[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5267-5273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1983]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC09


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Status for the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora 
hineana)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior Department.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana) to be an endangered 
species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as 
amended. Historically, this dragonfly was reported from sites in 
Indiana and Ohio. Recent reports indicate that it is currently present 
at only seven small sites within Cook, DuPage, and Will Counties in 
Illinois, and at six sites in Door County, Wisconsin. This species is 
threatened primarily by habitat loss and modification. This rule 
implements the Federal protection provisions afforded by the Act to the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 1995.

[[Page 5268]] ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available 
for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Office, Division of Endangered 
Species, Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, One Federal Drive, Fort 
Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Shumate (see ADDRESSES 
section) or by telephone (612/725-3276).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Hine's emerald dragonfly, also known as the Ohio emerald 
dragonfly, was described in 1931 from seven adults collected June 7 and 
14, 1929, and July 4, 1930, near Indian Lake, Logan County, Ohio 
(Williamson 1931). It is a dragonfly (class Insecta, order Odonata) 
with bright, emerald-green eyes, body size ranging 60-65 mm (ca. 2.5 
inches) in length, and wing span of 80-85 mm (ca. 3.3 inches). The 
adult is distinguished from other adults in the genus Somatochlora by 
its metallic green color with two distinct creamy-yellow lateral 
stripes, the clasper-like appendages at the end of the abdomen in the 
male, and the shape of the vulvar lamina in the female.
    Cashatt and Vogt (1990) indicated that the Illinois habitat of the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly consists of complex wetlands with small, 
calcareous or underlying limestone bedrock, and shallow, spring-fed 
streams that drain into wet meadows and cattail marshes. These marshes 
are found primarily along the Des Plaines River drainage in Illinois. 
Wisconsin habitat consists of small, calcareous, marshy streams and 
associated cattail marshes on dolomite bedrock.
    Price (1958) reported collecting a total of 21 specimens in 
Williams County, Ohio from Mud Lake in 1949 (now Mud Lake State Nature 
Preserve) and Bridgewater Township in 1956; and from the Toledo Oak 
Openings Metropark in 1952, 1953, and 1956 (referred to as Oak Openings 
State Park by Price) Lucas County, Ohio. Until recently, the species 
was reported only from Ohio and Indiana (Montgomery 1953, Bick 1983). 
Recent investigations indicate that the species has apparently been 
extirpated from Ohio. The species' status in Indiana is currently 
uncertain. An adult male was documented to be the last collected 
specimen from Gary, Indiana, on June 22, 1945 (Montgomery 1953, Bick 
1983, Cashatt and Sims 1993).
    No additional information on the distribution of this species was 
available until 1990, when the Service supported investigations in 
Wisconsin by Vogt and Cashatt (1990), in Illinois by Cashatt and Vogt 
(1990), and in Michigan by Vogt (1991). These investigations confirmed 
the presence of remnant populations in Wisconsin and Illinois. In 
Wisconsin, Vogt and Cashatt (1990) surveyed 27 potential sites in nine 
eastern counties. They found the species at six sites in Door County, 
and the sites are roughly on about one-third of private, State, and 
private (non-profit) conservation lands. Twenty-one sites were surveyed 
in Michigan with no new occurrences found. In Illinois, Cashatt and 
Vogt (1990) surveyed 28 potential sites in five counties and reported 
the dragonfly present at five sites in Cook, DuPage, and Will Counties. 
Within these three counties, two sites are on private lands and the 
remaining sites are on public lands. The Service also supported 
additional investigations in Illinois by Cashatt and Vogt (1991), 
Cashatt, Sims, and Wiker (1992), and in Wisconsin by Vogt and Cashatt 
(1991), and Smith (1993). Cashatt and Sims (1993) conducted further 
surveys and located two relatively small sites in Cook County, Illinois 
with one site each on private and public land, bringing the total 
number of Illinois sites to seven.
    Hine's emerald dragonfly is listed as endangered by the 
International Union for the Conservation of Nature, is on the Illinois 
State endangered species list, will be proposed for listing as 
endangered in Wisconsin, and has been assigned Global Element Rank of 
G1G2 (critically imperiled globally) by The Nature Conservancy.

Previous Federal Action

    On May 22, 1984, the Service published in the Federal Register 
Notice of Review (49 FR 21664) its first list of invertebrate animal 
species being considered for listing under the Act. Hine's emerald 
dragonfly (under the common name of Ohio emerald dragonfly) was 
designated a category 2* species with its range consisting of Ohio and 
Indiana. Category 2 includes those taxa for which proposing to list as 
endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate, but for which 
substantial data on biological vulnerability and threats are not 
currently available to support proposed rules. The asterisk indicated 
that authentic records had not been obtained since 1963 and that some 
of the taxa in this category were possibly extinct. The January 6, 
1989, Notice of Review (54 FR 554) assigned Hine's emerald dragonfly to 
category 2, and on November 21, 1991, (56 FR 58804) the dragonfly was 
reassigned to category 1. Category 1 includes species for which the 
Service now possesses sufficient information to support a listing as 
threatened or endangered.
    On October 4, 1993, the Service published (58 FR 51604) a proposal 
to list Hine's emerald dragonfly as an endangered species. A notice (58 
FR 64927) extending the public comment period and public hearing 
request deadline was published on December 10, 1993, to provide 
sufficient time for submission of comments and requests for public 
hearings. A notice of a public hearing and reopening of the comment 
period was published May 12, 1994 (59 FR 24678), and the public hearing 
was held May 25, 1994. Based on status surveys, documentation 
addressing the fragmented habitat, the small size and disjunct 
distribution of the remnant populations, and the immediacy of threats 
to the remnant populations, the Service determines that the species 
warrants protection under the Act.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the October 4, 1993, proposed rule (58 FR 51604) and associated 
notifications, all interested parties were invited to submit factual 
reports or information that may contribute to the development of a 
final rule. The comment period was reopened and extended until January 
3, 1994, (58 FR 64927) to accommodate submission of comments and 
requests for public hearings. Appropriate State agencies, county 
governments, Federal agencies, scientific organizations, and other 
interested parties were contacted and invited to comment. Newspaper 
notices inviting general public comment were published in the Chicago 
Tribune (Chicago, Illinois) on November 10, 1993, and the Green Bay 
Press Gazette (Green Bay, Wisconsin) on November 10 and December 9, 
1993.
    A total of 50 comments, including four State agencies, one county 
representative, ten industrial and pest control companies, six 
scientific organizations and environmental group representatives, and 
29 individuals, were received; 33 of those comments supported, none 
opposed, and 17 were neutral on the proposed action. One of the 
supporting comments had seven signatures, and three of the supporting 
comments had two signatures each.
    A public hearing was requested on December 20, 1993, by Mr. Jerome 
M. Viste, representing the Door County Environmental Council, 
Incorporated, and Mr. George M. Reynolds, representing Reynolds & 
Company. Notices announcing the hearing were published in the Green Bay 
Press Gazette (Wisconsin) on May 12, 1994, the Chicago Tribune 
(Illinois) and the [[Page 5269]] Door County Advocate (Sturgeon Bay, 
Wisconsin) on May 13, 1994. The hearing was held in the General Meeting 
Room (A150) of the Door County Courthouse, 421 Nebraska Street, 
Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin on May 25, 1994, with 27 attendees. Fifteen 
comments were received during the hearing. Two comments were in 
opposition to the listing, ten were supportive, and three were neutral. 
The hearing consisted of brief overviews of the Act as it pertained to 
the listing process, prohibited activities, permit requirements, and 
the status, distribution and biology of Hine's emerald dragonfly; a 
statement session by 13 attendees; and a question and answer session 
that raised 12 issues regarding the proposed listing.
    Thirteen written comments were received following the Federal 
Register notice that reopened the comment period to accommodate the 
public hearing. Ten comments supporting, three neutral, and none 
opposing the listing proposal were received.
    Comments updating the data presented in Summary, Background and 
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species are incorporated in those 
sections of this final rule. Written comments presented at the public 
hearing and those received during the comment periods with the 
Service's response to each are discussed in the following summary. 
Comments of a similar nature or point are grouped into a number of 
general issues.
    Issue 1--How is the range of the species determined? Since recent 
surveys extended the range, the listing may be premature until 
additional habitats and additional localities are surveyed to make 
certain there are no additional populations.
    Service Response--The range of the Hine's emerald dragonfly was 
determined based on the best scientific and commercial data available. 
The Service, in cooperation with the States of Illinois, Indiana, 
Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, conducted several studies to determine 
the status of the dragonfly. The scientists who conducted these studies 
first examined historical records on the distribution of the dragonfly 
to identify sites that were known to support the dragonfly. These sites 
were re-visited to determine if they still supported Hine's emerald 
dragonflies. Status surveys were also conducted in other midwestern 
States, like Michigan, that were outside of the historic range of the 
dragonfly, but supported potentially suitable habitat. To date, status 
surveys have been conducted throughout the historical range of the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly and elsewhere in the midwest that had similar 
habitat. The Service will continue searching for the dragonfly in new 
locations; however, based on the best scientific and commercial data 
available, any new populations are likely to be small and located in 
highly fragmented or degraded habitats and would not change the current 
recommendation to list this species as endangered.
    Issue 2--If listed, collection is prohibited. Listing any insect is 
counterproductive for those trained in dragonfly identification; a 
specimen is needed when gathering information on the species.
    Service Response--The Act prohibits ``take'' of an endangered 
species, which includes a prohibition against collecting endangered 
species. However, the Act allows the Service to issue permits that 
allow collection for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation 
or survival of listed species. The Service will work with the 
scientific community to develop survey techniques that do not require 
voucher specimens, but can issue permits to authorize voucher specimens 
as part of studies that contribute to improving the status of the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly. Procedures for obtaining such permits are 
found in 50 CFR 17.22 (see ``Available Conservation Measures'').
    Issue 3--How does the Service justify spending dollars to list and 
enforce the endangered species activity for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly which has already survived many other adverse elements? Tax 
dollars should be used in creating more apartments, jobs and helping 
the homeless.
    Service Response--Although the Hine's emerald dragonfly may have 
survived a lot of environmental change during its history, its 
continued existence is now threatened by human actions that are 
altering the environment much faster than the environmental change the 
dragonfly would have experienced in the past. The Hine's emerald 
dragonfly depends on wetlands and spring-fed streams that feed larger 
bodies of water in its range; it is endangered by the destruction of 
those habitats and water quality degradation. Efforts to recover this 
species will focus on protecting its habitat and improving the quality 
of the water that flows into its habitat. By following Congress' 
direction to conserve the ecosystems on which this species depends, the 
Service will try to protect and improve the quality of waters in 
habitats that support the dragonfly. The Service believes that any such 
improvements in water quality will benefit not only the dragonfly, but 
any human populations that live near or depend on those waters as a 
source of drinking water, recreational opportunity, or esthetic 
pleasure.
    Issue 4--Designate critical habitat throughout its range and 
especially in the Three Springs watershed.
    Service Response--Designated critical habitat are areas of habitat, 
land, water and air space essential to listed species for survival and 
recovery. On the basis of the best scientific and commercial data 
available, the Service must prepare an analysis that considers the 
economic and other impacts of any proposed designated areas. Through 
review of this information, the Service will conclude whether critical 
habitat designation is prudent and determinable. The available data has 
not allowed the Service to identify proposed critical habitat at this 
time.
    Issue 5--Immediately draft a recovery plan.
    Service Response--Recovery plans, in accordance with section 4(f) 
of the Act, are developed subsequent to a species being listed.
    Issue 6--Listing would impact a State mandated mission to control 
mosquitoes in Illinois.
    Service Response--The Service will work with State and other 
Federal agencies to establish guidelines and measures to avoid and 
minimize adverse affects to allow mosquito control programs to proceed.
    Issue 7--The Service should implement an emergency rule to list the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly as endangered since the one metapopulation in 
Illinois will be compromised if listing would take a year to complete.
    Service Response--Emergency listing is considered only if 
significant take or habitat destruction will occur prior to completing 
the normal listing process. A review of the existing threats to the 
dragonfly does not indicate that significant take or habitat 
destruction will occur before the effective date of this listing.
    Issue 8--Will qualified, expert taxonomists be used to confirm the 
presence and extent of the dragonfly, so that decisions regarding the 
listing and protection of the dragonfly will be based on good data?
    Service Response--Yes. The Service has supported investigations in 
Wisconsin and Illinois conducted by Dr. Everett Cashatt (Illinois State 
Museum) and Mr. Tim Vogt (The Nature Conservancy), who are both 
recognized as qualified entomologists with expertise in Odonata. They 
have conducted several extensive surveys and provided the Service with 
data that support this final rule. Additional information has also been 
obtained from Mr. Bill Smith of the Wisconsin [[Page 5270]] Department 
of Natural Resources' Bureau of Endangered Resources, as well as other 
qualified biologists.
    Issue 9--What determines the extent of the area that will be 
covered by the listing? It would seem that the area should be defined 
as narrowly as reasonable to protect the dragonfly but not overly broad 
so that mosquito and other insect control work could continue as usual. 
This would be especially important in a large urban area like Chicago 
and its suburbs with its wide diversity.
    Service Response--This listing will protect the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly in those areas it currently occurs. Within that distribution, 
the specific areas that need to be protected will be determined on a 
case-by-case basis. The Service will work with State and local insect 
control agencies to determine how the listing will affect their 
activities.
    Issue 10--It is unclear what mosquito control strategies could be 
used within the protected habitat areas. It would be important that 
restrictions on the use of various pesticides and other control methods 
be specific and narrow, enough to protect the dragonfly but not so 
broad as to prevent control of mosquitoes. In particular, Bacillus 
thuringiensis ssp. israelensis (Bti) and methoprene have been shown to 
control mosquitoes with little effect on non-target organisms. It is 
our hope that materials like Bti, methoprene, and others with little 
non-target effects could continue to be used in protected habitats, and 
that materials be restricted only if they have a proven detrimental 
effect on the dragonfly nymph.
    Service Response--Mosquito control measures that are known to 
affect only target organisms are not likely to be affected by this 
listing. Control measures that are not known to affect dragonflies in 
the Order Odonata are also not likely to be affected by this listing. 
Other measures will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The 
Service will work with State and local insect control agencies to 
determine how the listing will affect their activities.
    Issue 11--In the event of a public health emergency, like a St. 
Louis encephalitis (SLE) outbreak, it would be important for escalated 
mosquito control measures to be instituted. These would likely include 
restricted measures such as mosquito adulticiding. Could some 
restrictions be temporarily lifted to maintain the public's health? If 
so, who would make those decisions and how would they be made?
    Service Response--The Act includes provisions for handling 
emergencies. The Service will work with the Environmental Protection 
Agency and appropriate States and local government agencies to outline 
those provisions and to establish procedures for handling emergencies 
that might arise.
    Issue 12--What effect will the regulations have on agricultural 
practices?
    Service Response--One practice that may be affected is pesticide 
use in apple and cherry orchards near the Hine's emerald dragonfly 
habitat. The Service, in consultation with the Environmental Protection 
Agency, will need to evaluate the effects of pesticide use on the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly.
    Issue 13--This is the largest land grab in Door County, Wisconsin. 
Not opposed with preservation measures for the dragonfly, but it 
amounts to extraterritorial zoning, i.e., control of the use of another 
person's land without compensation.
    Service Response--The Hine's emerald dragonfly is known to occur on 
six sites in Door County, Wisconsin. Two of those sites are currently 
managed by the State of Wisconsin, two of those sites are private lands 
managed for conservation purposes by non-profit agencies, and the 
remaining two sites are under private ownership. All of the sites 
represent aquatic habitats that are currently under the jurisdiction of 
the Federal Clean Water Act and State water quality law, which are 
intended to protect these aquatic habitats from water quality 
degradation and activities like dredging or filling. This listing does 
not change current land ownership patterns and is not likely to create 
additional constraints on the activities of private land owners. 
Instead the listing focuses attention on improvements that might be 
made to existing regulations. The listing will allow the Service to 
work with other Federal agencies to ensure that their activities do not 
further jeopardize the continued existence of the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) 
promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth 
the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. A species 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species may be endangered 
or threatened due to one or more of the five factors described in 
Section 4(a)(1). These factors and their application to Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are as follows:
    A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range. Populations of Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are apparently extirpated from its historic range in Ohio and 
Indiana (see ``Background''). No new populations were found during a 
1991 status survey in Michigan. Although populations have been found in 
Illinois and Wisconsin, the habitats are restricted and very 
fragmented.
    The greatest threat to the species in Illinois and Wisconsin is 
habitat destruction and degradation. In Wisconsin's Door County, land 
development by agricultural, tourist, and recreational interests pose 
various threats to Hine's emerald dragonfly sites. Pesticide drift and 
run-off from Door County's apple and cherry orchards is a potential 
threat. Contaminated groundwater-to-surface recharge and contaminated 
surface runoff may carry pesticides and other contaminants to the 
species' sites. Gypsy moth control has been instituted in Door County 
and the control measures include mass trapping and spraying of Bacillus 
thuringensis. Although detrimental effects of these measures are not 
presently known, they could affect Hine's emerald dragonfly 
populations. There is an open highway salt storage area within 100 feet 
that could affect one Hine's emerald dragonfly stream site in Door 
County. A solid waste transfer station is being considered for 
development near another site. Beaver are common in both Door County 
and Illinois, and their impoundments may possibly alter the 
microhabitat of the aquatic dragonfly nymphs. Studies will need to be 
conducted to determine the impacts.
    In Illinois, the remaining sites for the Hine's emerald dragonfly 
are located in Cook, DuPage, and Will Counties. These three counties 
are in the Chicago metropolitan area and represent the fastest-growing 
counties in that area. The sites in these counties are already highly 
fragmented and are further threatened by urban and industrial 
development. Industrial development in the immediate vicinity of the 
sites includes a petroleum refinery, a sewage treatment plant, rock 
quarries, an electrical power plant, and an asphalt plant. These types 
of facilities have the potential to degrade surface water, ground 
water, and air quality in the vicinity of Hine's emerald dragonfly 
sites. Degraded ground water quality is a particular concern because 
the sites that support the dragonfly receive water from seeps and 
springs. A proposed quarrying operation that would eliminate an entire 
population, the proposed highway FAP-340 (an extension of Interstate 
355), and other roadway expansion activities in the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly foraging sites [[Page 5271]] in Illinois also threaten the 
species' habitat. A variety of other developments in this rapidly-
growing area are in various stages of planning and execution that 
threaten the dragonfly's habitat.
    B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes. Overutilization is not believed to be a factor in 
the species' continued existence, but the Federal protection under the 
Act will prohibit unauthorized collection of individuals of the 
species. Protection from collection may become important because 
collectors may seek the species.
    C. Disease or predation. The importance of these factors is 
presently unknown.
    D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The stream and 
aquatic habitat of the Hine's emerald dragonfly is within the 
jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act that established various regulatory 
mechanisms to protect surface and ground water from the effects of 
point and non-point discharges. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 
which is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 
conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, established 
a regulatory program to protect waters of the United States from the 
adverse effects of filling. The States of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and 
Wisconsin administer similar programs to protect surface and ground 
water quality. Despite these Federal and State regulatory mechanisms, 
the aquatic habitat of the Hine's emerald dragonfly was apparently 
extirpated in Ohio and Indiana, although the dragonfly may have been 
extirpated prior to the creation of these programs. Nevertheless, 
Federal and State regulations appear to be only partially effective in 
preventing the loss and degradation of the aquatic habitats of the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly. This listing will enhance the level of 
protection those aquatic habitats and the dragonfly receive through 
those programs.
    E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence. Automobile impact is a threat where sites occur near 
roadways due to adult dragonflies hovering, and in some areas the 
dragonflies are known to fly across roadways to reach foraging habitat.
    The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by this species in determining this final rule. 
Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list Hine's 
emerald dragonfly as endangered.

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 essential for the conservation of the 
species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures 
needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act 
is no longer necessary.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time 
the species is endangered or threatened. Service regulations (50 CFR 
424.12 (a)) state that critical habitat is not determinable if 
information sufficient to perform required analysis of the impacts of 
the designation is lacking or if the biological needs of the species 
are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area as 
critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to 
consider economic and other relevant impacts of designating a 
particular area as critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific 
data available. The Secretary may exclude any area from critical 
habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh 
the conservation benefits, unless to do such would result in the 
extinction of the species.
    The Service finds that designation of critical habitat for the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly is not determinable at this time. When a ``not 
determinable'' finding is made, the Service must, within two years of 
the publication date of the original proposed rule, designate critical 
habitat, unless the designation is found to be not prudent (50 CFR 
424.17(b)(2)).
    The Service will initiate a concerted effort to obtain the 
information needed to determine critical habitat for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is willing to work 
closely with the Service to conduct studies to evaluate if designation 
of critical habitat is determinable. A proposed rule for critical 
habitat designation must be published in the Federal Register, and the 
notification process and public comment provisions parallel those for a 
species listing. In addition, the Service will evaluate the economic 
and other relevant impacts of the critical habitat designation, as 
required under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    The presently known populations of this species are located on 
fragmented and degraded wetland habitats. The size, location, area, 
spatial configuration, and composition of specific areas essential to 
the conservation of the Hine's emerald dragonfly or which may require 
special management considerations or protection cannot be determined 
without further study.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened 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 actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land 
acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires that recovery 
actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required 
of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are 
discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or 
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is being 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 
confer informally with the Service on any action that is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a 
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species 
or to 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 formal consultation with the 
Service.
    The Act and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set 
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all 
endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, [[Page 5272]] make it 
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 
to take (including capture, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 
kill, trap, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import or export, 
ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or 
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed 
species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. 
Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies.
    The July 1, 1994, policy of the Service (59 FR 34272) requires 
identification of those activities that would or would not constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act, to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed. The intent of this policy is to increase 
public awareness of the effect of the listing on proposed and ongoing 
activities within a species' range.
    The Service believes that, based on the best available information, 
the following are actions that will not result in a violation of 
section 9:
    (1) Possession of legally acquired Hine's emerald dragonflies; and
    (2) Federally approved projects that include, but are not limited 
to, activities, such as discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, 
tiling, pond construction, stream channelization or diversion, or 
diversion or alteration of surface or ground water flow into or out of 
wetlands (i.e., due to roads, impoundments, discharge pipes, stormwater 
detention basins, etc.)--when such activity is conducted in accordance 
with section 7 of the Act.
    Activities that the Service believes could potentially harm the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly and result in ``take'', include, but are not 
limited to:
    (1) Unauthorized collecting or handling of the species;
    (2) Unauthorized destruction/alteration of the species' habitat 
(i.e., discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, tiling, pond 
construction, stream channelization or diversion, or diversion or 
alteration or contamination of surface or ground water flow into or out 
of wetlands (i.e., due to roads, impoundments, discharge pipes, 
stormwater retention basins, etc.);
    (3) Burning, cutting or mowing of wetland vegetation, if conducted 
in an untimely or inappropriate manner (e.g., when dragonflies would be 
killed or injured or their occupied habitat would be degraded or 
rendered unsuitable);
    (4) Pesticide application in or near occupied wetland that results 
in the destruction, alteration or contamination of the species' aquatic 
habitat;
    (5) Herbicide or fertilizer application in or near occupied 
wetlands that results in the destruction or alteration of existing 
wetland vegetation--that is, which kills vegetation upon which the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly depends, or causes nutrient enrichment which 
encourages the growth of invasive exotic plants;
    (6) Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals, silt, or other 
pollutants (i.e., sewage, oil and gasoline) into waters used by the 
species; and
    (7) Interstate and foreign commerce (commerce across State and 
international boundaries) and import/export (as discussed earlier in 
this section) without prior obtainment of an endangered species permit.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances. 
Regulations governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such 
permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in 
connection with otherwise lawful activities.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities, such as 
collecting, burning, mowing or pesticide application, will constitute a 
violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field supervisor of 
the appropriate Service, Ecological Services Field office as follows: 
in Illinois, the Chicago Field Office, 1000 Hart Road, Suite 180, 
Barrington, Il 60010 (708/381-2253); and, in Wisconsin, the Green Bay 
Field Office, 1015 Challenger Court, Green Bay, WI 54311 (414/433-
3803). Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed 
wildlife, and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed 
to Chief, Division of Endangered Species (see Addresses section).
    The known Hine's emerald dragonfly populations are threatened by a 
highway project and a proposed quarrying operation in Illinois, and 
potentially threatened by commercial development and orchard pesticide 
spraying in Wisconsin. Due to the need to make Federal funding, 
protection, and other measures immediately available to protect this 
species and its habitat, the Service finds good cause in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(3), to make this final rule effective upon 
publication.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental 
Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the 
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be 
prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to Section 
4(a) of the Act, as amended. A notice outlining the Service's reasons 
for this determination was published in the Federal Register on October 
25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

Bick, G.H. 1983. Odonata at Risk in the Conterminous United States 
and Canada. Odonatologica 12: 209-226.
Cashatt, E.D., and B.G. Sims. 1993. Illinois 1993 Critical Habitat 
and Recovery Investigations for the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly 
(Somatochlora hineana Williamson). Report prepared for the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service by the Illinois State Museum, Springfield, IL. 
11pp.
Cashatt, E.D., et. al. 1992. Illinois 1992 Critical Habitat and 
Recovery Investigations for the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly. Report 
prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Illinois 
State Museum, Springfield, IL. 20pp. + Appendix.
Cashatt, E.D. 1991. A Vulnerable species: The Ohio Emerald 
Dragonfly. The Living Museum 53(2):29-30.
Cashatt, E.D., and T.E. Vogt. 1990. The Illinois 1990 Status Survey 
for the Ohio Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana Williamson). 
Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the 
Illinois State Museum, Springfield, IL. 20pp.
Cashatt, E.D., and T.E. Vogt. 1991. The Illinois 1991 Survey for the 
Hine's Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana Williamson). Prepared 
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Illinois State Museum, 
Springfield, IL, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 
Bureau of Endangered Resources, Madison, WI. 13pp.
Montgomery, B.E. 1953. Notes and Records of Indiana Odonata, 1951-
1952. Proceeding of the Indiana Academy of Science. 62: 200-202.
Price, H.F. 1958. Additional Notes on the Dragonflies of 
Northwestern Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science. 58: 50-62.
Smith, W. 1993. Wisconsin Endangered and Threatened Species 
Investigation. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of 
Endangered Species, Madison, WI. 13pp.
Vogt, T.E. 1991. Results of 1991 Status Survey for Somatochlora 
hineana Williamson in Michigan. Report prepared for Michigan Natural 
Features Inventory, Mason Building, Lansing, Michigan, and the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service by the Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources, Bureau of Endangered Species, Madison, WI. 24pp. 
[[Page 5273]] 
Vogt, T.E., and E.D. Cashatt. 1990. The 1990 Wisconsin Status Survey 
for the Ohio Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana Williamson). 
Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Endangered Species, 
Madison, WI. 14pp.
Vogt, T.E., and E.D. Cashatt. 1991. The Wisconsin 1991 Status Survey 
for the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana Williamson). 
Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Endangered 
Resources, Madison, WI and the Illinois State Museum, Springfield, 
IL. 11pp.
Williamson, E.B. 1931. A new North American Somatochlora (Odonata: 
Corduliidae). Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology. University 
of Michigan. 225: 1-8.

Author

    The primary author of this final rule is Carlita Shumate (see 
ADDRESSES section). This final rule was edited by Amelia Orton-Palmer, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, 1000 
Hart Road, Suite 180, Barrington, Illinois 60010, (708) 381-2253 and 
Catherine Carnes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services 
Field Office, 1015 Challenger Court, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54311, (414) 
433-3803. Everett D. Cashatt, Zoology Section, Illinois State Museum, 
Springfield, Illinois 62706, (217) 782-6689 and Timothy E. Vogt, The 
Nature Conservancy, Rte.1, Box 53E, Ullin, Illinois 62992 (618) 634-
9445, provided substantial information.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following, in 
alphabetical order under Insects to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Species                                                 Vertebrate population                                                      
--------------------------------------------------      Historic range        where endangered or       Status     When listed    Critical     Special  
       Common name            Scientific name                                      threatened                                     habitat       rules   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
          *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                           
         Insects                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
          *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                           
Hine's emerald (Ohio      Somatochlora hineana ..  U.S.A. (IL, IN, OH, &    NA.....................  E                     573           NA           NA
 emerald dragonfly).                                WI).                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
          *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: January 6, 1995.
Mollie H. Beattie,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 95-1983 Filed 1-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P