20336 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 180.672 Cyantraniliprole; tolerances for 

residues. 

(d) * * * 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (d) 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Sugarcane, cane ........................ 0.01 

[FR Doc. 2022–07277 Filed 4–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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-ofcontact 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) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 narrowranging 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 speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of the species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the species (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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
20338 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (m3/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-squarekilometer (km2) (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 (°C) (50– 

106 degrees Fahrenheit (°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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 °C (50–59 °F) in the 

reservoir temperature and a localized 

decrease of approximately 80 °C (176 °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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
20340 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 °C 

(64 °F)) as compared to boreal toads in 

cooler environments (mean 15 °C 

(59 °F)) (Murphy et al. 2011, pp. 35–38). 

Additionally, chytrid fungus 

zoosporangia grown at 27.5 °C (81.5 °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 °C (86 °F) (Forrest and 

Schlaepfer 2011, pp. 3–7). Dixie 

Meadows springhead water 

temperatures range from 13 °C (55 °F) to 

74 °C (165 °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 

°C (61 °F) to 74 °C (165 °F) with median 

temperatures of at least 25 °C (77 °F). 

Additionally, water temperatures 

measured in 2019 at toad survey sites 

throughout Dixie Meadows (i.e., not at 

springheads) ranged from 10 to 41 °C 

(50 to 106 °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). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 energyproduction 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 °C (4.5 and 6.1 °F) and result in 

average temperatures 3.0 °C (5.3 °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 (m3/ 

yr) (15,218 acre-feet per year (afy)) of an 

estimated 18,489,943 m3/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 m3/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 m3/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 freeflowing 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
20342 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 °C (65.8 °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 °C 

(65.8 °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 (107×114 

m (350×375 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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- °C (99- °F) decrease 

to an upper limit of a 10- °C (18- °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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
20344 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 overallocated. 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- °C 

(99- °F)) decrease to a 10- °C (18- °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 °C (59 and 77 °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 °C (77 °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- °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: 

• 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. 

• 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 BLMadministered 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, springdependent 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 fastpaced 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
20346 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 wellbeing. 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, selfsustaining, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 landscapealtering 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
20348 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 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: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 220404–0083] 

RIN 0648–BL15 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Spiny Dogfish Fishery; 

2022 Specifications and Trip Limit 

Adjustment 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues final Atlantic 

spiny dogfish specifications for the 2022 

fishing year, and an adjustment to the 

commercial trip limit, as recommended 

by the Mid-Atlantic and New England 

Fishery Management Councils. This 

action is necessary to establish 

allowable harvest levels and other 

management measures to prevent 

overfishing while enabling optimum 

yield, using the best scientific 

information available. This rule also 

informs the public of the final fishery 

2022 specifications and management 

measures. 

DATES: Effective on May 1, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council prepared a 

Supplemental Information Report (SIR) 

for these specifications that describes 

the action, any changes from the 

original environmental assessment (EA), 

and analyses for this 2022 specifications 

trip limit adjustment action. Copies of 

the SIR, original EA, and other 

supporting documents for this action, 

are available upon request from Dr. 

Christopher M. Moore, Executive 

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, Suite 201, 800 

North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. 

These documents are also accessible via 

the internet at https://www.mafmc.org/ 

supporting-documents. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Ferrio, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

(978) 281–9180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Mid-Atlantic and New England 

Fishery Management Councils jointly 

manage the Atlantic Spiny Dogfish 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP), with 

the Mid-Atlantic Council acting as the 

administrative lead. Additionally, the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission manages the spiny dogfish 

fishery in state waters from Maine to 

North Carolina through an interstate 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES