are 
found to be warmer than random locations available, and toads are 1.3 
times more likely to select sites for each 1- [deg]C increase in water 
temperature (Halstead et al. 2021, p. 30). Because toads are found 
closer to spring heads in autumn compared to sites selected during 
other times of year, it is likely that they are selecting areas where 
water temperatures will remain stable throughout the winter (Halstead 
et al. 2021, p. 34). The selection of areas with stable, warm water 
temperatures indicates that reductions in geothermal contributions 
during winter could lead to thermal stress, reductions in available 
habitat as waters cool, or even mortality if geothermal contributions 
are removed completely or reduced to a level that toads are unable to 
adapt their brumation strategies.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Dixie Valley toad occurs only on Federal lands (the DoD's 
Fallon Naval Air Station and BLM). Various laws, regulations, policies, 
and management plans may provide conservation or protections for Dixie 
Valley toads. As such, the following management plans are the existing 
conservation tools driving the management of Dixie Valley toads and 
their habitat:
    <bullet> As required by the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq., as 
amended), the DoD has an integrated natural resources management plan 
in place for supporting both the installation mission as well as 
protecting and enhancing installation resources for multiple use, 
sustainable yield, and biological integrity. This plan also includes a 
strategic plan for amphibian (and reptile) conservation and management, 
to include management for Dixie Meadows and the Dixie Valley toad.
    <bullet> As required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), BLM has a resource management plan 
for all actions and authorizations involving BLM-administered lands and 
resources, including actions specific to Dixie Valley toads and their 
habitat.
    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 
(as amended; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), which is a procedural statute, 
for projects that Federal agencies fund, authorize, or carry out, BLM, 
with input from Ormat, developed a Monitoring and Mitigation Plan 
(McGinley and Associates 2021, entire) for the Dixie Meadows Geothermal 
Utilization Project; it is an appendix in BLM's environmental 
assessment (BLM 2021b, Appendix H). The goal of the Monitoring and 
Mitigation Plan is to identify hydrologic and biologic resources, 
spring-dependent ecosystems, aquatic habitat, and species that could be 
affected by geothermal exploration, production, and injection in the 
Dixie Meadows area (McGinley and Associates 2021, p. 1). The Monitoring 
and Mitigation Plan will describe the plan Ormat would implement to 
monitor and mitigate potential effects to those resources,

[[Page 20345]]

ecosystems, habitat, and species (McGinley and Associates 2021, p. 1).
    The Monitoring and Mitigation Plan includes adaptive management and 
mitigation measures that Ormat would implement if changes are detected 
in baseline conditions and threshold values are exceeded. Management 
actions may include geothermal reservoir pumping and injection 
adjustments (e.g., redistribution of injection between shallow and deep 
aquifers). Other more aggressive actions include augmenting affected 
springs with geothermal fluids or fresh water to restore preproduction 
temperature, flow, stage, and water chemistry. The Monitoring and 
Mitigation Plan states that if mitigation actions are not sufficient 
for the protection of species and aquatic habitat, pumping and 
injection would be suspended until appropriate mitigation measures are 
identified, implemented, and shown to be effective (McGinley and 
Associates 2021, p. 34).
    We, along with other interested parties (e.g., Department of the 
Navy, NDOW) provided comments to the BLM regarding the Monitoring and 
Mitigation Plan, which was first made available to the public in 
January 2021. We have low confidence in the ability of the Monitoring 
and Mitigation Plan to adequately detect and respond to changes because 
of the complexity and natural variability of the spring system, limited 
baseline data, and perceived inadequacies of the plan. We determined 
the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan is inadequate because of the 
inadequate time to collect relevant baseline information prior to 
beginning operation of the plant, limited monitoring locations, low 
frequency of monitoring and reporting, lack of a statistical approach 
for addressing variability and uncertainty, lack of information on how 
water quality would be addressed, interacting effects of climate change 
and extractive water use, and uncertainty about mitigation if measures 
ran counter to other operating goals of the plant.
    The Dixie Valley toad is classified as protected by the State of 
Nevada under Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 503.075(2)(b). Per NAC 
503.090(1), there is no open season on those species of amphibian 
classified as protected. Per NAC 503.094, the State issues permits for 
the take and possession of any species of wildlife for strictly 
scientific or educational purposes. The State's Department of 
Conservation and Natural Resources includes the Nevada Division of 
Natural Heritage (NDNH), which tracks the species status of plants and 
animals in Nevada. The NDNH recognizes Dixie Valley toads as critically 
imperiled, rank S1. Ranks of S1 are defined as species with very high 
risks of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to very restricted range, 
very few populations or occurrences, very steep declines, severe 
threats, or other factors.

Determination of Status for the Dixie Valley Toad

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to become 
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine 
whether a species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or 
a ``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors: (A) 
The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
    In conducting our status assessment of the Dixie Valley toad, we 
evaluated all identified threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors and assessed how the cumulative impact of all threats acts on 
the viability of the species as a whole. That is, all the anticipated 
effects from both habitat-based and direct mortality-based threats are 
examined in total and then evaluated in the context of what those 
combined negative effects will mean to the future condition of the 
Dixie Valley toad.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we 
determined that the Dixie Valley toad is at risk of extinction 
throughout its range primarily due to the approval and commencement of 
geothermal development. Other threats identified in this status 
determination include increased severity of drought due to climate 
change (Factor A), the threat of chytrid fungus establishing itself in 
the population (Factor C), groundwater pumping associated with human 
consumption, agriculture, and county planning (Factor A), and predation 
by invasive bullfrogs (Factor C). These three threats will likely 
exacerbate the main threat of geothermal development. Existing 
regulatory mechanisms do not address the primary threat to the species 
(Factor D).
    Construction of the Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project 
has begun, and geothermal production is assumed to begin before the end 
of 2022. Based upon the best available scientific and commercial 
information as described in this determination, the Service has a high 
degree of certainty that geothermal production will have severe, 
negative effects on the geothermal springs the species relies upon for 
habitat (Factor A). These negative effects include reductions in spring 
temperature and springflow, which directly affect the needs of the 
species (i.e., adequate water temperature, sufficient wetted areas, 
sufficient wetland vegetation, including vegetation cover, and adequate 
water quality (see Species Needs, above)). The best available 
information indicates that a complete reduction in springflow and 
significant reduction of water temperature are plausible outcomes of 
the geothermal project, and these conditions could result in the 
species no longer persisting (i.e., becoming extinct or functionally 
extinct as a result of significant habitat degradation, or no 
reproduction due to highly isolated, non-recruiting individuals).
    The narrowly distributed, isolated nature of the single, small 
population of the species indicates that the Dixie Valley toad will 
have no ability to withstand stochastic or catastrophic events through 
dispersal. Because the species occurs in only one spring system and has 
experienced little historical variation, it has low potential to adapt 
to a fast-changing environment. As a single-site endemic with no 
dispersal opportunities outside the current range and low adaptive 
capacity, the species has inherently low redundancy and representation, 
and depends entirely on the continued availability of wetland habitat 
in Dixie Meadows. Low redundancy and representation make the Dixie 
Valley toad particularly vulnerable to fast-paced change to its habitat 
and catastrophic events, any of which could plausibly result from the 
permitted Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project.
    The Dixie Valley toad exists in one population that will likely be 
directly affected to a significant degree by geothermal production in a 
short timeframe, resulting in a high risk that the species could become 
extinct.
    In addition to the current development of the geothermal project,

[[Page 20346]]

a combination of threats will act synergistically to exacerbate effects 
from geothermal production on the Dixie Meadows spring system. A 
reduction in springflow could be exacerbated by the greater severity of 
droughts being experienced in the Southwestern United States, including 
Nevada (Snyder et al. 2019, pp. 2-4; Williams et al. 2020, pp. 1-5). 
Higher temperatures and drier conditions could result in greater 
evapotranspiration, leading to increased drying of wetland habitat. A 
reduction in water temperature could allow chytrid fungus to become 
established and negatively impact the Dixie Valley toad population. 
Chytrid fungus would likely be catastrophic to Dixie Valley toads, as 
it has caused severe declines in other amphibian species, and the 
fungus has been found in another known vector species (bullfrog) in 
Dixie Valley (Forrest 2013, p. 77). Bullfrogs themselves are a threat 
to the species, as Dixie Valley toads could be easily preyed upon 
because of their small size. If bullfrogs were to become established 
throughout Dixie Valley toad habitat, there would likely be a reduction 
in Dixie Valley toad abundance.
    Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude 
that the Dixie Valley toad is currently in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range due to the immediacy of the threat of 
geothermal production, including negative effects such as reductions in 
spring temperature and springflow, which would directly affect the 
needs of the species (i.e., adequate water temperature, sufficient 
wetted areas, sufficient wetland vegetation, including vegetation 
cover, and adequate water quality), and low confidence in the ability 
of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to effectively minimize and 
mitigate for potential effects that are likely to manifest in the near 
term. We find that threatened species status is not appropriate because 
the threat of extinction is imminent as opposed to being likely to 
develop within the foreseeable future.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

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

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Dixie Valley toad meets the definition 
of an endangered species. For the reasons discussed below, we further 
find that the threats facing the Dixie Valley toad at this time 
constitute an emergency posing a significant risk to the well-being of 
the Dixie Valley toad. Therefore, we are emergency listing the Dixie 
Valley toad as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6), 
4(a)(1), and 4(b)(7) of the Act.

Reasons for Emergency Determination

    Under section 4(b)(7) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.20, 
we may emergency list a species if the threats to the species 
constitute an emergency posing a significant risk to its well-being. An 
emergency listing expires 240 days following publication in the Federal 
Register unless, during this 240-day period, we list the species 
following the normal listing procedures. In accordance with the Act, if 
at any time after we publish this emergency rule, we determine that 
substantial evidence does not exist to warrant such a rule, we will 
withdraw it.
    We conclude that emergency listing the Dixie Valley toad as 
endangered is warranted. In making this determination, we have 
carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available 
regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the Dixie 
Valley toad. As discussed above in detail, the Dixie Meadows Geothermal 
Utilization Project poses a high degree of threat to the Dixie Valley 
toad, such that it poses a significant risk to the well-being of the 
species. Moreover, the project has been permitted, construction has 
already begun, and power plant production is projected to begin this 
calendar year. Significant and possibly irreversible negative impacts 
to the species may occur before listing could become effective 
following completion of the usually required rulemaking procedures for 
listing a species. We therefore conclude that the current circumstances 
constitute an emergency.
    By emergency listing the Dixie Valley toad as an endangered 
species, the protections of the Act (through sections 7, 9, and 10) and 
recognition that will immediately become available to the species will 
increase the likelihood that it can be saved from extinction.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for listed 
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final 
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five 
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be 
downlisted or delisted and methods for monitoring recovery progress. 
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate 
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of 
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species 
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental

[[Page 20347]]

organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop 
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery 
plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website 
(http://www.fws.gov/endangered) (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education.
    Following publication of a final listing rule, funding for recovery 
actions is available from a variety of sources, including Federal 
budgets, State programs, the academic community, and nongovernmental 
organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State 
of Nevada will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management 
actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Dixie Valley 
toad. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid 
species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Although the Dixie Valley toad is only emergency listed under the 
Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in 
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we 
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it 
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery 
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or 
threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is 
designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation 
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) 
of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they 
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy 
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may 
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph may include, but are not limited to, management and any other 
landscape-altering activities on Federal lands: Aquatic habitat 
restoration, fire management plans, fire suppression, fuel reduction 
treatments, mining permits, integrated natural resources management 
plans, land resource management plans, oil and natural gas permits, 
renewable energy development, renewable and alternative energy 
projects, and geothermal project approvals and implementation.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of 
these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high 
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, 
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the 
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate 
or foreign commerce any species listed as an endangered species. It is 
also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any 
such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply 
to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation 
agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to 
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: 
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the 
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful 
activities. The statute also contains certain exemptions from the 
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. Based on the best 
available information, the following actions are unlikely to result in 
a violation of section 9, if these activities are carried out in 
accordance with existing regulations and permit requirements; this list 
is not comprehensive:
    (1) Vehicle use on existing roads and trails in compliance with the 
BLM Carson City District's resource management plan.
    (2) Recreational use with minimal ground disturbance (e.g., hiking, 
walking).
    Based on the best available information, the following activities 
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they 
are not authorized in accordance with applicable law, including the 
Endangered Species Act; this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
    (2) Unauthorized livestock grazing that results in direct mortality 
and direct or indirect destruction of vegetation and aquatic habitat;
    (3) Destruction/alteration of the species' habitat by draining, 
ditching, stream channelization or diversion, or diversion or 
alteration of surface or ground water flow into or out of the wetland;
    (4) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey 
upon the Dixie Valley toad or wetland vegetation;
    (5) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that 
attack any life stage of the Dixie Valley toad;
    (6) Modification of the vegetation components on sites known to be 
occupied by the Dixie Valley toad; and
    (7) Modification of spring and wetland water temperatures.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Reno 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Required Determinations

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

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations adopted 
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining 
our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 
25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994

[[Page 20348]]

(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. We requested information from the 
Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony and have 
continued to coordinate during the SSA process. We are requesting the 
Tribe's partner review of the SSA report concurrent with the open 
comment period identified in the proposed rule that is published 
concurrently with this emergency rule and found in the Proposed Rules 
section of this issue of the Federal Register (see Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2022-0024 in https://www.regulations.gov). We will continue to work 
with Tribal entities during the development of a final listing 
determination for the Dixie Valley toad.

References Cited

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

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11 in paragraph (h) by adding an entry for ``Toad, 
Dixie Valley'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 
alphabetical order under Amphibians to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
           Amphibians
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Toad, Dixie Valley..............  Anaxyrus williamsi  Wherever found....  E              87 FR [INSERT Federal
                                                                                          Register PAGE WHERE
                                                                                          THE DOCUMENT BEGINS];
                                                                                          4/7/2022.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-07374 Filed 4-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P