[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20336-20348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07374]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0024; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BG21
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Emergency Listing
of the Dixie Valley Toad as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Temporary rule; emergency action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), exercise our
authority pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act), to emergency list the Dixie Valley toad (Anaxyrus williamsi) as
endangered. Due to the imminent development of a geothermal project in
Dixie Meadows, Nevada, and the potential resulting effects to the
geothermal springs relied upon by the Dixie Valley toad, there is a
significant risk to the well-being of the species. We find that
emergency listing is necessary in order to provide the protective
measures afforded by the Act to the Dixie Valley toad. This emergency
action (emergency rule) provides Federal protection pursuant to the Act
for a period of 240 days. A proposed rule to list the Dixie Valley toad
as endangered is published concurrently with this emergency rule in the
Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.
DATES: This temporary rule is effective April 7, 2022, through December
2, 2022.
ADDRESSES: This temporary rule, the species status assessment report
and other materials related to this temporary rule, and the proposed
rule are available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Jackson, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340
Financial Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, Nevada 89502; telephone 775-861-6300.
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Federal Actions
We received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity
(CBD) on September 18, 2017, requesting that the Dixie Valley toad be
listed as a threatened or endangered species and that the petition be
considered on an emergency basis (CBD 2017, entire). The Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), does not
provide a process to petition for emergency listing; therefore, we
evaluated the petition to determine if it presented substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted. We published a 90-day finding in the Federal
Register on June 27, 2018 (83 FR 30091), stating that the petition
presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that listing the Dixie Valley toad may be warranted.
Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the Dixie Valley toad. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists,
in consultation with other scientific experts. The SSA report
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts
of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial)
affecting the species and its habitat. In accordance with our joint
policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and
clarifying the role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we
will seek expert opinions of at least three appropriate specialists
regarding the SSA concurrent with the open comment period identified in
the proposed rule that is published concurrently with this emergency
action (emergency rule) and found in the Proposed Rules section of this
issue of the Federal Register. The SSA report and other materials
related to this emergency rule, including the proposed rule, can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-
0024. We note that, because we were already conducting a status review
of the species, we had completed an SSA prior to publishing this
emergency listing rule. Therefore, we have incorporated the information
from the SSA here. However, given the purpose of emergency listing
rules, they do not require this level of detail and analysis.
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
Dixie Valley toad (Anaxyrus williamsi) is presented in the SSA report
(Service 2022, entire).
The Dixie Valley toad was described as a distinct species in the
western toads (Anaxyrus boreas) species complex in 2017 due to
morphological differences, genetic information, and its isolated
distribution (Gordon et al. 2017, entire). Forrest et al. (2017,
entire) also published a paper describing Dixie Valley toad and came up
with similar results but stopped short of concluding it is a unique
species. We evaluated both papers and concluded that the Gordon et al.
(2017, entire) paper provided a better sampling design to answer
species-level genetic questions and included a more thorough
morphological analysis. Additionally, the Dixie Valley toad has been
accepted as a valid species by the two leading authoritative amphibian
internet sites: (1) Amphibiaweb.org (AmphibiaWeb 2022, website) and (2)
Amphibian Species of the World (Frost 2021, website). Because both the
larger scientific community and our own analysis of the best available
scientific information indicate that the findings of Gordon et al.
(2017 entire) are well supported, we are accepting their conclusions
that the Dixie Valley toad is a unique species (Anaxyrus williamsi).
Therefore, we have determined that the Dixie Valley toad is a listable
entity under the Act.
Fourteen different morphological characteristics of Dixie Valley
toads were measured and compared to several other species within the
western toads species complex (Gordon et al. 2017, pp. 125-131). While
all 14 morphological characteristics measured for Dixie Valley toad
were significantly different from the other species within the western
toads species complex, the most striking differences were the average
size of adults (the mean snout-to-vent length (SVL) is 54.6 millimeters
(mm)
[[Page 20337]]
(2.2 inches (in)), which makes the Dixie Valley toad the smallest
species within the A. boreas species complex), the close-set eyes and
perceptively large tympanum (eardrum), and its unique coloration
(Gordon et al. 2017, pp. 125-131).
Limited information is available specific to the life history of
the Dixie Valley toad; therefore, closely associated species are used
as surrogates where appropriate. Breeding (denoted by observing a male
and female in amplexus, egg masses, or tadpoles) occurs annually
between March and May (Forrest 2013, p. 76). Breeding appears
protracted due to the thermal nature of the habitat and can last up to
3 months (March-May) with toads breeding early in the year in habitats
closer to the thermal spring sources and then moving downstream into
habitats as they warm throughout spring and early summer. Other toad
species typically have a much more contracted breeding season of 3-4
weeks (e.g., Sherman 1980, pp. 18-19, 72-73). Dixie Valley toad
tadpoles hatch shortly after being deposited; time to hatching is not
known but is likely dependent on water temperature (e.g., black toad
(Anaxyrus exsul) tadpoles hatch in 7 to 9 days; Sherman 1980, p. 97).
Fully metamorphosed Dixie Valley toadlets were observed 70 days after
egg laying (Forrest 2013, pp. 76-77).
The Dixie Valley toad is a narrow-ranging endemic (highly local and
known to exist only in their place of origin) known from one population
in the Dixie Meadows area of Churchill County, Nevada. The species
occurs primarily on Department of Defense (DoD; Fallon Naval Air
Station) lands (90 percent) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands
(10 percent). The wetlands located in Dixie Meadows cover 307.6
hectares (ha) (760 acres (ac)) and are fed by geothermal springs. The
potential area of occupancy is estimated to be 146 ha (360 ac) based on
the extent of wetland-associated vegetation. The species is heavily
reliant on these wetlands, as it is rarely encountered more than 14
meters (m) (46 feet (ft)) from aquatic habitat (Halstead et al. 2021,
p. 7).
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. The
Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species
because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as we can
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species'
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions.
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species (Service 2022, entire). The SSA report does not
represent our decision on whether the species should be listed as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, it does
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions,
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and
its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary
of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA
report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2022-0024 on https://www.regulations.gov.
To assess Dixie Valley toad viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy,
[[Page 20338]]
and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example,
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species'
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species levels, and described the
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time. We used this information to inform our regulatory
decision.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the
current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and
future condition of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis
that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be
influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts.
Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the
factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
Species Needs
Wetted Area
Dixie Meadows contains 122 known spring and seep sources and
discharges approximately 1,109,396 cubic meters per year (m\3\/yr) (900
acre-feet per year (afy)) (McGinley and Associates 2021, pp. 1-2),
which distributes across the wetland complex water that then flows out
to the playa or is collected in a large ephemeral pond in the northeast
portion of the wetland complex. Some of the larger springs have
springbrooks that form channels while in other areas the water spreads
out over the ground or through wetland vegetation creating a thin layer
of water or wet soil that helps maintain the wetland. Spring discharge
is inherently linked to the amount of wetted area within the wetland
complex. Spring discharge is important for the viability of the Dixie
Valley toad because changes to discharge rates likely impact the
ability of the toad to survive in a particular spring complex.
Dixie Valley toad is a highly aquatic species rarely found more
than 14 m (46 ft) away from water (Halstead et al. 2021, pp. 28, 30).
The species needs wetted area for shelter, feeding, reproduction, and
dispersal. Any change in the amount of wetted area will directly
influence the amount of habitat available to the Dixie Valley toad. Due
to the already restricted range of the habitat, the species needs to
maintain the entirety of the 1.46-square-kilometer (km\2\) (360-ac)
potential area of occupancy, based on the extent of the wetland-
associated vegetation.
Adequate Water Temperature
In addition to the Dixie Valley toad being highly aquatic, the
temperature of the water is also important to its life history. The
species needs warm temperatures for shelter and reproduction. The Dixie
Valley toad selects water or substrate that is warmer compared to
nearby random paired locations, particularly in spring, fall, and
winter months (Halstead et al. 2021, pp. 30, 33-34). During spring,
they select areas with warmer water for breeding (oviposition sites),
which allows for faster egg hatching and time to metamorphosis
(Halstead et al. 2021, pp. 30, 33-34). During fall, they select warmer
areas (closer to thermal springs with dense vegetation), which
satisfies their thermal preferences as nighttime temperatures decrease
(Halstead et al. 2021, pp. 30, 33-34). As winter approaches, toads find
areas with consistent warm temperatures during brumation (hibernation
for cold-blooded animals), so they do not freeze (Halstead et al. 2021,
pp. 30, 33-34). This affinity for warm water temperature during
brumation is unique to the Dixie Valley toad as compared to other
species within the western toad species complex, which select burrows,
rocks, logs, or other structures to survive through winter (Browne and
Paszkowski 2010, pp. 53-56; Halstead et al. 2021, p. 34). Therefore,
although the exact temperatures are unknown (range between 10-41
degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (50-106 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)), Dixie
Valley toad requires water temperatures warm enough to successfully
breed and survive colder months during the year.
Wetland Vegetation
The most common wetland vegetation found within Dixie Meadows
includes Juncus balticus (Baltic rush), Schoenoplectus spp.
(bulrushes), Phragmites australis (common reed), Eleocharis spp.
(spikerushes), Typha spp. (cattails), Carex spp. (sedges), and
Distichilis spicata (saltgrass) (AMEC Environment and Infrastructure
2014, p. I-1; Tierra Data 2015, pp. 2-25--2-29; McGinley and Associates
2021, pp. 50-52, 93-99). Several species of invasive and nonnative
plants also occur in Dixie Meadows including Cicuta maculate (water
hemlock), Cardaria draba (hoary cress), Lepidium latifolium (perennial
pepperweed), Eleagnus angustifolius (Russian olive), and Tamarix
ramosissima (saltcedar) (AMEC Environment and Infrastructure 2014, p.
3-59). The Dixie Valley toad needs sufficient wetland vegetation to use
as shelter. At a minimum, maintaining the current heterogeneity of the
wetland vegetation found in Dixie Meadows is a necessary component for
maintaining the resiliency of the Dixie Valley toad (Halstead et al.
2021, p. 34).
Adequate Water Quality
Amphibian species spend all or part of their life cycle in water;
therefore, water quality characteristics directly affect amphibians.
Dissolved oxygen, potential hydrogen (pH), salinity, water
conductivity, and excessive nutrient concentrations (among other water
quality metrics) all have direct and indirect impacts to the survival,
growth,
[[Page 20339]]
maturation, and physical development of amphibian species when found to
be outside of naturally occurring levels for any particular location
(Sparling 2010, pp. 105-117).
Various water quality data have been collected from a few springs
within Dixie Meadows and from wells drilled during geothermal
exploration activities (McGinley and Associates 2021, pp. 57-64). The
exact water quality parameters preferred by the Dixie Valley toad are
unknown; however, this species has evolved only in Dixie Meadows and is
presumed to thrive in the current existing, complex mix of water
emanating from both the basin-fill aquifer and the deep geothermal
reservoir. Within the unique habitat in Dixie Meadows, and given the
life history and physiological strategies employed by the species, a
good baseline of existing environmental water quality factors that are
most important for all life stages should be studied (Rowe et al. 2003,
p. 957). The Dixie Valley toad needs the natural variation of the
current water quality parameters found in Dixie Meadows to maintain
resiliency.
Threats Analysis
We reviewed the potential risk factors (i.e., threats, stressors)
that may be currently affecting the Dixie Valley toad. In this rule, we
discuss only those factors in detail that could meaningfully affect the
status of the species.
The primary threats affecting the status of the Dixie Valley toad
are geothermal development and associated groundwater pumping (Factor
A); establishment of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd; hereafter
referred to as amphibian chytrid fungus), which causes the disease
chytridiomycosis (Factor C); predation by the invasive American
bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) (Factor C); groundwater pumping
associated with human consumption, agriculture, and county planning
(Factor A); and climate change (Factor A). Climate change may further
influence the degree to which these threats, individually or
collectively, may affect the Dixie Valley toad. The risk factors that
are unlikely to have significant effects on the Dixie Valley toad, such
as livestock grazing and historical spring modifications, are not
discussed here but are evaluated in the current condition assessment of
the SSA report.
Geothermal Development
Geothermal resources are reservoirs of hot water or steam found at
different temperatures and depths below the ground. These geothermal
reservoirs can be used to produce energy by drilling a well and
bringing the heated water or steam to the surface. Geothermal energy
plants use the steam or heat created by the hot water to drive turbines
that produce electricity. Three main technologies are being used today
to convert geothermal water into electricity: Dry steam, flash steam,
and binary cycle. Binary technology is the focus for this analysis,
because that type of geothermal power technology has been approved for
development at Dixie Meadows.
Binary cycle power plants use the heat from the geothermal
reservoir to heat a secondary fluid (e.g., butane) that generally has a
much lower boiling point than water. This process is accomplished
through a heat exchanger, and the secondary fluid is flashed into vapor
by the heat from the geothermal fluid; the vapor drives the turbines to
generate electricity. The geothermal fluid is then reinjected back into
the ground to maintain pressure and be reheated.
General impacts from geothermal production facilities are presented
below. Because every geothermal field is unique, it is difficult to
predict what effects from geothermal production may occur.
Prior to geothermal development, the flow path of water underneath
the land surface is usually not known with sufficient detail to
understand and prevent impacts to the surface wetlands dependent upon
those flows (Sorey 2000, p. 705). Changes associated with surface
expression of thermal waters from geothermal production are common and
are expected. Typical changes seen in geothermal fields include, but
are not limited to, changes in water temperature, flow, and water
quality, which are all resource needs of the Dixie Valley toad that
could be negatively affected by geothermal production (Sorey 2000,
entire; Bonte et al. 2011, pp. 4-8; Kaya et al. 2011, pp. 55-64; Chen
et al. 2020, pp. 2-6).
Steam discharge, land subsidence (i.e., gradual settling or sudden
sinking of the ground surface due to the withdrawal of large amounts of
groundwater), and changes in water temperature and flow have all been
documented from geothermal production areas throughout the western
United States (Sorey 2000, entire). For example:
(1) Long Valley Caldera near Mammoth, California. Geothermal
pumping in the period 1985-1998 resulted in several springs ceasing to
flow and declines in pressure of the geothermal reservoir, which has
caused reductions of 10-15 [deg]C (50-59 [deg]F) in the reservoir
temperature and a localized decrease of approximately 80 [deg]C (176
[deg]F) near the reinjection zone (Sorey 2000, p. 706).
(2) Steamboat Springs near Reno, Nevada. Geothermal development
resulted in the loss of surface discharge (geysers and springs) on the
main terrace and a reduction of thermal water discharge to Steamboat
Creek by 40 percent (Sorey 2000, p. 707).
(3) Northern Dixie Valley near Reno, Nevada. Other common changes
that accompany the loss of surficial water sources, such as geysers and
thermal springs, from geothermal production include an increase in
steam discharge and land subsidence (Sorey 2000, p. 705). Both steam
discharge and land subsidence were detected at an existing 56-megawatt
(MW) geothermal plant in northern Dixie Valley, Nevada, which has been
in production since 1985 (Sorey 2000, p. 708; Huntington et al. 2014,
p. 5). The northern Dixie Valley geothermal plant began pumping water
from the cold basin fill aquifer (local aquifer) and reinjecting it
above the hot geothermal reservoir (regional aquifer) to try and
alleviate land subsidence issues (Huntington et al. 2014, p. 5). This
approach may have led to an increase in depth to groundwater from 1.8 m
(6 ft) in 1985 to 4.3-4.6 m (14-15 ft) in 2009-2011 (Albano et al.
2021, p. 78).
(4) Jersey Valley near Reno, Nevada. In 2011, a 23.5-MW geothermal
power plant started production in Jersey Valley, just north of Dixie
Valley. Measured springflow of 0.08-0.17 cubic feet per second (cfs)
(35-75 gallons per minute (gpm)) at a perennial thermal spring began to
decline almost immediately after the power plant began operation (BLM
2022, p. 1; Nevada Department of Water Resources (NDWR) 2022,
unpublished data). By 2014, the Jersey Valley Hot Spring ceased flowing
(BLM 2022, p. 1; NDWR 2022, unpublished data). The loss of aquatic
insects from the springbrook has diminished the foraging ability of
eight different bat species that occur in the area (BLM 2022, p. 28).
To mitigate for the spring going dry, the BLM proposed to pipe
geothermal fluid 1.1 km (3,600 ft) to the spring source (BLM 2022, p.
8); however, mitigation has not yet occurred. If a similar outcome were
to occur in Dixie Meadows, resulting in the complete drying of the
springs, the Dixie Valley toad would likely be extirpated if mitigation
to prevent the drying of the springs is not satisfactorily or timely
achieved.
In an effort to minimize changes in water temperature, quantity,
and quality, and to maintain pressure of the
[[Page 20340]]
geothermal reservoir, geothermal fluids are reinjected into the ground,
though reinjected water is at a lower temperature than when it was
pumped out of the ground. This practice entails much trial and error in
an attempt to equilibrate subsurface reservoir pressure. It can take
several years to understand how a new geothermal field will react to
production and reinjection wells; however, reinjection does not always
have the desired effect (Kaya et al. 2011, pp. 55-64).
Geothermal energy production has been cited as the greatest threat
to the persistence of Dixie Valley toad (Forrest et al. 2017, pp. 172-
173; Gordon et al. 2017, p. 136; Halstead et al. 2021, p. 35).
Geothermal environments often harbor unique flora and fauna that have
evolved in these rare habitats (Boothroyd 2009, entire; Service 2019,
entire). Changes to these rare habitats often cause declines in these
endemic organisms or even result in the destruction of their habitat
(Yurchenko 2005, p. 496; Bayer et al. 2013, pp. 455-456; Service 2019,
pp. 2-3). Because the Dixie Valley toad relies heavily on wetted area
and warm water temperature to remain viable, reduction of these two
resource needs could cause significant declines in the population and
changes to its habitat that are detrimental to the species and result
in it being in danger of extinction.
Disease
Over roughly the last four decades, pathogens have been associated
with amphibian population declines, mass die-offs, and extinctions
worldwide (Bradford 1991, pp. 174-176; Muths et al. 2003, pp. 359-364;
Weldon et al. 2004, pp. 2,101-2,104; Rachowicz et al. 2005, pp. 1,442-
1,446; Fisher et al. 2009, pp. 292-302; Knapp et al. 2011, pp. 8-19).
One pathogen strongly associated with dramatic declines on all
continents that harbor amphibians is chytridiomycosis caused by
amphibian chytrid fungus (Rachowicz et al. 2005, pp. 1,442-1,446).
Chytrid fungus has now been reported in amphibian species worldwide
(Fellers et al. 2001, pp. 947-952; Rachowicz et al. 2005, pp. 1,442-
1,446). Early doubt that this particular pathogen was responsible for
worldwide die-offs has largely been overcome by the weight of evidence
documenting the appearance, spread, and detrimental effects to affected
populations (Vredenburg et al. 2010, pp. 9,690-9,692).
Clinical signs of chytridiomycosis and diagnosis include abnormal
posture, lethargy, and loss of righting reflex (the ability to correct
the orientation of the body when it is not in its normal upright
position) (Daszak et al. 1999, p. 737). Chytridiomycosis also causes
gross lesions, which are usually not apparent and consist of abnormal
epidermal sloughing and ulceration, as well as hemorrhages in the skin,
muscle, or eye (Daszak et al. 1999, p. 737). Chytridiomycosis can be
identified in some species of amphibians by examining the oral discs
(tooth rows) of tadpoles that may be abnormally formed or lacking
pigment (Fellers et al. 2001, pp. 946-947).
Despite the acknowledged impacts of chytridiomycosis to amphibians,
little is known about this disease outside of mass die-off events.
There is high variability between species of amphibians in response to
being infected including within the western toads species complex. Two
long-term study sites have documented differences in apparent survival
of western toads between two different sites in Montana and Wyoming
(Russell et al. 2019, pp. 300-301). The chytrid-positive western toad
population in Montana was reduced by 19 percent compared to chytrid-
negative toads in that area--in comparison to the western toad
population in Wyoming, which was reduced by 55 percent (Russell et al.
2019, p. 301). Various diseases are confirmed to be lethal to Yosemite
toads (Green and Sherman 2001, p. 94), and research has elucidated the
potential role of chytrid fungus infection as a threat to Yosemite toad
populations (Dodge 2013, pp. 6-10, 15-20; Lindauer and Voyles 2019, pp.
189-193). These various diseases and infections, in concert with other
factors, have likely contributed to the decline of the Yosemite toad
(Sherman and Morton 1993, pp. 189-197) and may continue to pose a risk
to the species (Dodge 2013, pp. 10-11; Lindauer and Voyles 2019, pp.
189-193). Amargosa toads are known to have high infection rates and
high chytrid fungus loads; however, they do not appear to show adverse
impacts from the disease (Forrest et al. 2015, pp. 920-922). Not all
individual amphibians that test positive for chytrid fungus develop
chytridiomycosis.
Dixie Valley toad was sampled for chytrid fungus in 2011-2012
(before it was recognized as a species) and 2019-2021 (Forrest 2013, p.
77; Kleeman et al. 2021, entire); chytrid fungus was not found during
either survey. However, chytrid fungus has been documented in bullfrogs
in Dixie Valley (Forrest 2013, p. 77), which is a known vector species
for spreading chytrid fungus and diseases to other species of
amphibians (Daszak et al. 2004, pp. 203-206; Urbina et al. 2018, pp.
271-274; Yap et al. 2018, pp. 4-8).
The best available information indicates that the thermal nature of
the Dixie Valley toad habitat may keep chytrid fungus from becoming
established; therefore, it is imperative that the water maintains its
natural thermal characteristics (Forrest 2013, pp. 75-85; Halstead et
al. 2021, pp. 33-35). Boreal toads exposed to chytrid fungus survive
longer when exposed to warmer environments (mean 18 [deg]C (64 [deg]F))
as compared to boreal toads in cooler environments (mean 15 [deg]C (59
[deg]F)) (Murphy et al. 2011, pp. 35-38). Additionally, chytrid fungus
zoosporangia grown at 27.5 [deg]C (81.5 [deg]F) remain metabolically
active; however, no zoospores are produced, indicating no reproduction
at this high temperature (Lindauer et al. 2020, pp. 2-5). Generally,
chytrid fungus does not seem to become established in water warmer than
30 [deg]C (86 [deg]F) (Forrest and Schlaepfer 2011, pp. 3-7). Dixie
Meadows springhead water temperatures range from 13 [deg]C (55 [deg]F)
to 74 [deg]C (165 [deg]F), though the four largest spring complexes
(springs that create the largest wetland areas and are inhabited by a
majority of the Dixie Valley toad population) range from 16 [deg]C (61
[deg]F) to 74 [deg]C (165 [deg]F) with median temperatures of at least
25 [deg]C (77 [deg]F). Additionally, water temperatures measured in
2019 at toad survey sites throughout Dixie Meadows (i.e., not at
springheads) ranged from 10 to 41 [deg]C (50 to 106 [deg]F). Any
reduction in water temperature, including reductions caused by
geothermal development, would not only affect the ability of Dixie
Valley toads to survive during cold months, but could also make the
species vulnerable to chytrid fungus.
Predation
Predation has been reported in species similar to the Dixie Valley
toad and likely occurs in Dixie Meadows; however, predation of Dixie
Valley toads has not been documented. Likely predators on the egg and
aquatic larval forms of Dixie Valley toad include predacious diving
beetles (Dytiscus sp.) and dragonfly larvae (Odonata). Common ravens
(Corvus corax) and other corvids are known to feed on juvenile and
adult black toads and Yosemite toads (Sherman 1980, pp. 90-92; Sherman
and Morton 1993, pp. 194-195). Raven populations are increasing across
the western United States and are clearly associated with anthropogenic
developments, such as roads and power lines (Coates and Delehanty 2010,
pp. 244-245; Howe et al. 2014, pp. 44-46). Ravens are known to nest
within Dixie Valley (Environmental Management and Planning Solutions
2016, pp. 3-4).
[[Page 20341]]
The American bullfrog, a ranid species native to much of central
and eastern North America, now occurs within Dixie Meadows (Casper and
Hendricks 2005, pp. 540-541; Gordon et al. 2017, p. 136). Bullfrogs are
recognized as one of the 100 worst invasive species in the world
(Global Invasive Species Database 2021, pp. 1-17). Bullfrogs are known
to compete with and prey on other amphibian species (Moyle 1973, pp.
19-21; Kiesecker et al. 2001, pp. 1,966-1,969; Pearl et al. 2004, pp.
16-18; Casper and Hendricks 2005, pp. 543-544; Monello et al. 2006, p.
406; Falaschi et al. 2020, pp. 216-218).
Bullfrogs are a gape-limited predator, which means they eat
anything they can swallow (Casper and Hendricks 2005, pp. 543-544).
Dixie Valley toad is the smallest toad species in the western toads
species complex and can easily be preyed upon by bullfrogs. Smaller
bullfrogs eat mostly invertebrates (Casper and Hendricks 2005, p. 544),
and thus may compete with Dixie Valley toad for food resources. Within
Dixie Valley, bullfrogs are known to occur at Turley Pond and in one
area of Dixie Meadows adjacent to occupied Dixie Valley toad habitat
(Forrest 2013, pp. 74, 87; Rose et al. 2015, p. 529; Halstead et al.
2021, p. 24).
Climate Change
Both human settlements and natural ecosystems in the Southwestern
United States are largely dependent on groundwater resources, and
decreased groundwater recharge may occur as a result of climate change
(U.S. Global Change Research Program 2009, p. 133). Furthermore, the
human population in the Southwest is expected to increase 70 percent by
mid-century (Garfin 2014, p. 470). Resulting increases in urban
development, agriculture, and energy-production facilities will likely
place additional demands on already limited water resources. Climate
change will likely increase water demand while at the same time shrink
water supply, since water loss may increase evapotranspiration rates
and runoff during storm events (Archer and Predick 2008, p. 25).
In order to identify changing climatic conditions more specific to
Dixie Meadows, we conducted a climate analysis using the Climate Mapper
web tool (Hegewisch et al. 2020, online). The Climate Mapper is a web
tool for visualizing past and projected climate and hydrology of the
contiguous United States. This tool maps real-time conditions, current
forecasts, and future projections of climate information across the
United States to assist with decisions related to agriculture, climate,
fire conditions, and water.
For our analysis, we analyzed mean annual temperature and percent
precipitation using the historical period of 1971-2000 and the
projected future time period 2040-2069. We examined emission scenarios
that used representative concentration pathways (RCPs) 4.5 and 8.5
using ArcGIS Pro.
Our analysis predicts increased air temperatures in Dixie Meadows,
along with a slight increase in precipitation. Annual mean air
temperature is projected to increase between 2.5 and 3.4 [deg]C (4.5
and 6.1 [deg]F) and result in average temperatures 3.0 [deg]C (5.3
[deg]F) warmer throughout Dixie Meadows between 2040 and 2069
(Hegewisch et al. 2020, Geographic Information System (GIS) data).
Under two emission scenarios, annual precipitation is projected to
increase by 4.5 to 7.7 percent (Hegewisch et al. 2020, GIS data).
Climate change may impact the Dixie Valley toad and its habitat in
two main ways: (1) Reductions in springflow as a result of changes in
the amount, type, and timing of precipitation, increased
evapotranspiration rates, and reduced aquifer recharge; and (2)
reductions in springflow as a result of changes in human behavior in
response to climate change (e.g., increased groundwater pumping as
surface water resources disappear). A reduction in springflow could be
exacerbated by the greater severity of droughts being experienced in
the Southwestern United States, including Nevada (Snyder et al. 2019,
pp. 2-4; Williams et al. 2020, pp. 1-5). Higher temperatures and drier
conditions could result in greater evapotranspiration, leading to
increased drying of wetland habitat. Impacts vary geographically, and
identifying the vulnerability of individual springs is challenging. For
example, a study examining different springs over a 14-year period at
Arches National Park in Utah found that each spring responded to local
precipitation and recharge differently, despite similarities to Dixie
Valley in topographic setting, aquifer type, and climate exposure
(Weissinger 2016, p. 9).
Predicting individual spring response to climate change is further
complicated by the minimal information available about the large
hydrological connections for most sites and the high degree of
uncertainty inherent in future precipitation models. Regardless, the
best available data indicate that Dixie Valley toad may be vulnerable
to climate change to an unknown degree, but we cannot say with any
certainty where impacts may be manifested or the greatest.
Groundwater Pumping
The basin is fully appropriated for consumptive groundwater uses
(18,758,663 cubic meters per year (m\3\/yr) (15,218 acre-feet per year
(afy)) of an estimated 18,489,943 m\3\/yr (15,000 afy) perennial
yield), and the proposed Dixie Valley groundwater export project by
Churchill County is seeking an additional 12,326,628-18,489,943 m\3\/yr
(10,000-15,000 afy) (Huntington et al. 2014, p. 2). Total geothermal
water rights appropriated in Dixie Valley as of 2020 are 15,659,749
m\3\/yr (12,704 afy) (BLM 2021b, pp. 2-28).
Increased groundwater pumping in Nevada is primarily driven by
human water demand for municipal purposes, irrigation, and development
for oil, gas, geothermal resources, and minerals. Many factors
associated with groundwater pumping can affect whether or not an
activity will impact a spring. These factors include the amount of
groundwater to be pumped, period of pumping, the proximity of pumping
to a spring, depth of pumping, and characteristics of the aquifer being
impacted. Depending on these factors, groundwater withdrawal may result
in no measurable impact to springs or may reduce spring discharge,
change the temperature of the water, reduce free-flowing water, dry
springs, alter Dixie Valley toad habitat size and heterogeneity, or
create habitat that is more suited to nonnative species than to native
species (Sada and Deacon 1994, p. 6). Pumping rates that exceed
perennial yield can lower the water table, which in turn will likely
affect riparian vegetation (Patten 2008, p. 399).
Determining when groundwater withdrawal exceeds perennial yield is
difficult to ascertain and reverse due to inherent delays in detection
of pumping impacts and the subsequent lag time required for recovery of
discharge at a spring (Bredehoeft 2011, p. 808). Groundwater pumping
initially captures stored groundwater near the pumping area until water
levels decline and a cone of depression expands, potentially impacting
water sources to springs or streams (Dudley and Larson 1976, p. 38).
Spring aquifer source and other aquifer characteristics influence the
ability and rate at which a spring fills and may recover from
groundwater pumping (Heath 1983, pp. 6, 14). Depending on aquifer
characteristics and rates of pumping, recovery of the aquifer is
variable and may take several years or even centuries (Heath 1983, p.
32; Halford and Jackson 2020, p. 70). Yet where reliable records exist,
most
[[Page 20342]]
springs fed by even the most extensive aquifers are affected by
exploitation, and springflow reductions relate directly to quantities
of groundwater removed (Dudley and Larson 1976, p. 51).
The most extreme potential effects of groundwater withdrawal on
Dixie Valley toad are likely desiccation and extirpation or extinction.
If groundwater withdrawal occurs but does not cause a spring to dry,
there can still be adverse effects to Dixie Valley toads or their
habitat because reduction in springflow reduces both the amount of
water and amount of occupied habitat. If the withdrawals also coincide
with altered precipitation and temperature from climate change, even
less water will be available. Cumulatively, these conditions could
result in a delay in groundwater recharge at springs, which may then
result in a greater effect to the Dixie Valley toad than the effects of
the individual threats acting alone. Across the Dixie Meadows springs,
discharge varies greatly, with some springs with low discharge at the
current time likely due to a combination of influences, both natural
and anthropogenic. Though there is much uncertainty around the
magnitude and timing of groundwater withdrawal, and thus the possible
effects on the Dixie Meadows spring system, we anticipate that the
future effects of groundwater withdrawal could have significant effects
on the Dixie Meadows spring system.
Current Condition
Redundancy, Representation, and Resiliency
Population estimates are not available for the Dixie Valley toad.
Time-series data of toad abundance are available from various surveys
conducted by the Service and the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW)
during the period 2009-2012 (before the Dixie Valley toad was
recognized as a species); however, differences in sample methodology
between years and low recapture rates indicate that consistent
reproduction is occurring.
In 2018, Dixie Valley toads were detected in 38 of 60 randomized
plots in the Dixie Meadows wetlands, with a 95 percent credible
interval (Bayesian equivalent of a confidence interval) for probability
of toad occurrence of 0.55-0.98 in plots of average water temperature
(18.8 [deg]C (65.8 [deg]F)) (Halstead et al. 2019, p. 9). In other
words, adult toads currently have high occupancy rates and are
generally more likely than not to occur across the Dixie Meadows
wetlands. The 95 percent credible interval for the probability of
reproduction in an average plot (18.8 [deg]C (65.8 [deg]F) and 45
percent wetted area) was 0.01-0.26 and increased as a function of
wetted surface area in plots with adults present (Halstead et al. 2019,
p. 10). Although larvae have a lower probability of occurring within an
average plot than adults, warmer water temperatures strongly influence
the probability of reproduction (Halstead et al. 2019, pp. 10-11). This
finding suggests that adult toads are seeking out a specific subset of
habitat for reproduction based in part on water temperature. The
percentage of the range currently occupied by adults remained similarly
high throughout 2018-2021 and across seasons (Rose et al. 2022,
entire).
The high occupancy rate observed from 2018 through 2021 and
evidence of reproduction observed in the period 2009-2021 suggest that
the Dixie Valley toad is currently maintaining resilience to the
historical and current environmental stochasticity present at Dixie
Meadows. However, the narrowly distributed, isolated nature of the
single population of the species indicates that the Dixie Valley toad
has little ability to withstand stochastic or catastrophic events
through dispersal. Because the species evolved in a unique spring
system with little historical variation, we conclude that it has low
potential to adapt to a fast-changing environment. As a single-site
endemic with no dispersal opportunities outside the current range, the
species has inherently low redundancy and representation and depends
entirely on the continued availability of habitat in Dixie Meadows.
The following section discusses the potential impacts the Dixie
Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project could have on both the current
and future status of the Dixie Valley toad. Based on an expert
knowledge elicitation (discussed further below) conducted on the
potential outcomes of this geothermal project, peak change to the
spring system could occur as early as the current year of 2022 (year 1
of geothermal pumping), with a 90 percent chance that peak change will
occur within 10 years of the start of geothermal pumping (Service 2022,
pp. 42-43).
Dixie Meadows Geothermal Project
In addition to 50 active geothermal leases within Dixie Valley in
Churchill County, two geothermal exploration projects were approved in
Dixie Meadows in 2010 and 2011 (BLM 2010, entire; BLM 2011, entire).
Most recently, on November 23, 2021, BLM approved and permitted the
Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project (BLM 2021b, entire) after
issuing two draft environmental assessments, receiving extensive
comments from the Service and NDOW, and developing an Aquatic Resources
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (hereafter referred to as the Monitoring
and Mitigation Plan). This project will consist of up to two 30-MW
geothermal power plants on 6.5 ha (16 ac) each; up to 18 well pads
(107x114 m (350x375 ft)), upon which up to three wells per pad may be
drilled for exploration, production, or injection; pipelines to carry
geothermal fluid between well fields and the power plant(s); and either
a 120-kilovolt (kV) or a 230-kV transmission gen-tie and associated
access roads and structures (BLM 2021b, p. 1-1). The project proponent
(Ormat Nevada Inc. (Ormat)) began construction on the first geothermal
plant the week of February 14, 2022, and plans to begin geothermal
production by December 2022; therefore, we assume it is possible that
both construction and production will occur in 2022. To see a more
detailed overview of the approved and permitted project, refer to the
BLM environmental assessment (BLM 2021b, entire).
As mentioned above, two geothermal exploration projects were
approved by the BLM in 2010 and 2011 (BLM 2010, entire; BLM 2011,
entire); however, required monitoring and baseline environmental
surveys for those exploration projects did not occur (BLM 2021a, pp. 3-
17-3-18). As a result, key environmental information (e.g., water
quality metrics data such as flow, water temperature, and water
pressure) is lacking to determine the effects of the project on the
surrounding environment. Most of the information collected during this
timeframe were singular measurements taken quarterly or annually, which
do not characterize the variability in environmental conditions
observed in Dixie Meadows. The lack of robust baseline environmental
information is part of why we, along with experts from the expert
knowledge elicitation workshop panel (described below), conclude that
the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan associated with the Dixie Meadows
Geothermal Utilization Project, discussed further in the Conservation
Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms section, below, needs further
refinement to adequately detect and respond to changes in the wetlands
and toad populations. The ability of the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan
to detect changes in baseline conditions, and mitigate those changes,
is discussed further in the Expert Knowledge
[[Page 20343]]
Elicitation and Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
sections, below.
Expert Knowledge Elicitation
An expert knowledge elicitation workshop was carried out during the
period August 17-20, 2021, using the [then] proposed Dixie Meadows
Geothermal Utilization Project, January 2021 draft environmental
assessment (BLM 2021a, entire) and draft Monitoring and Mitigation Plan
(BLM 2021a, Appendix H), and a summary of all existing data to
determine the range of outcomes of the approved project. This analysis
used a modified version of the Sheffield elicitation framework, which
follows established best practices for eliciting expert knowledge
(Gosling 2018, entire; O'Hagan 2019, pp. 73-81; Oakley and O'Hagan
2019, entire). The expert panel consisted of a multidisciplinary group
with backgrounds in the geologic structure of basin and range systems,
various components of deep and shallow groundwater flow, as well as
geothermal exploration and development. All panelists have direct
experience in the Great Basin, and most in Dixie Valley and Dixie
Meadows, specifically. The panelists were asked questions regarding the
time until peak changes to the spring system would occur, the ability
of the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan to detect and mitigate change,
the amount of time it would take to mitigate change if mitigation is
possible, and what the peak changes to springflow and spring
temperature could be. For a detailed overview of the expert knowledge
elicitation process, refer to the SSA report (Service 2022, Appendix
A).
The expert panelists concluded that the Dixie Meadows spring system
will change quickly, and detrimentally, once geothermal energy
production begins, with a median response time of roughly 4 years and a
90 percent chance that the largest magnitude changes will occur within
10 years (Service 2022, Appendix A). Uncertainty within individual
judgments on response time was related to the efficacy of mitigation
measures and interactions between short-term impacts from geothermal
development and longer term impacts from climate change and consumptive
water use.
Experts had low confidence in the ability of the Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan to both detect and mitigate changes to the temperature
and flow of surface springs in Dixie Meadows. Although the aggregated
distribution for the ability to detect changes ranged from 0 to 100
percent, the median expectation was a roughly 38 percent chance of
detecting changes (Service 2022, Appendix A). These judgments reflect
an expectation that there is less than 50 percent confidence from the
experts that the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan could detect changes in
the spring system due to the complexity and natural variability of the
system, limited baseline data, and perceived inadequacies of the
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. The Monitoring and Mitigation Plan was
perceived as inadequate due in part to limited monitoring locations,
low frequency of monitoring and reporting, and lack of a statistical
approach for addressing variability and uncertainty. The degree of
confidence in the ability to mitigate environmental impacts of the
project was even lower (median of roughly 29 percent; Service 2022,
Appendix A) based on previously stated concerns about the plan, lack of
information on how water quality would be addressed, interacting
effects of climate change and extractive water use, and questions about
the motivation to mitigate if measures ran counter to other operating
goals of the plant.
The expert panel was asked what timeframe would be required to
fully mitigate changes in spring temperature and springflow once
detected--assuming that changes have been detected, it is technically
feasible to mitigate the problem, and there is a willingness to
participate from all parties. Based on those assumptions, the experts
judged that it could take multiple years to mitigate perturbations once
detected, with a median expectation of 4 years (Service 2022, Appendix
A).
At the time the expert knowledge elicitation occurred, the Dixie
Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project was not approved. However, in
the discussion about expected peak change in spring temperature and
springflow, the experts considered how the spring system would change
if the geothermal project was not approved or the Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan was improved. Expert judgments on expected peak change
in spring temperature and springflow that considered the geothermal
project not getting approved and an improvement in the Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan were not considered in our analysis because the
geothermal project was approved (BLM 2021b, entire) in November 2021.
Additionally, although the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan was changed,
changes were minimal and did not affect the ability of the plan to
detect or mitigate changes. Therefore, the results of the expert
knowledge elicitation completed on the January 2021 draft environmental
assessment and the then-existing Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (BLM
2021a, entire) would not have changed meaningfully in response to the
final approved environmental assessment and Monitoring and Mitigation
Plan (BLM 2021b, entire).
Although there is large uncertainty in the magnitude of expected
changes from the approved project, there is a high degree of certainty
that geothermal energy development will have severe and negative
effects on the geothermal springs relied upon by the Dixie Valley toad,
including reductions in spring temperature and springflow, which
directly affect the resource needs of the species. The plausible range
of changes to spring temperatures ranged from a lower limit of a 55-
[deg]C (99- [deg]F) decrease to an upper limit of a 10- [deg]C (18-
[deg]F) decrease (Service 2022, Appendix A). This uncertainty is due to
the wide spatial variation in spring temperatures across the spring
system and reflects the expectation that the spring temperatures could
plausibly drop to ambient levels (i.e., a complete loss of geothermal
contributions). Similarly, the lower limit of the aggregated expert
judgments considered it plausible that springs in Dixie Meadows could
dry up (no surface discharge) as the geothermal contribution was
reduced, with an upper limit of a 31-percent decrease in surface
discharge. These judgments reflect the high anticipated pumping rates
of the proposed plants, perceived inadequacies with the Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan, and the fact that drying of surface springs has been
documented at other nearby geothermal development projects (BLM 2019,
p. 1).
Scenario Considerations for Current and Future Conditions
In the SSA report, we analyzed four scenarios based on the expert
knowledge elicitation. As mentioned earlier, these scenarios could
plausibly affect both the current and future condition of the species.
Three of the scenarios (scenarios 1-3) assume the Dixie Meadows
Geothermal Utilization Project will begin construction as approved,
while scenario 4 assumes there will be no geothermal development or the
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan will be significantly improved before
project implementation. Scenario 4 was not considered in this decision
given the approval of the geothermal project, the beginning of
construction on the project, and the lack of substantive improvements
to the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. As discussed above in the Expert
Knowledge Elicitation section, we have low confidence in the ability of
the Monitoring and Mitigation
[[Page 20344]]
Plan to detect or mitigate changes to the spring system. Therefore,
only scenarios 1-3 were considered for this decision.
The scenarios incorporated the following considerations from the
expert knowledge elicitation: The efficacy of the Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan; how the surficial spring system will respond to
geothermal production; and changes in temperature, evapotranspiration,
and extreme precipitation events related to climate change. For all
scenarios, we project that the basin will remain over-allocated. The
lower bound of scenarios (scenario 1) projects that the Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan is ineffective, the springs dry completely, and there
are increases in air temperature, evapotranspiration, and extreme
precipitation events seen under RCP 8.5. This scenario represents the
low confidence the experts have in the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan
and reflects the results in a similar situation that occurred in Jersey
Valley where geothermal production caused the spring system to go dry
within 3 years of the start of operation (BLM 2022, p. 1; NDWR 2022,
unpublished data). The upper bound of scenarios (scenario 3) projects
that the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan is moderately effective,
geothermal production has moderate effects on the surficial spring
system, and increases in temperature, evapotranspiration, and moderate
changes in precipitation seen under RCP 4.5 occur. Because the experts
expressed less than 50 percent confidence in the ability of the
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan to both detect and mitigate change, it
was logical for this scenario to represent the upper bound of
plausibility.
These scenarios include the range of peak changes to spring
temperature and springflow as discussed earlier (a 55- [deg]C (99-
[deg]F)) decrease to a 10- [deg]C (18- [deg]F) decrease in spring
temperature and a 100-percent decrease to a 31-percent decrease in
springflow). These projected changes in spring temperature and flow
were used as inputs into a multistate, dynamic occupancy model, which
is described further in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 61-64).
Scenario 1 results in complete reproductive failure because of the
drying of springs, and scenarios 2 and 3 project a risk of reproductive
failure after 1 year of geothermal production (lower credible interval
of 0 percent of the range occupied by larvae). Under scenario 2, the
mean percentage of the range occupied by larvae drops to 0 percent by
2024 with an upper credible interval of 2 percent of the range occupied
by larvae. Scenario 3 projects a mean of 1 percent of the range
occupied by larvae with an upper credible interval of 5 percent of the
range occupied by 2026. All scenarios result in a high level of risk of
reproductive failure for the Dixie Valley toad in the near future.
Although the occupancy model described above represents the best
available projection framework for the Dixie Valley toad, not all
demographic and risk factors relevant to understanding species
viability are included. One major threat not accounted for is the
synergistic effect of changes in temperature with the risk posed by
exposure to the fungal pathogen chytrid fungus that causes the disease
chytridiomycosis (see Disease, above). Chytrid fungus growth and
survival are sensitive to both cold and hot temperatures, with optimal
growth conditions in culture occurring between 15 and 25 [deg]C (59 and
77 [deg]F). There is equivocal evidence on whether colder temperatures
limit the effects of chytrid fungus (Voyles et al. 2017, pp. 367-369);
however, hot geothermal waters above 25 [deg]C (77 [deg]F) appear to
provide protection against chytrid fungus by allowing individuals to
raise body temperatures through behavioral fever (Forrest and
Schlaepfer 2011, entire; Murphy et al. 2011, p. 39). This information
indicates that future decreases in water temperature associated with
scenarios 2 and 3 are likely to increase the risk that chytrid fungus
could become established within the Dixie Valley toad population. If
chytrid fungus becomes established within the Dixie Valley toad
population, there would be negative, and plausibly catastrophic,
effects to the species.
The seasonal timing of changes in water temperature is also
particularly important. Dixie Valley toads strongly rely on aquatic
environments throughout their life cycle (Halstead et al. 2021,
entire). Unlike Western toads that may be found hundreds to thousands
of meters from aquatic breeding sites, in surveys Dixie Valley toads
are almost always found in water (Halstead et al. 2021, pp. 30-31).
When not detected in water, Dixie Valley toads are found 4.2 m (13.8
ft) from water on average and are found both in and above water during
brumation (Halstead et al. 2021, p. 30). Autumn brumation sites are
found to be warmer than random locations available, and toads are 1.3
times more likely to select sites for each 1- [deg]C increase in water
temperature (Halstead et al. 2021, p. 30). Because toads are found
closer to spring heads in autumn compared to sites selected during
other times of year, it is likely that they are selecting areas where
water temperatures will remain stable throughout the winter (Halstead
et al. 2021, p. 34). The selection of areas with stable, warm water
temperatures indicates that reductions in geothermal contributions
during winter could lead to thermal stress, reductions in available
habitat as waters cool, or even mortality if geothermal contributions
are removed completely or reduced to a level that toads are unable to
adapt their brumation strategies.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
The Dixie Valley toad occurs only on Federal lands (the DoD's
Fallon Naval Air Station and BLM). Various laws, regulations, policies,
and management plans may provide conservation or protections for Dixie
Valley toads. As such, the following management plans are the existing
conservation tools driving the management of Dixie Valley toads and
their habitat:
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 BLM-administered lands and
resources, including actions specific to Dixie Valley toads and their
habitat.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970
(as amended; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), which is a procedural statute,
for projects that Federal agencies fund, authorize, or carry out, BLM,
with input from Ormat, developed a Monitoring and Mitigation Plan
(McGinley and Associates 2021, entire) for the Dixie Meadows Geothermal
Utilization Project; it is an appendix in BLM's environmental
assessment (BLM 2021b, Appendix H). The goal of the Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan is to identify hydrologic and biologic resources,
spring-dependent ecosystems, aquatic habitat, and species that could be
affected by geothermal exploration, production, and injection in the
Dixie Meadows area (McGinley and Associates 2021, p. 1). The Monitoring
and Mitigation Plan will describe the plan Ormat would implement to
monitor and mitigate potential effects to those resources,
[[Page 20345]]
ecosystems, habitat, and species (McGinley and Associates 2021, p. 1).
The Monitoring and Mitigation Plan includes adaptive management and
mitigation measures that Ormat would implement if changes are detected
in baseline conditions and threshold values are exceeded. Management
actions may include geothermal reservoir pumping and injection
adjustments (e.g., redistribution of injection between shallow and deep
aquifers). Other more aggressive actions include augmenting affected
springs with geothermal fluids or fresh water to restore preproduction
temperature, flow, stage, and water chemistry. The Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan states that if mitigation actions are not sufficient
for the protection of species and aquatic habitat, pumping and
injection would be suspended until appropriate mitigation measures are
identified, implemented, and shown to be effective (McGinley and
Associates 2021, p. 34).
We, along with other interested parties (e.g., Department of the
Navy, NDOW) provided comments to the BLM regarding the Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan, which was first made available to the public in
January 2021. We have low confidence in the ability of the Monitoring
and Mitigation Plan to adequately detect and respond to changes because
of the complexity and natural variability of the spring system, limited
baseline data, and perceived inadequacies of the plan. We determined
the Monitoring and Mitigation Plan is inadequate because of the
inadequate time to collect relevant baseline information prior to
beginning operation of the plant, limited monitoring locations, low
frequency of monitoring and reporting, lack of a statistical approach
for addressing variability and uncertainty, lack of information on how
water quality would be addressed, interacting effects of climate change
and extractive water use, and uncertainty about mitigation if measures
ran counter to other operating goals of the plant.
The Dixie Valley toad is classified as protected by the State of
Nevada under Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 503.075(2)(b). Per NAC
503.090(1), there is no open season on those species of amphibian
classified as protected. Per NAC 503.094, the State issues permits for
the take and possession of any species of wildlife for strictly
scientific or educational purposes. The State's Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources includes the Nevada Division of
Natural Heritage (NDNH), which tracks the species status of plants and
animals in Nevada. The NDNH recognizes Dixie Valley toads as critically
imperiled, rank S1. Ranks of S1 are defined as species with very high
risks of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to very restricted range,
very few populations or occurrences, very steep declines, severe
threats, or other factors.
Determination of Status for the Dixie Valley Toad
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine
whether a species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or
a ``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors: (A)
The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
In conducting our status assessment of the Dixie Valley toad, we
evaluated all identified threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors and assessed how the cumulative impact of all threats acts on
the viability of the species as a whole. That is, all the anticipated
effects from both habitat-based and direct mortality-based threats are
examined in total and then evaluated in the context of what those
combined negative effects will mean to the future condition of the
Dixie Valley toad.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
determined that the Dixie Valley toad is at risk of extinction
throughout its range primarily due to the approval and commencement of
geothermal development. Other threats identified in this status
determination include increased severity of drought due to climate
change (Factor A), the threat of chytrid fungus establishing itself in
the population (Factor C), groundwater pumping associated with human
consumption, agriculture, and county planning (Factor A), and predation
by invasive bullfrogs (Factor C). These three threats will likely
exacerbate the main threat of geothermal development. Existing
regulatory mechanisms do not address the primary threat to the species
(Factor D).
Construction of the Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project
has begun, and geothermal production is assumed to begin before the end
of 2022. Based upon the best available scientific and commercial
information as described in this determination, the Service has a high
degree of certainty that geothermal production will have severe,
negative effects on the geothermal springs the species relies upon for
habitat (Factor A). These negative effects include reductions in spring
temperature and springflow, which directly affect the needs of the
species (i.e., adequate water temperature, sufficient wetted areas,
sufficient wetland vegetation, including vegetation cover, and adequate
water quality (see Species Needs, above)). The best available
information indicates that a complete reduction in springflow and
significant reduction of water temperature are plausible outcomes of
the geothermal project, and these conditions could result in the
species no longer persisting (i.e., becoming extinct or functionally
extinct as a result of significant habitat degradation, or no
reproduction due to highly isolated, non-recruiting individuals).
The narrowly distributed, isolated nature of the single, small
population of the species indicates that the Dixie Valley toad will
have no ability to withstand stochastic or catastrophic events through
dispersal. Because the species occurs in only one spring system and has
experienced little historical variation, it has low potential to adapt
to a fast-changing environment. As a single-site endemic with no
dispersal opportunities outside the current range and low adaptive
capacity, the species has inherently low redundancy and representation,
and depends entirely on the continued availability of wetland habitat
in Dixie Meadows. Low redundancy and representation make the Dixie
Valley toad particularly vulnerable to fast-paced change to its habitat
and catastrophic events, any of which could plausibly result from the
permitted Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project.
The Dixie Valley toad exists in one population that will likely be
directly affected to a significant degree by geothermal production in a
short timeframe, resulting in a high risk that the species could become
extinct.
In addition to the current development of the geothermal project,
[[Page 20346]]
a combination of threats will act synergistically to exacerbate effects
from geothermal production on the Dixie Meadows spring system. A
reduction in springflow could be exacerbated by the greater severity of
droughts being experienced in the Southwestern United States, including
Nevada (Snyder et al. 2019, pp. 2-4; Williams et al. 2020, pp. 1-5).
Higher temperatures and drier conditions could result in greater
evapotranspiration, leading to increased drying of wetland habitat. A
reduction in water temperature could allow chytrid fungus to become
established and negatively impact the Dixie Valley toad population.
Chytrid fungus would likely be catastrophic to Dixie Valley toads, as
it has caused severe declines in other amphibian species, and the
fungus has been found in another known vector species (bullfrog) in
Dixie Valley (Forrest 2013, p. 77). Bullfrogs themselves are a threat
to the species, as Dixie Valley toads could be easily preyed upon
because of their small size. If bullfrogs were to become established
throughout Dixie Valley toad habitat, there would likely be a reduction
in Dixie Valley toad abundance.
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude
that the Dixie Valley toad is currently in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range due to the immediacy of the threat of
geothermal production, including negative effects such as reductions in
spring temperature and springflow, which would directly affect the
needs of the species (i.e., adequate water temperature, sufficient
wetted areas, sufficient wetland vegetation, including vegetation
cover, and adequate water quality), and low confidence in the ability
of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to effectively minimize and
mitigate for potential effects that are likely to manifest in the near
term. We find that threatened species status is not appropriate because
the threat of extinction is imminent as opposed to being likely to
develop within the foreseeable future.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. We have determined that the Dixie Valley toad is in danger
of extinction throughout all of its range and, accordingly, did not
undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. Because
the Dixie Valley toad warrants listing as endangered throughout all of
its range, our determination does not conflict with the decision in
Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C.
2020), because that decision related to SPR analyses for species that
warrant listing as threatened, not endangered, throughout all of their
range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Dixie Valley toad meets the definition
of an endangered species. For the reasons discussed below, we further
find that the threats facing the Dixie Valley toad at this time
constitute an emergency posing a significant risk to the well-being of
the Dixie Valley toad. Therefore, we are emergency listing the Dixie
Valley toad as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6),
4(a)(1), and 4(b)(7) of the Act.
Reasons for Emergency Determination
Under section 4(b)(7) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.20,
we may emergency list a species if the threats to the species
constitute an emergency posing a significant risk to its well-being. An
emergency listing expires 240 days following publication in the Federal
Register unless, during this 240-day period, we list the species
following the normal listing procedures. In accordance with the Act, if
at any time after we publish this emergency rule, we determine that
substantial evidence does not exist to warrant such a rule, we will
withdraw it.
We conclude that emergency listing the Dixie Valley toad as
endangered is warranted. In making this determination, we have
carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available
regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the Dixie
Valley toad. As discussed above in detail, the Dixie Meadows Geothermal
Utilization Project poses a high degree of threat to the Dixie Valley
toad, such that it poses a significant risk to the well-being of the
species. Moreover, the project has been permitted, construction has
already begun, and power plant production is projected to begin this
calendar year. Significant and possibly irreversible negative impacts
to the species may occur before listing could become effective
following completion of the usually required rulemaking procedures for
listing a species. We therefore conclude that the current circumstances
constitute an emergency.
By emergency listing the Dixie Valley toad as an endangered
species, the protections of the Act (through sections 7, 9, and 10) and
recognition that will immediately become available to the species will
increase the likelihood that it can be saved from extinction.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for listed
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be
downlisted or delisted and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental
[[Page 20347]]
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery
plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website
(http://www.fws.gov/endangered) (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education.
Following publication of a final listing rule, funding for recovery
actions is available from a variety of sources, including Federal
budgets, State programs, the academic community, and nongovernmental
organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State
of Nevada will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management
actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Dixie Valley
toad. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Dixie Valley toad is only emergency listed under the
Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or
threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is
designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4)
of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph may include, but are not limited to, management and any other
landscape-altering activities on Federal lands: Aquatic habitat
restoration, fire management plans, fire suppression, fuel reduction
treatments, mining permits, integrated natural resources management
plans, land resource management plans, oil and natural gas permits,
renewable energy development, renewable and alternative energy
projects, and geothermal project approvals and implementation.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of
these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce any species listed as an endangered species. It is
also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any
such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply
to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service,
other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation
agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes:
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities. The statute also contains certain exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. Based on the best
available information, the following actions are unlikely to result in
a violation of section 9, if these activities are carried out in
accordance with existing regulations and permit requirements; this list
is not comprehensive:
(1) Vehicle use on existing roads and trails in compliance with the
BLM Carson City District's resource management plan.
(2) Recreational use with minimal ground disturbance (e.g., hiking,
walking).
Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they
are not authorized in accordance with applicable law, including the
Endangered Species Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
(2) Unauthorized livestock grazing that results in direct mortality
and direct or indirect destruction of vegetation and aquatic habitat;
(3) Destruction/alteration of the species' habitat by draining,
ditching, stream channelization or diversion, or diversion or
alteration of surface or ground water flow into or out of the wetland;
(4) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey
upon the Dixie Valley toad or wetland vegetation;
(5) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that
attack any life stage of the Dixie Valley toad;
(6) Modification of the vegetation components on sites known to be
occupied by the Dixie Valley toad; and
(7) Modification of spring and wetland water temperatures.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Reno
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations adopted
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October
25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
[[Page 20348]]
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. We requested information from the
Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony and have
continued to coordinate during the SSA process. We are requesting the
Tribe's partner review of the SSA report concurrent with the open
comment period identified in the proposed rule that is published
concurrently with this emergency rule and found in the Proposed Rules
section of this issue of the Federal Register (see Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2022-0024 in https://www.regulations.gov). We will continue to work
with Tribal entities during the development of a final listing
determination for the Dixie Valley toad.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Reno Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the Fish
and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Reno Fish and
Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11 in paragraph (h) by adding an entry for ``Toad,
Dixie Valley'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in
alphabetical order under Amphibians to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Amphibians
* * * * * * *
Toad, Dixie Valley.............. Anaxyrus williamsi Wherever found.... E 87 FR [INSERT Federal
Register PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT BEGINS];
4/7/2022.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-07374 Filed 4-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P