Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly, 42442-42519 [06-6244]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 26, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42442-42519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6244]



[[Page 42441]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 26, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 42442]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AU74


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly 
(Somatochlora hineana) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
as amended (Act). In total, approximately 27,689 acres (ac) (11,205 
hectares (ha)) fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical 
habitat designation in 49 units located in Cook, DuPage, and Will 
Counties in Illinois; Alpena, Mackinac, and Presque Isle Counties in 
Michigan; Dent, Iron, Morgan, Phelps, Reynolds, Ripley, Shannon, 
Washington, and Wayne Counties in Missouri; and Door and Ozaukee 
Counties in Wisconsin. We are, however, considering excluding all 26 
units in Missouri and 2 units in Michigan from the critical habitat 
designation. If made final, this proposal may result in additional 
requirements under section 7 of the Act for Federal agencies. No 
additional requirements are expected for non-Federal actions. The 
Service seeks comments on all aspects of this proposal from the public.

DATES: Comments: We will accept comments from all interested parties 
until September 25, 2006. Public Hearing: We have scheduled one 
informational meeting followed by a public hearing for August 15, 2006. 
The informational meeting will be held from 6 to 7 p.m., followed by a 
public hearing from 7:15 to 9 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments: If you wish to comment, you may submit your 
comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several 
methods:
    1. You may submit written comments and information to John Rogner, 
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chicago, Illinois 
Ecological Services Field Office, 1250 S. Grove, Suite 103, Barrington, 
Illinois 60010.
    2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our office, at the 
above address.
    3. You may send your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) directly 
to the Service at hedch@fws.gov or to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
    4. You may fax your comments to (847) 381-2285.
    Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the Chicago, Illinois Ecological Services Field Office at the 
above address (telephone (847) 381-2253 extension 233).
    Public Hearing: The August 15, 2006, informational meeting and 
public hearing will be held in Romeoville, Illinois at the Drdak 
Senior/Teen Center at the Romeoville Recreation Center at 900 West 
Romeo Road.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Rogner, Field Supervisor, Chicago 
Illinois Ecological Services Field Office, 1250 S. Grove, Suite 103, 
Barrington, Illinois 60010 (telephone (847) 381-2253, extension 233; 
facsimile (847) 381-2285).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

    We are seeking public comments on all aspects of this proposed 
rule. We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or 
suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited.
    Comments particularly are sought concerning:
    (1) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to 
be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including 
whether it is prudent to designate critical habitat.
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Hine's 
emerald dragonfly habitat; what areas should be included in the 
designations that were occupied at the time of listing and that contain 
the features essential for the conservation of the species; and what 
areas that were not occupied at the time of listing are essential to 
the conservation of the species. Information submitted should include a 
specific explanation as to why any area is essential to the 
conservation of the species;
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential 
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any 
impacts on small entities;
    (5) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concerns and comments;
    (6) Comments or information that would add further clarity or 
specificity to the physical and biological features determined to be 
essential for the conservation of the Hine's emerald dragonfly (i.e., 
primary constituent elements);
    (7) We are considering excluding areas under the jurisdiction of 
the Hiawatha National Forest in Michigan, the Mark Twain National 
Forest in Missouri, and the Missouri Department of Conservation and 
units under private ownership in Missouri from the final designation of 
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act on the basis of 
conservation programs and partnerships. We will also review other 
relevant information for units being proposed in this rule as we 
receive it to determine whether other units may be appropriate for 
exclusion from the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 
We specifically solicit comment on the inclusion or exclusion of such 
areas and:
    (a) Whether these areas have features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species or are otherwise essential to the 
conservation of the species;
    (b) Whether these, or other areas proposed, but not specifically 
addressed in this proposal, warrant exclusion;
    (c) Relevant factors that should be considered by us when 
evaluating the basis for not designating these areas as critical 
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act;
    (d) Whether management plans in place adequately provide 
conservation measures and protect the Hine's emerald dragonfly and its 
habitat;
    (e) Whether designation would assist in the regulation of any 
threats not addressed by existing management plans; and
    (f) Whether designating these lands may result in an increased 
degree of threat to the species on these lands;
    (8) Whether lands not currently occupied by the species should be 
included in the designation, and if so, the basis for such an inclusion 
(this rule proposes to designate only lands currently occupied by the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly);
    (9) Whether the methodology used to map critical habitat units 
captures all of the biological and physical features

[[Page 42443]]

essential to the conservation of the Hine's emerald dragonfly;
    (10) Whether the benefit of exclusion in any particular area 
outweigh the benefits of inclusion under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act;
    (11) Whether the primary constituent elements as described fulfill 
the needs for the various life stages of the Hine's emerald dragonfly. 
Specifically, whether old fields adjacent to and in near proximity to 
larval areas are essential features; and
    (12) Whether the small areas of private land within the Hiawatha 
National Forest, which is proposed for exclusion, are essential for the 
conservation of the Hine's emerald dragonfly.
    When submitting electronic comments, your submission must include 
``Attn: Hine's emerald dragonfly'' in the beginning of your message, 
and you must not use special characters or any form of encryption. 
Electronic attachments in standard formats (such as .pdf or .doc) are 
acceptable, but please name the software necessary to open any 
attachments in formats other than those given above. Also, please 
include your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do 
not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your 
e-mail message, please submit your comments in writing using one of the 
alternate methods described in the ADDRESSES section. In the event that 
our internet connection is not functional, please submit your comments 
by one of the alternate methods mentioned in the ADDRESSES section.
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments, and we will 
make all comments available for public inspection in their entirety. 
Comments and materials received will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address 
in the ADDRESSES section.

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and 
Implementing the Act

    Attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful 
conservation actions. The role that designation of critical habitat 
plays in protecting habitat of listed species, however, is often 
misunderstood. As discussed in more detail below in the discussion of 
exclusions under section 4(b)(2) ofthe Act, there are significant 
limitations on the regulatory effect of designation under the Act, 
section 7(a)(2). In brief, (1) designation provides additional 
protection to habitat only where there is a Federal nexus; (2) the 
protection is relevant only when, in the absence of designation, 
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat would in 
fact take place (in other words, other statutory or regulatory 
protections, policies, or other factors relevant to agency decision-
making would not prevent the destruction or adverse modification); and 
(3) designation of critical habitat triggers the prohibition of 
destruction or adverse modification of that habitat, but it does not 
require specific actions to restore or improve habitat.
    Currently, only 470 species, or 36 percent of the 1,311 listed 
species in the United States under the jurisdiction of the Service, 
have designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 
1,311 listed species through conservation mechanisms such as listing; 
section 7 consultations; the section 4 recovery planning process; the 
section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take; section 6 
funding to the States; the section 10 incidental take permit process; 
and cooperative, nonregulatory efforts with private landowners. The 
Service believes that it is these measures that may make the difference 
between extinction and survival for many species.
    In considering exclusions of areas proposed for designation, we 
evaluated the benefits of designation in light of Gifford Pinchot. In 
that case, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the Service's regulation 
defining ``destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.'' 
In response, on December 9, 2004, the Director issued guidance to be 
considered in making section 7 adverse modification determinations. 
This proposed critical habitat designation does not use the invalidated 
regulation in our consideration of the benefits of including areas in 
this proposed designation. The Service will carefully manage future 
consultations that analyze impacts to proposed critical habitat, 
particularly those that appear to be resulting in an adverse 
modification determination. Such consultations will be reviewed by the 
Regional Office prior to finalizing to ensure that an adequate analysis 
has been conducted that is informed by the Director's guidance.
    To the extent that designation of critical habitat provides 
protection, that protection can come at significant social and economic 
cost. In addition, the mere administrative process of designation of 
critical habitat is expensive, time-consuming, and controversial. The 
current statutory framework of critical habitat, combined with past 
judicial interpretations of the statute, make critical habitat the 
subject of excessive litigation. As a result, critical habitat 
designations are driven by litigation and courts rather than biology, 
and made at a time and under a time frame that limits our ability to 
obtain and evaluate the scientific and other information required to 
make the designation most meaningful.
    In light of these circumstances, the Service believes that 
additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those 
actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need 
of protection.

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

    We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate 
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging 
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have 
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and 
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now 
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the 
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct 
scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most 
biologically urgent species conservation needs.
    The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that 
our already limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, 
to respond to Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical 
habitat, and to comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. 
As a result, listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to 
list gravely imperiled species, and final listing determinations on 
existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
    Because of the risks associated with failing to comply with court 
orders, the accelerated schedules imposed by the courts have left the 
Service with limited ability to provide for public participation or to 
ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions on 
listing and critical habitat proposals. This in turn fosters a second 
round of litigation in which those who fear adverse impacts from 
critical habitat designations challenge those designations. The cycle 
of litigation appears endless, and is very expensive, thus diverting 
resources from conservation actions that may provide relatively more 
benefit to imperiled species.
    The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the 
cost of preparation and publication of the

[[Page 42444]]

designation, the analysis of the economic effects and the cost of 
requesting and responding to public comment, and in some cases the 
costs of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 
These costs, which are not required for many other conservation 
actions, directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible 
conservation actions.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For more 
information on the Hine's emerald dragonfly, refer to the final listing 
rule published in the Federal Register on January 26, 1995 (60 FR 
5267), or the final recovery plan for the species (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 2001), which is available on the Internet at https://
www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/hed/hed-recplan.html, or by 
contacting the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.
    The Hine's emerald dragonfly is in the family Corduliidae 
(``emeralds'') and in the genus Somatochlora. The adult Hine's emerald 
dragonfly has brilliant green eyes. It is distinguished from all other 
species of Somatochlora by its dark metallic green thorax with two 
distinct creamy-yellow lateral lines, and distinctively-shaped male 
terminal appendages and female ovipositor (Williamson 1931, pp. 1-8). 
Adults have a body length of 6065 millimeters (mm) (2.3-2.5 inches 
(in)) and a wingspan of 90-95 mm (3.5-3.7 in).
    The current distribution of the Hine's emerald dragonfly includes 
Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsin. It is believed to be 
extirpated from Alabama, Indiana, and Ohio. In the current List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in Sec.  17.11(h), the historic 
range for this taxon is listed as Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and 
Wisconsin. A more accurate historic range for Hine's emerald dragonfly 
includes Alabama, Michigan, and Missouri in addition to the 
aforementioned States. We are proposing to amend the table such that 
the ``Historic Range'' for Hine's emerald dragonfly reads U.S.A. (AL, 
IL, IN, MI, MO, OH, and WI).
    No one characteristic has been found that easily and reliably 
differentiates female and early instar Hine's emerald dragonfly larvae 
from other similar species. Final instar male Hine's emerald dragonfly 
larvae can be readily identified by the terminal appendage (segment 
10). Hine's emerald dragonfly larval specimens can typically be 
distinguished from most other Somatochlora by the presence of a small 
middorsal hook on segment three. Other characteristics include head 
width, metatibial length, palpal crenulation setae, and total length. A 
detailed discussion is presented in Cashatt and Vogt (2001, pp. 94-96). 
Soluk et al. (1998a, p. 8) described the distinguishing features of 
Hine's emerald dragonfly larvae from other larval dragonfly species in 
Door County, Wisconsin, as ``the size of the dorsal hooks on the 
abdomen, general hairiness, shape of head, and lack of stripes on the 
legs.'' However, these characteristics would not be definitive in 
Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsin where there is potential confusion 
with other species of Somatochlora such as ski-tailed emerald (S. 
elongata), ocellated emerald (S. minor), and clamp-tipped emerald (S. 
tenebrosa).
    Hine's emerald dragonfly habitat consists predominantly of wetland 
systems used for breeding and foraging. The larval stage is aquatic, 
occupying rivulets and seepage areas within these wetland systems. The 
Hine's emerald dragonfly occupies marshes and sedge meadows fed by 
calcareous groundwater seepage and underlain by dolomite bedrock. In 
general, these areas are characterized by the presence of slowly 
flowing water, sedge meadows and prairies, and nearby or adjacent 
forest edges. The adult habitat includes the wetland systems as well as 
a mosaic of upland plant communities and corridors that connect them. 
Areas of open vegetation serve as places to forage. Foraging flights 
for reproductive adults may be 1-2 km (0.6-1.2 mi) from breeding sites, 
and may last 15 to 30 minutes. Forest edges, trees, and shrubs provide 
protected, shaded areas for the dragonflies to perch. Limited 
information is available on the species' dispersal capabilities. The 
average distance traveled by dispersing adults was documented to be 2.5 
miles (mi) (4.0 kilometers (km)) in a study in Illinois (Mierzwa et al. 
1995a, pp. 17-19; Cashatt and Vogt 1996, pp. 23-24).
    Many of the areas with Hine's emerald dragonflies in Missouri are 
surrounded by large tracts of contiguous, 100 percent closed canopy 
forest. The species generally does not travel more than 328 feet (ft) 
(100 meters (m)) into the interior of the forest. Foraging by adults 
occurs within the fen proper and in adjacent old fields, pastures, and 
forest edge (Landwer 2003, p. 10; Walker and Smentowski 2002, pp. 5-8; 
2003, pp. 8-10; 2004, pp. 8-10; 2005, pp. 4-5). Although the importance 
of old fields and pastures in meeting foraging needs in Missouri has 
not yet been determined, such areas may be a more significant factor 
than elsewhere within the range of the species because of a relative 
lack of open areas at many sites.
    Hine's adults emerge in late spring, mate, and lay eggs in water. 
The eggs overwinter. After hatching the larvae prey upon aquatic 
invertebrates, occupy rivulets and seepage areas, and take refuge in 
crayfish burrows. The larvae live 3 to 5 years before adult emergence 
takes place (Soluk 2005; Soluk and Satyshur 2005, p. 4). Adults live 
for only a few weeks.

Previous Federal Actions

    On February 4, 2004, we received a complaint from The Center for 
Biodiversity et al., for failure to designate critical habitat for the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly. On September 13, 2004, we reached a 
settlement agreement with the plaintiff requiring us to submit for 
publication in the Federal Register a proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly by July 7, 2006, and 
a final rule by May 7, 2007. For more information on previous Federal 
actions concerning the Hine's emerald dragonfly, refer to the final 
listing rule published in the Federal Register on January 26, 1995 (60 
FR 5267), or the final recovery plan for the species (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 2001). This proposed designation is being published in 
compliance with the above settlement agreement.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means 
to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to 
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at 
which the measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such 
methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities 
associated with scientific resources management such as research, 
census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, 
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the 
extraordinary case where population

[[Page 42445]]

pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may 
include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on 
Federal actions that may result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat 
does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, 
reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does 
not allow government or public access to private lands. Section 7 is a 
purely protective measure and does not require implementation of 
restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures.
    To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat 
within the area occupied by the species must first have features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat 
designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific 
data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs 
of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent 
elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
    Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical 
habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special 
management or protection. Thus, we do not include areas where existing 
management is sufficient to conserve the species. (As discussed below, 
such areas may also be excluded from critical habitat pursuant to 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.) Accordingly, when the best available 
scientific data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the 
species require additional areas, we will not designate critical 
habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species 
at the time of listing. An area currently occupied by the species but 
which was not known to be occupied at the time of listing will likely, 
but not always, be essential to the conservation of the species and, 
therefore, typically included in the critical habitat designation.
    The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271), and Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) 
and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the 
Service, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance 
to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best 
scientific data available. They require Service biologists to the 
extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific 
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as 
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When 
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of 
information is generally the listing package for the species. 
Additional information sources include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and 
expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is used in 
accordance with the provisions of Section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines 
issued by the Service.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often 
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. 
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not 
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to 
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, 
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the 
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
    Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the 
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information 
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects 
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat 
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, 
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans 
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new 
information available to these planning efforts calls for a different 
outcome.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best 
scientific data available in determining areas that contain the 
features that are essential to the conservation of the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly with the assistance of the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly Recovery 
Team and other species experts. We reviewed the approach to 
conservation of the species undertaken by local, State, and Federal 
agencies operating within the species' range since its listing, as well 
as the actions necessary for Hine's emerald dragonfly conservation 
identified in the final Recovery Plan for the species (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 2001).
    To identify features that are essential to the conservation of the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly, we reviewed available information that 
pertains to the habitat requirements, current and historic 
distribution, life history, threats, and population biology of the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly and other dragonfly species. This information 
includes: data in reports submitted during section 7 consultations and 
as a requirement from section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits or 
section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; research published in peer-
reviewed articles and presented in academic theses and agency reports; 
information provided by species experts and the Hine's Emerald 
Dragonfly Recovery Team; aerial photography; land use maps; National 
Wetland Inventory maps; and Natural Resource Conservation Service soil 
survey maps. We also reviewed our own site-specific species and habitat 
information, recent biological surveys, and reports and communication 
with other qualified biologists or experts.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (primary 
constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation of the 
species, and within areas occupied by the species at the time of 
listing, that may require special management considerations and 
protection. These include, but are not limited to: space for individual 
and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, 
minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or 
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of

[[Page 42446]]

the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
    The specific primary constituent elements (PCEs) required for the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly are derived from the biological needs of the 
species as described in the Background section of this proposal and the 
Hine's Emerald Dragonfly Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
2001), and additional detail is provided below.

Space for Individual and Population Growth, and for Normal Behavior

    Hine's emerald dragonfly habitat consists predominantly of wetland 
systems used for breeding and foraging. The larval stage is aquatic, 
occupying rivulets and seepage areas within these wetland systems. The 
species' habitat includes a mosaic of upland and wetland plant 
communities and corridors that connect them. Known Hine's emerald 
dragonfly larval sites include shallow, organic soils (histosols, or 
with organic surface horizon) overlying calcareous substrate 
(predominantly dolomite and limestone bedrock), calcareous water from 
intermittent seeps and springs, shallow small channels and/or sheetflow 
(Cashatt and Vogt 2001, pp. 96-98). The wetlands are fed by groundwater 
discharge and often dry out for a few weeks during the summer months, 
but otherwise have thermal regimes that are relatively moderate and are 
comparatively warmer in winter and cooler in summer than nearby sites 
without groundwater influence (Soluk et al. 1998a, pp. 83, 85-86; 2004, 
pp. 15-16; Cashatt and Vogt 2001, pp. 96-98). Vegetation is 
predominantly herbaceous; natural communities include marshes, sedge 
meadows, and fens. Marsh communities usually are dominated by graminoid 
plants such as cattails and sweetflag, while sedge meadows tend to be 
dominated by sedges and grasses (Cashatt et al. 1992, p. 4; Vogt and 
Cashatt 1994, p. 600; Soluk et al. 1996, pp. 5-8; 1998a, pp. 6-10, 76; 
Mierzwa et al. 1998, pp. 20-34; Cashatt and Vogt 2001, pp. 96-98; Vogt 
2001, p. 1). Some sites do include trees and shrubs scattered 
throughout the habitat. Emergent herbaceous and woody vegetation is 
essential for emergence of larvae (Soluk et al. 2003b, pp. 1-3; Foster 
and Soluk 2004, p. 16). All known sites have forested areas and/or 
scattered shrubs within a close proximity (Cashatt and Vogt 2001, p. 
97; Vogt 2001, p. 1).
    Hine's emerald dragonfly larval habitat typically includes small 
flowing streamlet channels within cattail marshes and sedge meadows; 
water that flows between hummocks; and occupied, maintained crayfish 
burrows (Cashatt et al. 1992, p. 4; Vogt and Cashatt 1994, p. 600; 
Soluk et al. 1996, pp. 5-9; 1998a, pp. 6-10; 1999, pp. 5-10, 44-47; 
2003a, p. 6, 27; Mierzwa et al. 1998, pp. 20-34; Landwer and Vogt 2002, 
p. 1-2; Vogt 2001, p. 1; 2004, p. 1; 2005, p. 1, 3; Soluk 2004, pp. 1-
3). To date, the only crayfish identified in association with burrows 
used by Hine's emerald dragonfly is the devil crayfish (Cambarus 
diogenes) (Pintor and Soluk 2006, pp. 584-585; Soluk et al. 1999, p. 
46; Soluk 2004, pp. 1-3); however, other crayfish may also provide the 
same refuge. These burrows are an integral life requisite for the 
species because they are essential for overwintering and drought 
survival (Soluk et al. 2004, p. 17; Pintor and Soluk 2006, pp. 584-
585).
    Components of adult habitat are used for breeding, foraging, 
roosting, and protective cover. While adult Hine's emerald dragonflies 
can fly over and among trees, they have been consistently observed to 
follow open corridors through forested areas rather than fly through 
forests. Hine's emerald dragonfly corridors include trails, streams, 
forest edges, roadways, shorelines, and other structural breaks in the 
forest canopy (Soluk et al. 1999, pp. 61-64; Steffens 1997 pp. 5, 7; 
1999 p. 6, 9; 2000 pp. 2, 4, 6; Smith 2006; Soluk 2006). Roadways, 
highways, and railroad tracks are used as corridors but expose adults 
to vehicle-related mortality (Soluk et al. 1998a, pp. 61-62; 1998b, pp. 
3-4; Soluk and Moss 2003, pp. 2-4, 6-11). Preferred foraging habitat 
consists of various plant communities including marsh, sedge meadow, 
dolomite prairie, shorelines, and the fringe of bordering shrubby areas 
(Vogt and Cashatt 1994, p. 600; 1999, pp. 6, 23; Nuzo 1995, pp. 50-75; 
Soluk et al. 1996, pp. 8-9; 1998a, p. 76; 2003a; Mierzwa et al. 1997, 
pp. 11, 25; 1998, pp. 20-34; Steffens 1997, pp. 5-6, 8; 1999 pp. 6, 9; 
2000 pp. 4, 6, 8-10; Thiele and Mierzwa 1999, pp. 3-4, 9-12; Mierzwa 
and Copeland 2001, pp. 7-8, appendix 2; Vogt 2001, p. 1; Zuehls 2003, 
pp. iii-iv, 14-15, 19, 21, 38, 43, 60-65).
    Females lay eggs (oviposit) in the rivulets and seepage areas 
described as larval habitat (Cashatt and Vogt 1992, pp. 4-5; Ross and 
Mierzwa 1995, pp. 77-78; Soluk et al. 1996, pp. 8-9; 1998a, p. 76; Vogt 
and Cashatt 1997, pp. 3, 14; 1999, pp. 6, 23; Vogt et al. 1999, pp. 5, 
11).
    The ability of adult Hine's emerald dragonflies to travel among 
breeding sites is considered important for the species to maintain 
genetic variation and fitness. Based on a mark-resighting study 
conducted in Illinois, Hine's emerald dragonflies that did disperse 
moved an average distance of 2.5 mi (4.1 km) (Mierzwa et al. 1995a, pp. 
17-19; Cashatt and Vogt 1996, pp. 23-24). Land use and habitat 
conditions between breeding sites likely influence dispersal distances 
and frequencies. However, most adults do not move far from emergence 
sites. For example, the mark-resighting study conducted in Illinois, 
found that 44 of 48 adults were resighted within the same wetland in 
which they were marked (Mierzwa et al. 1995a, pp. 17-19; Cashatt and 
Vogt 1996, pp. 23-24). A mark-release-recapture study conducted in 
Wisconsin resulted in the marking of 937 adults at three locations 
within or near breeding habitat, indicating that many adults are found 
close to breeding areas (Kirk and Vogt 1995, pp. 13-15). In addition, 
Hine's emerald dragonfly swarms in Wisconsin are generally found within 
\1/2\ to 1 mile of larval areas (Zuehls 2003, pp. 21, 43). Daily 
movements and dispersal distances for Hine's emerald dragonfly in 
Missouri have not yet been studied, but it is generally believed that 
they are less than what has been reported elsewhere for the species 
because the sites are much smaller and more isolated in that State 
(Vogt 2006).
    Although adult Hine's emerald dragonflies have been observed 
foraging over areas modified by anthropogenic influences (e.g., 
pastures, hay meadows, fallow crop fields, and manicured lawns) in 
Missouri (Landwer 2003, pp. 26, 39; Walker and Smentowski 2003, pp. 8-
10; 2005, p. 4) and Wisconsin (Vogt and Cashatt 1990, p. 3; Grimm 2001, 
pp. 7, 13-14; Meyer 2001, p. 1), the importance of such habitats in 
meeting the daily dietary needs of the Hine's emerald dragonfly is 
still unknown. Because of this uncertainty, old fields and pastures 
were not included as part of the primary constituent elements outlined 
below.
    Although most adults do not move far from emergence sites, the 
ability to move among emergence sites, foraging habitat of sufficient 
quality and quantity, and breeding habitat is important to the Hine's 
emerald dragonfly. Furthermore, because the species tends to occur in 
fragmented, loosely-connected local subpopulations, the limited 
dispersing that does occur is necessary to maintain robust populations.

Food and Water

    Larval Hine's emerald dragonflies are generalist predators that 
feed on macroinvertebrates found within or near the rivulet or seepage 
systems. Soluk et al. (1998a, p. 10) analyzed larval fecal

[[Page 42447]]

pellets, and their results suggest that the Hine's emerald dragonfly is 
a generalist predator. Larval food was found to include many 
invertebrate taxa in their habitat including mayflies (Ephemeroptera), 
aquatic isopods (Arthropoda, order Isopoda), caddisflies (Trichoptera), 
midge larvae (Diptera), and aquatic worms (Oligochaetes). Amphipods are 
common in their habitat and are likely diet components (Soluk 2005). In 
general, dragonfly larvae commonly feed on smaller insect larvae, 
including mosquito and dragonfly larvae, worms, small fish, and snails 
(Pritchard 1964, pp. 789-793; Corbet 1999, pp. 105-107). Hine's emerald 
dragonfly larvae have been documented to be cannibalistic in laboratory 
situations (Soluk 2005).
    Adult Hine's emerald dragonflies require a sufficient prey base of 
small flying insects (Vogt and Cashatt 1994, p. 600; Zuehls 2003, pp. 
iii-iv, 60-62, 75-84). Adult Hine's emerald dragonflies feed on the 
wing, sometimes in swarms, primarily mid-morning to midday and late 
evening (Zuehls 2003, pp. iii, 58-65). Foraging behavior is the 
dominant behavior within swarms, with over 99 percent of dragonflies 
observed within swarms foraging and swarms are generally found within 
\1/2\ to 1 mile of breeding sites (Zuehls 2003, pp. 21, 43, 60). Adults 
will use nearly any natural habitat for foraging near the breeding/
larval habitat except open water ponds and closed-canopy forested 
areas. Preferred foraging habitat consists of various plant communities 
including marsh, sedge meadow, dolomite prairie, and the fringe of 
bordering shrubby and forested areas (Mierzwa et al. 1995a, p. 31; 
1995b, pp. 13-14; 1997, pp. 11, 25; 1998, pp. 20-34; Mierzwa and 
Copeland 2001, pp. 7-8, appendix 2; Soluk et al. 1996, pp. 8-9; 1998a, 
p. 76; Steffens 1997 pp. 5-6, 8; 1999; 2000 p. 4, 6, 8-10; Thiele and 
Mierzwa 1999, pp. 3-4, 9-12; Vogt and Cashatt 1994, p. 600; 1999, pp. 
6, 23; Vogt 2001, p. 1). Dragonflies are believed to get water from 
their food (whose water content is 60 to 80 percent (Fried and May 
1983)), although some dragonflies have been observed drinking surface 
water found in their habitat (Corbet 1999, pp. 284-291).

Cover or Shelter

    Detritus is used by larvae for cover, and it also provides food for 
larval prey. Crayfish burrows provide Hine's emerald dragonfly larvae 
refuge from drought conditions in the summer and for overwintering 
(Cashatt et al. 1992, pp. 3-4; Soluk et al. 1999, pp. 40 and 46; Soluk 
2005; Pintor and Soluk 2006, pp. 584-585).
    Predatory dragonflies (such as the dragonhunter (Hagenius 
brevistylus), gray petaltail (Tachopteryx thoreyi), and common green 
darner (Anax junius)), and avian predators (such as cedar waxwings 
(Bambycilla cedrorum)), have been documented chasing and attacking 
Hine's emerald dragonflies and other Somatochlora species (Zuehls 2003, 
p. 63; McKenzie and Vogt 2005, p. 19; Landwer 2003, p. 62). Scattered 
trees and shrubs or forest edges (up to 328 ft (100 m) into the forest) 
are needed for escape cover from predators and are also used for 
roosting, resting, and perching. Typically, trees and shrubs also 
provide shelter from weather. Dragonflies are known to perch and roost 
in vegetation that provides shade or basking sites as a means of 
ectothermic thermoregulation (Corbet 1980, Corbet 1999). This tree and 
shrub cover is provided in Hine's emerald dragonfly habitat by any 
woody vegetation that is not closed-canopy forest.
    Habitat segregation by sex among Hine's emerald dragonflies and 
other dragonflies has been documented. Females spend more of their time 
foraging away from breeding habitat than males (Vogt and Cashatt 1997, 
pp. 11, 14; 1999, pp. 6, 15, 23; Foster and Soluk 2006, pp. 162-164). 
It is believed that habitat segregation by sex may be the result of 
females avoiding males, possibly as a defense mechanism against 
unsolicited mating attempts (Zuehls 2003, pp. 65-67; Foster and Soluk 
2006, pp. 163-164). There is some evidence that females spend time in 
upland habitat during non-breeding times to avoid interactions with 
males (Foster and Soluk 2006, pp. 162-164).

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Development of Offspring

    Adult females lay eggs or oviposit by repeatedly dipping their 
abdomens in shallow water or saturated soft soil or substrate. Females 
have been observed with muck or mud residue on their abdomens, 
suggesting they had oviposited in soft muck and/or shallow water (Vogt 
and Cashatt 1990, p. 3; Cashatt and Vogt 1992, pp. 4-5). Female Hine's 
emerald dragonflies have been observed ovipositing in groundwater that 
discharges and forms rivulets and seepage areas within cattail marshes, 
sedge meadows, and fens that typically have crayfish burrows (Cashatt 
and Vogt 1992, pp. 4-5; Mierzwa et al. 1995a, p. 31; 1995b, p. 12; 
Soluk et al. 1996, pp. 8-9; 1998a, p. 76; Vogt 2003, p. 3; 2004, p. 2; 
2005, p. 3; Vogt and Cashatt 1994, p. 602; 1997, pp. 3, 14; 1999, pp. 
6, 23; Vogt et al. 1999, pp. 5, 11; Walker and Smentowski 2002, pp. 17-
18; McKenzie and Vogt 2005, p. 18). All observations of oviposition by 
Soluk et al. (1998a, p. 76) occurred in more permanent waters 
(streamlet and cattail/meadow borders). In addition, male territorial 
patrols have been observed over the type of habitat where oviposition 
has been documented (Cashatt and Vogt 1992, p.4; Vogt and Cashatt 1994, 
pp. 601-602; 1999, pp. 6, 23; Soluk et al. 1998a, p. 76). All known 
larval habitat receives slowly (often barely perceptible) moving 
groundwater discharge that is typically calcareous (Cashatt et al. 
1992, pp. 3-4; Vogt and Cashatt 1994, p. 602; Soluk et al. 1996, pp. 5-
8; Mierzwa et al. 1998, pp. 30-34; 2003a; Landwer and Vogt 2002, p. 1; 
Vogt 2003, p. 1; 2004, p. 1; 2005, p. 1). This groundwater discharge 
also moderates water temperatures, though water flows and temperatures 
can be variable over seasons and years. Since groundwater that comes to 
the surface in Hine's emerald dragonfly habitat is an essential 
component of larval habitat, regulatory protection of groundwater 
quantity and quality that contributes to this essential feature is 
vital.
    Hine's emerald dragonfly eggs overwinter and hatch in water or 
saturated soil during spring (Soluk and Satyshur 2005, p. 4). After an 
egg has hatched, Hine's emerald dragonfly larvae spend approximately 4 
years in cool, shallow, slowly moving water flowing between hummocks, 
in streamlets, and in nearby crayfish burrows foraging and molting as 
they grow (Cashatt et al. 1992, p. 4; Vogt and Cashatt 1994, p. 602; 
Soluk et al. 1996, pp. 5-8; 1998a, pp. 6-10; 1999, pp. 5-10, 44-47; 
2005; Cashatt and Vogt 2001, 96-98; Soluk 2004, pp. 1-3). The 
microhabitat typically contains decaying vegetation. After completing 
larval development, the larvae use herbaceous or woody vegetation to 
crawl out of the aquatic environment and emerge as adults (Vogt and 
Cashatt 1994, p. 602; Foster and Soluk 2004, p. 16).

Primary Constituent Elements for the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly

    Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify the known 
physical and biological features (PCEs) essential to the conservation 
of the Hine's emerald dragonfly. All areas proposed as critical habitat 
for Hine's emerald dragonfly are occupied, within the species' historic 
geographic range, and contain sufficient PCEs to support at least one 
life history function.
    Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and 
ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain 
the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined 
that the physical and

[[Page 42448]]

biological features essential to the conservation of Hine's emerald 
dragonfly's are:
    (1) For egg deposition and larval growth and development:
    (a) Shallow, organic soils (histosols, or with organic surface 
horizon) overlying calcareous substrate (predominantly dolomite and 
limestone bedrock);
    (b) Calcareous water from intermittent seeps and springs and 
associated shallow, small, slow flowing streamlet channels, rivulets, 
and/or sheet flow within fens;
    (c) Emergent herbaceous and woody vegetation for emergence 
facilitation and refugia;
    (d) Occupied, maintained crayfish burrows for refugia; and
    (e) Prey base of aquatic macroinvertebrates, including mayflies, 
aquatic isopods, caddisflies, midge larvae, and aquatic worms.
    2. For adult foraging; reproduction; dispersal; and refugia 
necessary for roosting, resting and predator avoidance (especially 
during the vulnerable teneral stage):
    (a) Natural plant communities near the breeding/larval habitat 
which may include marsh, sedge meadow, dolomite prairie, and the fringe 
(up to 328 ft (100m)) of bordering shrubby and forested areas with open 
corridors for movement and dispersal; and
    (b) Prey base of small, flying insect species (e.g., dipterans).
    Critical habitat does not include human-made structures existing on 
the effective date of a final rule not containing one or more of the 
primary constituent elements, such as buildings, lawns, old fields and 
pastures, piers and docks, aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the land 
on which such structures are located. In addition, critical habitat 
does not include open-water areas (i.e., areas beyond the zone of 
emergent vegetation) of lakes and ponds.
    This proposed designation is designed for the conservation of the 
PCEs necessary to support the life history functions which are the 
basis for the proposal. Because not all life history functions require 
all the PCEs, not all proposed critical habitat will contain all the 
PCEs. Each of the areas proposed in this rule have been determined to 
contain sufficient PCEs to provide for one or more of the life history 
functions of the species. In some cases, the PCEs exist as a result of 
ongoing federal actions. As a result, ongoing federal actions at the 
time of designation will be included in the baseline in any 
consultation conducted subsequent to this designation.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    We are proposing to designate critical habitat on lands that were 
occupied at the time of listing and contain sufficient PCEs to support 
life history functions essential to the conservation of the Hine's 
emerald dragonfly. We are also proposing to designate areas that were 
not known to be occupied at the time of listing, but which were 
subsequently identified as being occupied, and which we have determined 
to be essential to the conservation of the Hine's emerald dragonfly.
    To identify features that are essential to the conservation of 
Hine's emerald dragonfly and areas essential to the conservation of the 
species, we considered the natural history of the species and the 
science behind the conservation of the species as presented in 
literature summarized in the Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 2001).
    We began our analysis of areas with features that are essential to 
the conservation of the Hine's emerald dragonfly by identifying 
currently occupied breeding habitat. We developed a list of what 
constitutes occupied breeding habitat with the following criteria: (a) 
Adults and larvae documented; (b) Larvae, exuviae (skin that remains 
after molt), teneral (newly emerged) adults, ovipositing females, and/
or patrolling males documented; or (c) multiple adults sighted and 
breeding conditions present. We determined occupied breeding habitat 
through a literature review of data in: Reports submitted during 
section 7 consultations and as a requirement from section 10(a)(1)(B) 
incidental take permits or section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; 
published peer-reviewed articles; academic theses; and agency reports. 
We then determined which areas were known to be occupied at the time of 
listing.
    After identifying the core occupied breeding habitat, our second 
step was to identify contiguous habitat containing one or more of the 
PCEs within 2.5 mi (4.1 km) of the outer boundary of the core area 
(Mierzwa et al. 1995a, pp.17-19; Cashatt and Vogt 1996, pp. 23-24). 
This distance--the average adult dispersal distance measured in one 
study--was selected as an initial filter for determining the outer 
limit of unit boundaries in order to ensure that the dragonflies would 
have adequate foraging and roosting habitat, corridors among patches of 
habitat, and the ability to disperse among subpopulations. However, 
based on factors discussed below, unit boundaries were significantly 
reduced in most cases based on the contiguous extent of PCEs and the 
presence of natural or manmade barriers. When assessing wetland 
complexes in Wisconsin and Michigan it was determined that features 
that fulfill all of the Hine's emerald dragonfly's life history 
requirements are often within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the core breeding 
habitat; therefore, the outer boundary of those units is within 1 mi 
(1.6 km) of the core breeding habitat. In Missouri, essential habitat 
was identified as being limited around the core breeding habitat as a 
result of a closed canopy forest around most units, and the outer 
boundary of those units extends only 328 ft (100 m) into the closed 
canopy.
    Areas not documented to be occupied at the time of listing but that 
are currently occupied are considered essential to the conservation of 
the species due to the limited numbers and small sizes of extant Hine's 
emerald dragonfly populations. Recovery criteria established in the 
recovery plan for the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001, pp. 
31-32) call for a minimum of three populations, each containing at 
least three subpopulations, in each of two recovery units. Within each 
subpopulation there should be at least two breeding areas, each fed by 
separate seeps and springs. Management and protection of all known 
occupied areas are necessary to meet these goals.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including within the boundaries of the map 
contained within this proposed rule developed areas such as buildings, 
paved areas, and other structures and features that lack the PCEs for 
the species. The scale of the maps prepared under the parameters for 
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the 
exclusion of all such developed areas. Any such structures and the land 
under them inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown 
on the maps of this proposed rule are not proposed for designation as 
critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions limited to these areas 
would not trigger section 7 consultation, unless they affect the 
species and/or primary constituent elements in critical habitat.
    We propose to designate critical habitat on lands that we have 
determined were occupied at the time of listing and contain sufficient 
primary constituent elements to support life history functions 
essential for the conservation of the species or are currently occupied 
and are determined to be essential to the conservation of the species. 
We do not propose to designate

[[Page 42449]]

as critical habitat any areas outside the geographical area presently 
occupied by the species.
    Units were identified based on sufficient PCEs being present to 
support Hine's emerald dragonfly life processes. Some units contain all 
PCEs and support multiple life processes. Some units contain only a 
portion of the PCEs necessary to support the Hine's emerald dragonfly's 
particular use of that habitat. Where a subset of the PCEs was present 
it has been noted that only PCEs present at designation will be 
protected.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas 
determined to be occupied at the time of listing and that contain the 
primary constituent elements may require special management 
considerations or protections. At the time of listing, the Hine's 
emerald dragonfly was known to occur in Illinois and Wisconsin.
    Fragmentation and destruction of suitable habitat are believed to 
be the main reasons for this species' Federal endangered status and 
continue to be the primary threats to its recovery. Hine's emerald 
dragonfly habitat is closely associated with surface dolomite deposits, 
an extractable resource that is often quarried. Developing commercial 
and residential areas, quarrying, creating landfills, constructing 
pipelines, and filling of wetlands could decrease the area of suitable 
habitat available and continue to fragment populations of the Hine's 
emerald dragonfly. Direct loss of breeding or foraging habitat could 
potentially reduce both adult and larval population sizes.
    Changes in surface and sub-surface hydrology could be detrimental 
to the Hine's emerald dragonfly. Alteration of water regimes could 
affect surface water flow patterns, cause loss of seep heads, and 
reduce larval habitat. Permanent loss of appropriate hydrology would 
reduce the amount of suitable breeding and larval habitat. Road 
construction; channelization; and alteration of water impoundments, 
temperature, discharge quantity, water quality, and lake levels have 
the potential to affect important hydrologic characteristics of Hine's 
emerald dragonfly larval habitat that could be necessary for the 
continued survival of this species. For example, a study to predict 
hydrologic changes to a spring near Black Partridge Creek in Illinois 
from a proposed interstate highway suggested that an 8 to 35 percent 
reduction in spring discharge may occur after the construction of the 
highway (Hensel et al. 1993, p. 290). Hensel et al. (1993, pp. 290-292) 
suggested that the highway could cause a loss of recharge water for the 
spring and lower the water table, reducing the discharge of the spring. 
Pumping of groundwater for industrial and agricultural use also has the 
potential to lower the water table and change the hydrology, which may 
affect larval habitat. Dye-tracing indicates the fens (a type of 
wetland characterized by calcareous spring-fed marshes and sedge 
meadows overlaying dolomite bedrock) at a site in Missouri are fed by 
springs originating south of the natural area in the Logan Creek valley 
(Aley and Adel 1991, p. 4).
    Loss of important habitat within suitable wetland systems may also 
threaten this species. Wetland systems with wet prairie, sedge meadow, 
cattail marsh, and/or hummock habitat, interspersed with native shrubs, 
appear to be an important part of the overall habitat requirements of 
the Hine's emerald dragonfly. The combination of these habitat types 
within the wetland systems may be important to the survival of this 
species. Destruction and degradation of Hine's emerald dragonfly 
habitat can result from threats such as succession and encroachment of 
invasive species, feral pigs, illegal all terrain vehicles and beaver 
dams (McKenzie and Vogt 2005, pp. 19-20).
    Contamination from landfills, transportation, agriculture and other 
past or present applications of habitat-altering chemicals may be 
harmful to this species. The species long aquatic larval stage makes it 
vulnerable to contamination of groundwater and surface water. Because 
groundwater moves relatively slowly through sediments, contaminated 
water may remain toxic for long periods of time and may be difficult or 
impossible to treat. High water quality may be an important component 
of this species' habitat.
    Adult mortality from direct impacts with vehicles or trains may 
reduce Hine's emerald dragonfly population sizes (Steffens 1997, pp. 1, 
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; Soluk et al. 1998a, pp. 59, 61-64). Because Hine's 
emerald dragonflies are known to be killed by vehicles and they have 
been observed flying over railroad tracks, it is believed that trains 
may also be a source of mortality for this species (Soluk et al. 1998b, 
pp. 3-4; 2003, pp. 1-3; Soluk and Moss 2003, pp. 2-4, 6-11). A unit-by-
unit description of threats can be found in the individual unit 
descriptions below.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing to designate 49 units as critical habitat for the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly. The critical habitat areas described below 
constitute our best assessment at this time of areas determined to be 
occupied at the time of listing, that contain the primary constituent 
elements essential for the conservation of the species, and that may 
require special management, and those additional areas not occupied at 
the time of listing but that have been determined to be essential to 
the conservation of the Hine's emerald dragonfly. Management and 
protection of all the areas is necessary to achieve the conservation 
biology principles of representation, resiliency, and redundancy 
(Shaffer and Stein 2000) as represented in the recovery criteria 
established in the recovery plan for the species. The areas proposed as 
critical habitat are identified in Tables 1 and 2 below.
    Table 1 below lists the units (with approximate area) determined to 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly, but which are being considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat designation by State 
(see discussion under the Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
section below). We are considering the exclusion of all 26 units in 
Missouri and 2 units in Michigan from the critical habitat designation.

[[Page 42450]]



     Table 1.-- Areas Determined To Meet the Definition of Critical Habitat for the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly
  (Definitional Area) and the Areas Considered for Exclusion From the Final Critical Habitat Designation (Area
                                         Being Considered for Exclusion)
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Definitional area       Area being considered for
                         State                                 (ac/ha)                exclusion  (ac/ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Unit 1........................................         9,452/3,825  All.
Michigan Unit 2........................................         3,511/1,421  All.
Missouri Unit 1........................................               90/36  All.
Missouri Unit 2........................................               34/14  All.
Missouri Unit 3........................................                18/7  All.
Missouri Unit 4........................................                14/6  All.
Missouri Unit 5........................................               50/20  All.
Missouri Unit 6........................................                22/9  All.
Missouri Unit 7........................................               33/13  All.
Missouri Units 8, 9, and 10............................             333/135  All.
Missouri Unit 11.......................................              113/46  All.
Missouri Unit 12.......................................               50/20  All.
Missouri Unit 13.......................................               30/12  All.
Missouri Unit 14.......................................                14/5  All.
Missouri Unit 15.......................................                11/4  All.
Missouri Unit 16.......................................                 4/2  All.
Missouri Units 17 and 18...............................              224/91  All.
Missouri Units 19 and 20...............................              115/47  All.
Missouri Unit 21.......................................                 6/2  All.
Missouri Unit 22.......................................               32/13  All.
Missouri Units 23 and 24...............................               75/31  All.
Missouri Unit 25.......................................               33/13  All.
Missouri Unit 26.......................................                 5/2  All.
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................        14,269/5,774  14,269/5,774
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All the units listed in Table 1 were not known to be occupied at 
the time of listing. Most Missouri units are much smaller in both 
overall area and estimated population size than those elsewhere within 
the species' range. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of Missouri 
units are completely surrounded by contiguous tracts of 100 percent 
closed canopy forest.
    The failure to confirm the presence of adults at some sites that 
were surveyed during suitable flight conditions (i.e., correct flight 
season and time of day, and weather conditions optimal for potential 
observation of the species) and during multiple visits provides strong 
evidence that population sizes at Missouri sites are much less than 
those in Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Nonetheless, all the units 
are considered occupied because larvae are found at all Missouri sites 
and all of the units have the primary constituent elements identified 
for the species.
    Table 2 below provides the approximate area encompassed by each of 
the remaining proposed critical habitat units.

    Table 2.--Critical Habitat Units Proposed for the Hine's Emerald
 Dragonfly, Area Estimates Reflect All Land Within Critical Habitat Unit
                               Boundaries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Critical habitat unit            Land ownership       Area  (ac/ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Unit 1................  Metropolitan Water              419/170
                                  Reclamation District
                                  of Greater Chicago;
                                  Elgin, Joliet, and
                                  Eastern Railway
                                  Company; Commonwealth
                                  Edison Company.
Illinois Unit 2................  Material Service                439/178
                                  Corporation; Elgin,
                                  Joliet, and Eastern
                                  Railway Company;
                                  Commonwealth Edison
                                  Company.
Illinois Unit 3...........