[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 26, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42442-42519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 [email protected] or to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
http://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 http://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................  Forest Preserve                 337/136
                                  District of Will
                                  County, Commonwealth
                                  Edison Company, Others.
Illinois Unit 4................  Forest Preserve                 607/246
                                  District of Will
                                  County, Forest
                                  Preserve District of
                                  Cook County,
                                  Commonwealth Edison
                                  Company, Others.
Illinois Unit 5................  Forest Preserve                 326/132
                                  District of DuPage
                                  County, Commonwealth
                                  Edison Company, Santa
                                  Fe Railroad.
Illinois Unit 6................  Forest Preserve                 387/157
                                  District of Cook
                                  County.
Illinois Unit 7................  Illinois Department of          480/194
                                  Natural Resources,
                                  Material Service
                                  Corporation, Illinois
                                  Central Gulf Railroad.
Michigan Unit 3................  Michigan Department of            50/20
                                  Natural Resources, The
                                  Nature Conservancy,
                                  other Private
                                  Individuals.

[[Page 42451]]

 
Michigan Unit 4................  Michigan Department of          959/388
                                  Natural Resources,
                                  Private Individuals.
Michigan Unit 5................  Michigan Department of           156/63
                                  Natural Resources.
Michigan Unit 6................  Private Individuals....          220/89
Wisconsin Unit 1...............  Wisconsin Department of         503/204
                                  Natural Resources and
                                  Private Individuals.
Wisconsin Unit 2...............  The Nature Conservancy          814/329
                                  and other Private
                                  Individuals.
Wisconsin Unit 3...............  The Nature Conservancy            66/27
                                  and other Private
                                  Individuals.
Wisconsin Unit 4...............  The Nature Conservancy          407/165
                                  and other Private
                                  Individuals.
Wisconsin Unit 5...............  Wisconsin Department of     3,093/1,252
                                  Natural Resources;
                                  University of
                                  Wisconsin; Ridges
                                  Sanctuary, Inc.; other
                                  Private Individuals.
Wisconsin Unit 6...............  Wisconsin Department of          230/93
                                  Natural Resources and
                                  Private Individuals.
Wisconsin Unit 7...............  The Nature Conservancy          352/142
                                  and other Private
                                  Individuals.
Wisconsin Unit 8...............  The Nature Conservancy            70/28
                                  and other Private
                                  Individuals.
Wisconsin Unit 9...............  Wisconsin Department of        1193/483
                                  Natural Resources and
                                  Private Individuals.
Wisconsin Unit 10..............  Wisconsin Department of        2312/936
                                  Natural Resources,
                                  University of
                                  Wisconsin, Private
                                  Individuals.
                                                         ---------------
    Total......................  .......................    13,420/5,432
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We present brief descriptions of all units listed in Tables 1 and 
2, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly, below.

Illinois Unit 1--Will County, Illinois

    Illinois Unit 1 consists of 419 ac (170 ha) in Will County, 
Illinois. This unit was known to be occupied at the time of listing and 
includes the area where the Hine's emerald dragonfly was first 
collected in Illinois as well as one of the most recently discovered 
locations in the State. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald dragonfly are 
present in this unit. Adults and larvae are found within this unit. The 
unit consists of larval and adult habitat with a mosaic of upland and 
wetland communities including fen, marsh, sedge meadow, and dolomite 
prairie. The wetlands are fed by groundwater that discharges into the 
unit from seeps and upwelling that have formed small, flowing streamlet 
channels that contain crayfish burrows. Known threats to the primary 
constituent elements in this unit include ecological succession and 
encroachment of invasive species; illegal all terrain vehicles; utility 
and road construction and maintenance; management and land use 
conflicts; and groundwater depletion, alteration, and contamination. 
The majority of the unit is a dedicated Illinois Nature Preserve that 
is managed and leased by the Forest Preserve District of Will County. 
Although a current management plan is in place, it does not 
specifically address the Hine's emerald dragonfly. We are evaluating 
the protective measures in the plan to determine the benefits to the 
features essential for the conservation of the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly. We will continue to work with the land managers during the 
development of the final rule. This unit also consists of a utility 
easement that contains electrical transmission and distribution lines 
and a railroad line used to transport coal to a power plant. In 
addition, a remaining small portion of this unit is located between a 
sewage treatment facility and the Des Plaines River. This unit is 
planned to be incorporated in a Habitat Conservation Plan that is being 
pursued by a large partnership that includes the landowners of this 
unit.

Illinois Unit 2--Will County, Illinois

    Illinois Unit 2 consists of 439 ac (178 ha) in Will County, 
Illinois. This unit was known to be occupied at the time of listing and 
has repeated adult and larval observations. All PCEs for the Hine's 
emerald dragonfly are present in this unit. The unit consists of larval 
and adult habitat with a mosaic of plant communities including fen, 
marsh, sedge meadow, and dolomite prairie. The wetlands are fed by 
groundwater that discharges into the unit from seeps and upwelling that 
have formed small flowing streamlet channels that contain crayfish 
burrows. Known threats to the primary constituent elements in this unit 
include ecological succession and encroachment of invasive species; 
utility and road construction and maintenance; management and land use 
conflicts; and groundwater depletion, alteration, and contamination. 
The unit is privately owned and includes a utility easement that 
contains electrical transmission and distribution lines and a railroad 
line used to transport coal to a power plant. This unit is planned to 
be incorporated in a Habitat Conservation Plan that is being pursued by 
a large partnership that includes the landowners of this unit.

Illinois Unit 3--Will County, Illinois

    Illinois Unit 3 consists of 337 ac (136 ha) in Will County, 
Illinois. This unit was known to be occupied at the time of listing and 
includes one of the first occurrences of Hine's emerald dragonfly known 
after the discovery of the species in Illinois. All PCEs for the Hine's 
emerald dragonfly are present in this unit. The unit consists of larval 
and adult habitat with a mosaic of upland and wetland communities 
including fen, sedge meadow, marsh, and dolomite prairie. The wetlands 
are fed by groundwater that discharges into the unit from seeps and 
upwelling that have formed small flowing streamlet channels that 
contain crayfish burrows. Known threats to the primary constituent 
elements in this unit include ecological succession and encroachment of 
invasive species; utility and road construction and maintenance; 
management and land use conflicts; and groundwater depletion, 
alteration, and contamination. The majority of the unit is a dedicated 
Illinois Nature Preserve that is owned and managed by the Forest 
Preserve District of Will County. Although a

[[Page 42452]]

current management plan is in place, it does not specifically address 
the Hine's emerald dragonfly. We are evaluating the protective measures 
in the plan to determine the benefits to the features essential for the 
conservation of the Hine's emerald dragonfly. We will continue to work 
with the land managers during the development of the final rule. This 
unit also consists of a utility easement that contains electrical 
transmission and distribution lines. This unit is planned to be 
incorporated in a Habitat Conservation Plan that is being pursued by a 
large partnership that includes the landowners of this unit.

Illinois Unit 4--Will and Cook Counties, Illinois

    Illinois Unit 4 consists of 607 ac (246 ha) in Will and Cook 
Counties in Illinois. This unit was known to be occupied at the time of 
listing and includes one of the first occurrences of Hine's emerald 
dragonfly that was verified after the discovery of the species in 
Illinois. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald dragonfly are present in this 
unit. Repeated observations of both adult and larval Hine's emerald 
dragonfly have been made in this unit. The unit consists of larval and 
adult habitat with a mosaic of upland and wetland communities including 
fen, sedge meadow, and dolomite prairie. The wetlands are fed by 
groundwater that discharges into the unit from seeps and upwelling that 
have formed small flowing streamlet channels that contain crayfish 
burrows. Known threats to the primary constituent elements in this unit 
include ecological succession and encroachment of invasive species; 
utility and road construction and maintenance; management and land use 
conflicts; and groundwater depletion, alteration, and contamination. 
The unit is owned and managed by the Forest Preserve District of Will 
County and the Forest Preserve District of Cook County. Construction of 
the Interstate 355 extension began in 2005 and the corridor for this 
project intersects this unit at an elevation up to 67 ft (20 m) above 
the ground to minimize potential impacts to Hine's emerald dragonflies. 
This unit also consists of a utility easement that contains electrical 
transmission lines.

Illinois Unit 5--DuPage County, Illinois

    Illinois Unit 5 consists of 326 ac (132 ha) in DuPage County, 
Illinois. This unit was known to be occupied at the time of listing and 
has repeated adult observations. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are present in this unit. The unit consists of larval and 
adult habitat with a mosaic of upland and wetland plant communities 
including fen, marsh, sedge meadow, and dolomite prairie. The wetlands 
are fed by groundwater that discharges into the unit from seeps and 
upwelling that have formed small flowing streamlet channels that 
contain crayfish burrows. Known threats to the primary constituent 
elements in this unit include ecological succession and encroachment of 
invasive species; utility and road construction and maintenance; 
management and land use conflicts; and groundwater depletion, 
alteration, and contamination. The majority of the unit is owned and 
managed by the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County. This unit 
also consists of a railroad line and a utility easement with electrical 
transmission lines.

Illinois Unit 6--Cook County, Illinois

    Illinois Unit 6 consists of 387 ac (157 ha) in Cook County, 
Illinois. This unit was known to be occupied at the time Hine's emerald 
dragonfly was listed. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald dragonfly are 
present in this unit. There have been repeated adult observations as 
well as observations of teneral adults and male territorial patrols 
suggesting that breeding is occurring within a close proximity. The 
unit consists of larval and adult habitat with a mosaic of upland and 
wetland plant communities including fen, marsh, and sedge meadow. The 
wetlands are fed by groundwater that discharges into the unit from 
seeps that have formed small flowing streamlet channels that contain 
crayfish burrows. Known threats to the primary constituent elements in 
this unit include ecological succession and encroachment of invasive 
species; utility and road construction and maintenance; management and 
land use conflicts; and groundwater depletion, alteration, and 
contamination. The area within this unit is owned and managed by the 
Forest Preserve District of Cook County.

Illinois Unit 7--Will County, Illinois

    Illinois Unit 7 consists of 480 ac (194 ha) in Will County, 
Illinois. This unit was known to be occupied at the time of listing and 
includes one of the first occurrences of Hine's emerald dragonfly known 
after the discovery of the species in Illinois. All PCEs for the Hine's 
emerald dragonfly are present in this unit. Adults and larvae have been 
found within this unit. The unit consists of larval and adult habitat 
with a mosaic of upland and wetland communities including fen, marsh, 
sedge meadow, and dolomite prairie. The wetlands are fed by groundwater 
that discharges into the unit from seeps and upwelling that have formed 
small flowing streamlet channels that contain crayfish burrows. Known 
threats to the primary constituent elements in this unit include 
ecological succession and encroachment of invasive species; utility and 
road construction and maintenance; management and land use conflicts; 
and groundwater depletion, alteration, and contamination. A portion of 
the unit is a dedicated Illinois Nature Preserve that is managed and 
owned by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. This unit also 
consists of a railroad line and a utility easement that contains 
electrical distribution lines. This unit is planned to be incorporated 
in a Habitat Conservation Plan that is being pursued by a large 
partnership that includes the landowners of this unit.

Michigan Unit 1--Mackinac County, Michigan

    Michigan Unit 1 consists of 9,452 ac (3,825 ha) in Mackinac County 
in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. This area was not known to be 
occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are present in this unit. The unit contains at least four 
breeding areas for Hine's Emerald dragonfly, with female oviposition or 
male territorial patrols observed at all breeding sites. Adults have 
also been observed foraging at multiple locations within this unit. The 
unit contains a mixture of fen, forested wetland, forested dune and 
swale, and upland communities that are important for breeding and 
foraging Hine's emerald dragonfly. The habitat is mainly spring fed 
rich cedar swamp or northern fen. The breeding areas are open with 
little woody vegetation or are sparsely vegetated with northern white 
cedar (Thuja occidentalis). Small shallow pools and seeps are common. 
Crayfish burrows are found in breeding areas. Corridors between the 
breeding areas make it likely that adult dragonflies could travel or 
forage between the breeding sites. Although the majority of this unit 
is owned by the Hiawatha National Forest and faces fewer threats than 
other units, threats (including non-native species invasion, woody 
encroachment, off-road vehicle use, logging, and utility and road 
right-of-way maintenance) have the potential to impact the habitat. 
Small portions of the unit are owned by the State of Michigan and 
private individuals. The Hiawatha National Forest, through their Land 
Use and Management Plan, will protect all known Hine's breeding areas 
and implement the Hine's Emerald

[[Page 42453]]

dragonfly recovery plan. We are considering excluding Michigan Unit 1 
from our final designation.

Michigan Unit 2--Mackinac County, Michigan

    Michigan Unit 2 consists of 3,511 ac (1,421 ha) in Mackinac County 
in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. This area was not known to be 
occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are present in this unit. The unit contains at least four 
breeding areas for Hine's Emerald dragonfly, with female oviposition or 
male territorial patrols observed at all breeding sites. The unit 
contains a mixture of fen, forested wetland, forested dune and swale, 
and upland communities that are important for breeding and foraging 
Hine's emerald dragonfly. The breeding habitat varies in the unit. Most 
breeding areas are northern fen communities with sparse woody 
vegetation (northern white cedar) that are probably spring fed with 
seeps and marl pools present. One site is a spring-fed marl fen with 
sedge dominated seeps and marl pools. Crayfish burrows are found in 
breeding areas. Corridors between the breeding areas, including a large 
forested dune and swale complex, make it likely that adult dragonflies 
could travel or forage between the breeding sites. Although the 
majority of this unit is owned by the Hiawatha National Forest and is 
designated as a Wilderness Area, threats (including non-native species 
invasion, woody encroachment, and off-road vehicle use) have the 
potential to impact the habitat. About one percent of the unit is owned 
by private individuals. The Hiawatha National Forest, through their 
Land Use and Management Plan, will protect all known Hine's breeding 
areas and implement the Hine's Emerald dragonfly recovery plan. We are 
considering excluding Michigan Unit 2 from our final designation.

Michigan Unit 3--Mackinac County, Michigan

    Michigan Unit 3 consists of 50 ac (20 ha) in Mackinac County on 
Bois Blanc Island in Michigan. This area was not known to be occupied 
at the time of listing. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald dragonfly are 
present in this unit. The unit contains one breeding area for Hine's 
Emerald dragonfly with male territorial patrols and more than 10 adults 
observed in 1 year. The unit contains a small fen that is directly 
adjacent to the Lake Huron shoreline and forested dune and swale 
habitat that extends inland. The unit contains seeps and small fens, 
some areas with marl. Threats to the unit include maintenance of 
utility and road right of way, and development of private lots and 
septic systems. Road work and culvert maintenance could change the 
hydrology of the unit. Approximately half of the unit is owned by the 
State of Michigan, the remaining portion of the area is owned by The 
Nature Conservancy or is subdivided private land. We are currently 
obtaining and reviewing any management plans from the Michigan 
Department of Natural Resources and The Nature Conservancy to determine 
if adequate protection and management of the unit is provided. If an 
adequate management plan is in place, the State and/or Nature 
Conservancy owned portion of this unit may be excluded in the final 
designation.

Michigan Unit 4--Presque Isle County, Michigan

    Michigan Unit 4 consists of 959 ac (388 ha) in Presque Isle County 
in the northern lower peninsula of Michigan. This area was not known to 
be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are present in this unit. The unit contains one breeding area 
for Hine's Emerald dragonfly, with female oviposition and adults 
observed in more than 1 year. The unit contains a fen with seeps and 
crayfish burrows present. The fen has stunted, sparse white cedar and 
marl flats dominated by spike rush (Eleocharis). The threats to Hine's 
emerald dragonflies in this unit are unknown. The majority of this unit 
is a State park owned by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 
the remainder of the unit is privately owned. We are currently 
obtaining and reviewing any Michigan Department of Natural Resources 
management plans to determine if adequate protection and management of 
the unit is provided. If an adequate management plan is in place, the 
State-owned portion of this unit may be excluded in the final 
designation.

Michigan Unit 5--Alpena County, Michigan

    Michigan Unit 5 consists of 156 ac (63 ha) in Alpena County in the 
northern lower peninsula of Michigan. This area was not known to be 
occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are present in this unit. The unit contains one breeding area 
for Hine's Emerald dragonfly, with adults observed in more than one 
year and crayfish burrows present. The unit contains a mixture of 
northern fen and wet meadow habitat that are used by breeding and 
foraging Hine's emerald dragonfly. Threats to this unit include 
possible hydrological modification due to outdoor recreational vehicle 
use and a nearby roadway. The unit is owned by the State of Michigan. 
We are currently obtaining and reviewing any Michigan Department of 
Natural Resources management plans to determine if adequate protection 
and management of the unit is provided. If an adequate management plan 
is in place, the State owned portion of this unit may be excluded in 
the final designation.

Michigan Unit 6--Alpena County, Michigan

    Michigan Unit 6 consists of 220 ac (89 ha) in Alpena County in the 
northern lower peninsula of Michigan. This area was not known to be 
occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are present in this unit. The unit contains one breeding area 
for Hine's Emerald dragonfly, with male territorial patrols and adults 
observed. The unit contains a marl fen with numerous seeps and rivulets 
important for breeding and foraging Hine's Emerald dragonfly. In the 
area of this unit, trash dumping, home development, and outdoor 
recreational vehicles were observed impacting similar habitat. The unit 
is owned by a private group.

Missouri Unit 1--Crawford County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 1 consists of 90 ac (36 ha) in Crawford County, 
Missouri, and is under U.S. Forest Service ownership. This fen is in 
close proximity to the village of Billard and is associated with James 
Creek, west of Billard. This area was not known to be occupied at the 
time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are present in 
this unit. The fen provides surface flow, and includes larval habitat 
and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. The fen and an 
adjacent open pasture provide foraging habitat that is surrounded by 
contiguous, closed canopy forest. To date, only larvae have been 
documented from this locality. Threats identified for this unit include 
feral hogs and habitat fragmentation. We are considering excluding this 
unit from our final critical habitat designation.

Missouri Unit 2--Dent County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 2 is comprised of 34 ac (14 ha) in Dent County, 
Missouri, and is under U.S. Forest Service and private ownership. It is 
located north of the village of Howes Mill and in proximity to County 
Road (CR) 438. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of 
listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are present in this 
unit. The fen provides surface flow, and includes

[[Page 42454]]

larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. 
The fen and an adjacent open old field provide foraging habitat and are 
surrounded by contiguous, closed canopy forest. Both adults and larvae 
have been documented from this locality. Threats identified for this 
unit include all terrain vehicles, feral hogs, and habitat 
fragmentation. We are considering excluding this unit from our final 
critical habitat designation.

Missouri Unit 3--Dent County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 3 is under private ownership and consists of 18 ac (7 
ha) in Dent County, Missouri. It is located north-northeast of the 
village of Howes Mill and is associated with a tributary of Huzzah 
Creek. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. 
The fen provides surface flow and includes larval habitat and adjacent 
cover for resting and predator avoidance. All PCEs for Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are provided in this unit. The fen and adjacent old fields 
provide habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed 
canopy forest. To date, only larvae have been documented from this 
unit. Threats identified for this unit include all terrain vehicles, 
feral hogs, and habitat fragmentation. We are considering excluding 
this unit from our final critical habitat designation.

Missouri Unit 4--Dent County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 4 is owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service, 
and consists of 14 ac (6 ha) in Dent County, Missouri. This fen is 
associated with a tributary of Watery Fork Creek in Fortune Hollow and 
is located east of the juncture of Highway 72 and Route MM. This area 
was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. The fen provides 
surface flow, and includes larval habitat and adjacent cover for 
resting and predator avoidance. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly 
are provided in this unit. The fen and adjacent old fields provide 
habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed canopy 
forest. To date, only larvae have been documented from this locality. 
Threats identified for this unit include feral hogs and habitat 
fragmentation. We are considering excluding this unit from our final 
critical habitat designation.

Missouri Unit 5--Iron County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 5 is comprised of 50 ac (20 ha) in Iron County, 
Missouri, and is under U.S. Forest Service ownership. This fen is 
adjacent to Neals Creek and Neals Creek Road, southeast of Bixby. This 
area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for 
Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided in this unit. The fen consists of 
surface flow and is fed, in part, by a wooded slope north of Neals 
Creek Road. This small but high quality fen provides larval habitat and 
adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. The fen, adjacent 
fields, and open road provide habitat for foraging and are surrounded 
by contiguous, closed canopy forest. Both adults and larvae have been 
documented from this unit. Threats identified for this unit include all 
terrain vehicles, feral hogs, road construction and maintenance, beaver 
dams, and habitat fragmentation. We are considering excluding this unit 
from our final critical habitat designation.

Missouri Unit 6--Morgan County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 6 is privately owned, and consists of 22 ac (9 ha) in 
Morgan County, Missouri. The fen borders Flag Branch Creek and is 
located near the small town of Barnett south southwest of Route N. This 
area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for 
Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided in this unit. The fen provides 
surface flow, and includes larval habitat and adjacent cover for 
resting and predator avoidance. The fen consists of three, small, fen 
openings adjacent to one another. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly 
are provided in this unit. The fen and adjacent open areas associated 
with the landowner's residence provide the only habitat for foraging 
and are surrounded by contiguous, closed canopy forest. Although only 
larvae have been documented from this locality, an unidentified species 
of Somatochlora was observed during an earlier visit (Vogt 2006). 
Threats identified for this unit include feral hogs, ecological 
succession, beaver dams, and habitat fragmentation. We are considering 
excluding this unit from our final critical habitat designation.

Missouri Unit 7--Phelps County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 7 consists of 33 ac (13 ha) in Phelps County, 
Missouri, and is owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. This 
area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for 
Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided in this unit. This fen is 
associated with Kaintuck Hollow and a tributary of Mill Creek, and is 
located south-southwest of the town of Newburg. This high quality fen 
provides larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator 
avoidance. The fen, adjacent fields, and open road provide habitat for 
foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed canopy forest. 
Despite repeated sampling for adults and larvae, only one exuviae has 
been documented from this unit. Threats identified for this unit 
include all terrain vehicles, feral hogs, and habitat fragmentation. We 
are considering excluding this unit from our final critical habitat 
designation.

Missouri Units 8, 9, and 10--Reynolds County, Missouri

    Missouri Units 8, 9, and 10 comprise the Bee Fork complex. The 
complex consists of 333 ac (135 ha), and includes U.S. Forest Service 
and private land in Reynolds County, Missouri. This locality is a 
series of three fens adjacent to Bee Fork Creek, extending from east-
southeast of Bunker east to near the bridge on Route TT over Bee Fork 
Creek. These areas were not known to be occupied at the time of 
listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided within this 
complex. The fen provides surface flow and is fed, in part, by a small 
spring that originates from a wooded ravine just north of the county 
road bordering the northern most situated fen. This complex is one of 
the highest quality representative examples of an Ozark fen in the 
State. The fen provides larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting 
and predator avoidance. The fen, adjacent fields, and open road provide 
habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed canopy 
forest. Both adults and larvae have been documented from this unit. 
This complex is an extremely important focal area for conservation 
actions that benefit Hine's emerald dragonfly. It is likely that the 
species uses Bee Fork Creek as a connective corridor between adjacent 
components of the complex. Threats identified for this unit include 
feral hogs, ecological succession, utility maintenance, application of 
herbicides, and habitat fragmentation. We are considering excluding 
these units from our final critical habitat designation.

Missouri Unit 11--Reynolds County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 11 is under private and U.S. Forest Service ownership 
and consists of 113 ac (46 ha) in Reynolds County, Missouri. The unit 
is a series of small fen openings adjacent to a tributary of Bee Fork 
Creek, and is located east of the intersection of Route TT and Highway 
72, extending north to the Bee Fork Church on County Road 854. This 
area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. This unit is 
one of the highest quality representative examples of an Ozark fen in 
the State and incorporates much of

[[Page 42455]]

the valley within Grasshopper Hollow. All PCEs for Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are provided in this unit. The fen provides surface flow and 
includes larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator 
avoidance. The fen, adjacent fields, and open path provide habitat for 
foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed canopy forest. Both 
adults and larvae have been documented from this unit. The majority of 
this unit is managed by The Nature Conservancy. Threats identified for 
this unit include feral hogs, beaver dams, and habitat fragmentation. 
We are considering excluding this unit from our final critical habitat 
designation.

Missouri Unit 12--Reynolds County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 12 is comprised of 50 ac (20 ha) in Reynolds County, 
Missouri and is under private ownership. This locality is near the town 
of Ruble and is closely associated with the North Fork of Web Creek. 
This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs 
for Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided in this unit. This fen is fed 
by surface flow and a few small springs. The fen provides surface flow 
and includes larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator 
avoidance. The fen and an adjacent open pasture provide foraging 
habitat and are surrounded by contiguous, closed canopy forest. Both 
adults and larvae have been documented from this locality. Threats 
identified for this unit include feral hogs, ecological succession, 
change in ownership, and habitat fragmentation. We are considering 
excluding this unit from our final critical habitat designation.

Missouri Unit 13--Reynolds County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 13 consists of 30 ac (12 ha) in Reynolds County, 
Missouri, and is under private ownership. This unit consists of a 
spring fed meadow and deep muck fen that is located north of the town 
of Centerville adjacent to Highway 21. This area was not known to be 
occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly 
are provided in this unit. The fen is fed by two springs and surface 
flow that provide larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and 
predator avoidance. The fen and adjacent open pasture and fields 
provide foraging habitat for adults. Unlike most localities in 
Missouri, this unit is unique in that the surrounding landscape 
consists of more open fields than closed canopy forest and the 
microhabitat is more marsh like than the typical surface water fed fens 
associated with the species. Both adults and larvae have been 
documented from this unit. Threats identified for this unit include 
feral hogs, road construction and maintenance, and habitat 
fragmentation. We are considering excluding this unit from our final 
critical habitat designation.

Missouri Unit 14--Reynolds County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 14 is under private ownership and consists of 14 
acres (5 hectares) in Reynolds County, Missouri. The site was 
designated as a State Natural Area in December 1983 and is located 
north of Centerville, adjacent to Highway 21. This area was not known 
to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are provided in this unit. The fen provides surface flow and 
includes larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator 
avoidance. The fen and adjacent open yards of rural residents provide 
habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed canopy 
forest. To date, only larvae have been documented from this location. 
Threats identified for this unit include feral hogs, road construction 
and maintenance, utility maintenance, and habitat fragmentation. We are 
considering excluding this unit from our final critical habitat 
designation.

Missouri Unit 15--Reynolds County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 15 is a very small, privately owned fen, and is 
comprised of 11 acres (4 hectares), adjacent to South Branch fork of 
Bee Fork Creek, northeast of the intersection of Route B and Highway 72 
in Reynolds County, Missouri. This area was not known to be occupied at 
the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided 
in this unit. The fen provides surface flow and includes larval habitat 
and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. The fen, 
adjacent old field, and unmaintained county road provide habitat for 
foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed canopy forest. To 
date, only larvae have been documented from this locality. Threats 
identified for this unit include feral hogs, ecological succession, all 
terrain vehicles, and habitat fragmentation. We are considering 
excluding this unit from our final critical habitat designation.

Missouri Unit 16--Reynolds County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 16 is the smallest known site for Hine's emerald 
dragonfly in Missouri and consists of 4 acres (2 hectares) in Reynolds 
County. It is owned and managed by the Missouri Department of 
Conservation (MDC) and is located southeast of the town of Ruble on a 
tributary to the North Fork of Web Creek. This area was not known to be 
occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly 
are provided in this unit. The fen provides surface flow and includes 
larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. 
The fen and adjacent logging roads provide habitat for foraging and are 
surrounded by contiguous, closed canopy forest. To date, only larvae 
have been documented from this unit. Threats identified for this unit 
include feral hogs, all terrain vehicles, and habitat fragmentation. We 
are considering excluding this unit from our final critical habitat 
designation.

Missouri Units 17 and 18--Ripley County, Missouri

    Missouri Units 17 and 18 comprise the Overcup Fen complex. It 
consists of 224 acres (91 hectares) in Ripley County, Missouri. This 
complex of fens and springs is located on Little Black Conservation 
Area and is owned by the MDC and private land owners. This area was not 
known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's 
emerald dragonfly are provided in this complex. This complex of fens 
and springs is associated with the Little Black River and provide 
larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. 
The fen and adjacent old field provide habitat for foraging and are 
surrounded by contiguous, closed canopy forest. Both adults and larvae 
have been documented from this locality. Threats identified for this 
unit include feral hogs, all terrain vehicles, management conflicts, 
and habitat fragmentation. We are considering excluding these units 
from our final critical habitat designation.

Missouri Units 19 and 20--Ripley County, Missouri

    Missouri Units 19 and 20 comprise the Mud Branch complex. It 
consists of 115 acres (47 hectares) in Ripley County, Missouri and is 
under private ownership. The unit is located east of the village of 
Shiloh and is associated with Mud Branch, a tributary of the Little 
Black River. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of 
listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided in this 
complex. This complex of fens provides surface flow and includes larval 
habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. The fen, 
adjacent logging roads and nearby old field provide habitat for 
foraging and are surrounded

[[Page 42456]]

by contiguous, closed canopy forest. To date, only adults have been 
documented from this complex. Threats identified for this unit include 
feral hogs, all terrain vehicles, road construction and maintenance, 
ecological succession, and habitat fragmentation. We are considering 
excluding these units from our final critical habitat designation.

Missouri Unit 21--Ripley County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 21 is a very small fen and consists of 6 acres (2 
hectares) in Ripley County, Missouri. It is under U.S. Forest Service 
ownership and is located west of Doniphan. This area was not known to 
be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are provided in this unit. The fen provides surface flow and 
includes larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator 
avoidance. The fen and adjacent open, maintained county road provide 
habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed canopy 
forest. To date, only larvae have been documented from this locality. 
Threats identified for this unit include feral hogs, all terrain 
vehicles, equestrian use, and habitat fragmentation. We are considering 
excluding this unit from our final critical habitat designation.

Missouri Unit 22--Shannon County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 22 is owned and managed by the MDC and is located 
south of the village of Delaware, in Shannon County, Missouri. This 
unit is comprised of 32 acres (13 hectares) and includes one small fen 
and an adjacent larger fen that was recently restored due to beaver 
damage along Mahans Creek. This area was not known to be occupied at 
the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided 
in this unit. These adjacent fens provide surface flow and include 
larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. 
The open areas associated with the fens provide the only habitat for 
foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed canopy forest. To 
date, only larvae have been documented from this locality. Threats 
identified for this unit include feral hogs, beaver dams, and habitat 
fragmentation. We are considering excluding this unit from our final 
critical habitat designation.

Missouri Units 23 and 24--Washington County, Missouri

    Missouri Units 23 and 24 comprise the Towns Branch and Welker Fen 
complex and consist of 75 acres (31 hectares) near the town of Palmer 
in Washington County, Missouri. The complex consists of two fens that 
are owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. This area was not 
known to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's 
emerald dragonfly are provided in this unit. These fens provide surface 
flow and include larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and 
predator avoidance. The fens and adjacent open, maintained county roads 
provide habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed 
canopy forest. To date, only larvae have been documented from this 
complex. Threats identified for this unit include feral hogs, all-
terrain vehicles, road construction and maintenance, and habitat 
fragmentation. We are considering excluding these units from our final 
critical habitat designation.

Missouri Unit 25--Washington County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 25 consists of 33 acres (13 hectares) and is located 
northwest of the town of Palmer in Washington County, Missouri. The fen 
is associated with Snapps Branch, a tributary of Hazel Creek, and is 
owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. This area was not known 
to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are provided in this unit. The fen provides surface flow, and 
includes larval habitat and adjacent cover for resting and predator 
avoidance. The fen and adjacent old logging road with open canopy 
provide habitat for foraging and are surrounded by contiguous, closed 
canopy forest. To date, only larvae have been documented from this 
locality. Threats identified for this unit include feral hogs, all-
terrain vehicles, and habitat fragmentation. We are considering 
excluding these units from our final critical habitat designation.

Missouri Unit 26--Wayne County, Missouri

    Missouri Unit 26 is owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service 
and consists of 5 acres (2 hectares). This extremely small fen is 
located near Williamsville and is associated with Brushy Creek in Wayne 
County, Missouri. This area was not known to be occupied at the time of 
listing. All PCEs for Hine's emerald dragonfly are provided in this 
unit. The fen provides surface flow and includes larval habitat and 
adjacent cover for resting and predator avoidance. The fen and adjacent 
logging road with open canopy provide habitat for foraging and are 
surrounded by contiguous, closed canopy forest. To date, only larvae 
have been documented from this unit. Threats identified for this unit 
include feral hogs, all-terrain vehicles, and habitat fragmentation. We 
are considering excluding these units from our final critical habitat 
designation.

Wisconsin Unit 1--Door County, Wisconsin

    Wisconsin Unit 1 consists of 503 acres (204 hectares) on Washington 
Island in Door County, Wisconsin. This unit was not known to be 
occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are present in this unit. Three adults were observed at this 
site in July 2000, as well as male territorial patrols and female 
ovipositioning behavior; crayfish burrows, seeps, and rivulet streams 
are present. The unit consists of larval and adult habitat including 
boreal rich fen, northern wet-mesic forest, emergent aquatic marsh on 
marl substrate, and upland forest. Known threats to the primary 
constituent elements include loss of habitat due to residential 
development, invasive plants, alteration of the hydrology of the marsh 
(low Lake Michigan water levels can result in drying of the marsh), 
contamination of groundwater, and logging. One State Natural Area owned 
by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources occurs within the 
unit; the remainder of the unit is privately owned.

Wisconsin Unit 2--Door County, Wisconsin

    Wisconsin Unit 2 consists of 814 acres (329 hectares) in Door 
County, Wisconsin. This unit was known to be occupied at the time of 
listing. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald dragonfly are present in this 
unit. The first adult recorded in Wisconsin was from this unit in 1987. 
Exuviae and numerous male and female adults have been observed in this 
unit. The unit, which encompasses much of the Mink River Estuary 
contains larval and adult habitat including wet-mesic and mesic upland 
forest (including white cedar wetlands), emergent aquatic marsh, and 
northern sedge meadows. Known threats to the primary constituent 
elements include loss of habitat due to residential development, 
invasive plants, alteration of the hydrology of wetlands, contamination 
of the surface and ground water, and logging. Land in this unit is 
owned by The Nature Conservancy and other private landowners. Forest 
areas with 100 percent canopy that occur greater than 328 ft (100 m) 
from the open forest edge of the unit are not considered critical 
habitat.

[[Page 42457]]

Wisconsin Units 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7--Door County, Wisconsin

    Wisconsin Units 3 through 7 are located in Door County, Wisconsin 
and comprise the following areas: Unit 3 consists of 66 ac (27 ha); 
Unit 4 consists of 407 ac (165 ha); Unit 5 consists of 3,093 ac (1,252 
ha); Unit 6 consists of 230 ac (93 ha); and Unit 7 consists of 352 ac 
(142 ha). Units 3, 5, 6 and 7 were known to be occupied at the time of 
listing. Unit 4 was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. 
All of the units are within 2.5 mi (4 km) of at least one other unit, 
making exchange of dispersing adults likely between units. All PCEs for 
the Hine's emerald dragonfly are present in all of the unist. Adult 
numbers recorded from these units varies. Generally fewer than 8 adults 
have been observed at Units 4, 6, and 7 during any one season. A study 
by Kirk and Vogt (1995, pp.13-15) reported a total adult population in 
the thousands in Units 3 and 5. Male and female adults have been 
observed in all the units. Adult dragonfly swarms commonly occur in 
Unit 5. Swarms ranging in size from 16 to 275 dragonflies and composed 
predominantly of Hine's emerald dragonflies were recorded from a total 
of 20 sites in and near Units 5 and 6 during 2001 and 2002 (Zuehls 
2003, pp. iii, 19, 21, and 43). In addition, the following behaviors 
and life stages of Hine's emerald dragonflies have been recorded from 
the various units: Unit 3--mating behavior, male patrolling behavior, 
crayfish burrows, exuviae, and female ovipositioning (egg-laying); Unit 
4--larvae and exuviae; Unit 5--teneral adults, mating behavior, male 
patrolling, larvae, female ovipositioning (egg-laying), and crayfish 
burrows; and Unit 6--mating behavior, evidence of ovipositioning, and 
crayfish burrows.
    Unit 5 contains two larval areas, while Units 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 
each contain one larval area. Units 3 through 7 all include adult 
habitat, which varies from unit to unit but generally includes boreal 
rich fen, northern wet-mesic forest (including white cedar wetlands), 
upland forest, shrub-scrub wetlands, emergent aquatic marsh, and 
northern sedge meadow. Known threats to the primary constituent 
elements include loss of habitat due to residential and commercial 
development, ecological succession, invasive plants, utility and road 
construction and maintenance, alteration of the hydrology of wetlands 
(e.g., via quarrying or beaver impoundments), contamination of the 
surface and ground water (e.g., via pesticide use at nearby apple/
cherry orchards (Unit 7)), agricultural practices, and logging. The 
majority of the land in the unit is conservation land in public and 
private ownership; the remainder of the land is privately owned. Forest 
areas with 100 percent canopy that occur greater than 328 ft (100 m) 
from the open forest edge of the unit but that are too small for us to 
map out are not considered critical habitat.

Wisconsin Unit 8--Door County, Wisconsin

    Wisconsin Unit 8 consists of 70 ac (28 ha) in Door County, 
Wisconsin and includes Arbter Lake. This unit was not known to be 
occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are present in this unit. Numerous male and female adults as 
well as ovipositing has been observed in this unit; crayfish burrows 
and rivulets are present. The unit consists of larval and adult habitat 
with a mix of upland and lowland forest, and calcareous bog and fen 
communities. Known threats to the primary constituent elements include 
encroachment of larval habitat by invasive plants and alteration of 
local groundwater hydrology (e.g., via quarrying activities), 
contamination of surface and groundwater, and logging. Land in this 
unit is owned by The Nature Conservancy and other private landowners.

Wisconsin Unit 9--Door County, Wisconsin

    Wisconsin Unit 9 consists of 1,193 ac (483 ha) in Door County, 
Wisconsin associated with Keyes Creek. This unit was not known to be 
occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are present in this unit. Numerous male and female adults 
have been seen in this unit; ovipositing females have been observed. 
Crayfish burrows are present. The unit consists of larval and adult 
habitat with a mix of upland and lowland forest, scrub-shrub wetlands, 
and emergent marsh. Known threats to the primary constituent elements 
are loss and/or degradation of habitat due to development, groundwater 
depletion or alteration, surface and groundwater contamination, 
alteration of the hydrology of the wetlands (e.g., via stream 
impoundment, road construction and maintenance, and logging). The 
majority of the land in this unit is a State Wildlife Area owned by the 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources with the remainder of the 
land privately owned. Forest areas with 100 percent canopy that occur 
greater than 328 ft (100 m) from the open forest edge of the unit are 
not considered critical habitat.

Wisconsin Unit 10--Ozaukee County, Wisconsin

    Wisconsin Unit 10 consists of 2,312 ac (936 ha) in Ozaukee County, 
Wisconsin and includes much of Cedarburg Bog. This unit was not known 
to be occupied at the time of listing. All PCEs for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly are present in this unit. Numerous male and female adults 
have been seen in this unit including teneral adults; ovipositing 
females have been observed. Crayfish burrows are present. The unit 
consists of larval and adult habitat with a mix of shrub-carr, 
``patterned'' bog composed of forested ridges and sedge mats, wet 
meadow, and lowland forest. Known threats to the primary constituent 
elements are loss and/or degradation of habitat due to residential 
development, groundwater depletion or alteration, surface and 
groundwater contamination, invasive species, road construction and 
maintenance, and logging. The majority of area in the unit is State 
land and the remainder of the land is privately owned.

Wisconsin Sites Under Evaluation for Critical Habitat Designation

    Three Wisconsin sites are being evaluated to determine if they 
provide essential habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly. Those sites 
are the Black Ash Swamp in southern Door County and northern Kewaunee 
County, Kellner's Fen in Door County, and the area in and around 
Ephraim Swamp in Door County. Currently adult Hine's emerald 
dragonflies have been observed in these areas, but breeding has not 
been confirmed. Surveys are planned for summer 2006. Information from 
those surveys will be used to determine whether any of the sites are 
appropriate for designation as critical habitat, and therefore may be 
considered for inclusion in the final designation.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In our 
regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse 
modification as ``a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably 
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and 
recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not 
limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or 
biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to 
be critical.'' However, recent

[[Page 42458]]

decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have invalidated 
this definition (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)). 
Pursuant to current national policy and the statutory provisions of the 
Act, destruction or adverse modification is determined on the basis of 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would remain functional (or retain the 
current ability for the primary constituent elements to be functionally 
established) to serve the intended conservation role for the species.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, 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 proposed or 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 with 
us 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. This is a procedural requirement only. 
However, once proposed species become listed, or proposed critical 
habitat is designated as final, the full prohibitions of section 
7(a)(2) apply to any Federal action. The primary utility of the 
conference procedures is to maximize the opportunity for a Federal 
agency to adequately consider proposed species and critical habitat and 
avoid potential delays in implementing their proposed action as a 
result of the section 7(a)(2) compliance process, should those species 
be listed or the critical habitat designated.
    Under conference procedures, the Service may provide advisory 
conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating 
conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The Service may 
conduct either informal or formal conferences. Informal conferences are 
typically used if the proposed action is not likely to have any adverse 
effects to the proposed species or proposed critical habitat. Formal 
conferences are typically used when the Federal agency or the Service 
believes the proposed action is likely to cause adverse effects to 
proposed species or critical habitat, inclusive of those that may cause 
jeopardy or adverse modification.
    The results of an informal conference are typically transmitted in 
a conference report; while the results of a formal conference are 
typically transmitted in a conference opinion. Conference opinions on 
proposed critical habitat are typically prepared according to 50 CFR 
402.14, as if the proposed critical habitat were designated. We may 
adopt the conference opinion as the biological opinion when the 
critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or 
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 
402.10(d)). As noted above, any conservation recommendations in a 
conference report or opinion are strictly advisory.
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of 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 (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation, 
compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) will be documented 
through the Service's issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter for Federal 
actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed 
species or critical habitat; or (2) a biological opinion for Federal 
actions that may affect, but are likely to adversely affect, listed 
species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in jeopardy to a listed species or the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat, we also provide reasonable 
and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable. 
``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as 
alternative actions identified during consultation that can be 
implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the 
action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's 
legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and 
technologically feasible, and that the Director believes would avoid 
jeopardy to the listed species or destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from 
slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the 
project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent 
alternative are similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where a new 
species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action or such discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal 
agencies may request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions 
for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may 
affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat or 
adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
    Federal activities that may affect the Hine's emerald dragonfly or 
its designated critical habitat will require section 7 consultation 
under the Act. Activities on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 
requiring a Federal permit (such as a permit from the Corps under 
section 404 of the Clean Water Act or a permit under section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the Service) or involving some other 
Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency) will also be subject to the section 7 
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or 
critical habitat, and actions on State, tribal, local or private lands 
that are not federally-funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require 
section 7 consultations.

Application of the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Standards for 
Actions Involving Effects to the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly and Its 
Critical Habitat

Jeopardy Standard
    Prior to and following designation of critical habitat, the Service 
has applied an analytical framework for Hine's emerald dragonfly 
jeopardy analyses that relies heavily on the importance of core area 
populations to the survival and recovery of the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly. The section 7(a)(2) analysis is focused not only on these 
populations but also on the habitat conditions necessary to support 
them.
    The jeopardy analysis usually expresses the survival and recovery 
needs of the Hine's emerald dragonfly in a qualitative fashion without 
making distinctions between what is necessary for survival and what is 
necessary for recovery. Generally, if a proposed Federal action is 
incompatible with the viability of the affected core area 
population(s), inclusive of associated

[[Page 42459]]

habitat conditions, a jeopardy finding is considered to be warranted, 
because of the relationship of each core area population to the 
survival and recovery of the species as a whole.
Adverse Modification Standard
    The analytical framework described in the Director's December 9, 
2004, memorandum is used to complete section 7(a)(2) analyses for 
Federal actions affecting Hine's emerald dragonfly critical habitat. 
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would remain functional (or retain the 
current ability for the primary constituent elements to be functionally 
established) to serve the intended conservation role for the species. 
Generally, the conservation role of Hine's emerald dragonfly critical 
habitat units is to support viable core area populations.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
    Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat 
are those that alter the PCEs to an extent that the conservation value 
of critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly is appreciably 
reduced. Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore result in 
consultation for the Hine's emerald dragonfly include, but are not 
limited to:
    (1) Actions that would significantly increase succession and 
encroachment of invasive species. Such activities could include, but 
are not limited to, release of nutrients and road salt (NaCl, unless it 
would result in an increased degree of threat to human safety) into the 
surface water or connected groundwater at a point source or by 
dispersed release (non-point source), and introduction of invasive 
species through human activities in the habitat. These activities can 
result in conditions that are favorable to invasive species and would 
provide an ecological advantage over native vegetation, fill rivulets 
and seepage areas occupied by Hine's emerald dragonfly larva, reduce 
detritus that provides cover for larva, and reduce flora and fauna 
necessary for the species to complete its lifecycle. Actions that would 
increase succession and encroachment of invasive species could 
negatively impact the Hine's emerald dragonfly and the species' 
habitat.
    (2) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition 
within the rivulets and seepage areas occupied by Hine's emerald 
dragonfly larva. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
excessive sedimentation from livestock grazing, road construction, 
channel alteration, timber harvest, all terrain vehicle use, equestrian 
use, feral pig introductions, maintenance of rail lines, and other 
watershed and floodplain disturbances. These activities could eliminate 
or reduce the habitat necessary for the growth and reproduction of 
Hine's emerald dragonflies and their prey base by increasing the 
sediment deposition to levels that would adversely affect their ability 
to complete their life cycles. Actions that would significantly 
increase sediment deposition within rivulets and seepage areas could 
negatively impact the Hine's emerald dragonfly and the species' 
habitat.
    (3) Actions that would significantly alter water quantity and 
quality. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
groundwater extraction; alteration of surface and subsurface areas 
within groundwater recharge areas; and release of chemicals, biological 
pollutants, or heated effluents into the surface water or groundwater 
recharge area at a point source or by dispersed release (non-point 
source). These activities could alter water conditions such that they 
are beyond the tolerances of the Hine's emerald dragonfly and its prey 
base, and result in direct or cumulative adverse affects to these 
individuals and their life cycles. Actions that would significantly 
alter water quantity and quality could negatively impact the Hine's 
emerald dragonfly and the species' habitat.
    (4) Actions that would significantly alter channel morphology or 
geometry. Such activities could include but are not limited to, all 
terrain vehicle use, equestrian use, feral pig introductions, 
channelization, impoundment, road and bridge construction, mining, and 
loss of emergent vegetation. These activities may lead to changes in 
water flow velocity, temperature, and quantity that would negatively 
impact the Hine's emerald dragonfly and their prey base and/or their 
habitats. Actions that would significantly alter channel morphology or 
geometry could negatively impact the Hine's emerald dragonfly and the 
species' habitat.
    (5) Actions that would fragment habitat and impact adult foraging 
or dispersal. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
road construction, destruction or fill of wetlands, and high-speed 
railroad and vehicular traffic. These activities may adversely affect 
dispersal resulting in a reduction in fitness and genetic exchange 
within populations as well as direct mortality of individuals. Actions 
that would fragment habitat and impact adult foraging or dispersal 
could negatively impact the Hine's emerald dragonfly and the species' 
habitat.
    All of the units proposed as critical habitat, as well as those 
that are being considered for exclusion, are determined to contain 
features essential to the conservation of the Hine's emerald dragonfly 
or to otherwise be essential to the conservation of the species . All 
units are within the geographical range of the species, all were 
occupied by the species at the time of listing (based on observations 
made within the last 23 years) or are currently occupied and are 
considered essential to the conservation of the species, and all are 
likely to be used by the Hine's emerald dragonfly. Federal agencies 
already consult with us on activities in areas currently occupied by 
the Hine's emerald dragonfly, or if the species may be affected by the 
action, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued 
existence of the Hine's emerald dragonfly.

Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be 
designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific 
data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national 
security impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area 
from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the 
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific 
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that 
determination, the Secretary is afforded broad discretion and the 
Congressional record is clear that in making a determination under the 
section the Secretary has discretion as to which factors and how much 
weight will be given to any factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2), in considering whether to exclude a 
particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits of 
including the area in the

[[Page 42460]]

designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the 
designation, and determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of inclusion. If an exclusion is contemplated, then we 
must determine whether excluding the area would result in the 
extinction of the species. In the following sections, we address a 
number of general issues that are relevant to the exclusions we are 
considering.

Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands

    Most federally listed species in the United States will not recover 
without the cooperation of non-Federal landowners. More than 60 percent 
of the United States is privately owned (National Wilderness Institute 
1995) and at least 80 percent of endangered or threatened species occur 
either partially or solely on private lands (Crouse et al. 2002). Stein 
et al. (1995) found that only about 12 percent of listed species were 
found almost exclusively on Federal lands (i.e., 90-100 percent of 
their known occurrences restricted to Federal lands) and that 50 
percent of federally listed species are not known to occur on Federal 
lands at all.
    Given the distribution of listed species with respect to land 
ownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the United 
States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of 
entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-Federal landowners 
(Wilcove and Chen 1998; Crouse et al. 2002; James 2002). Building 
partnerships and promoting voluntary cooperation of landowners is 
essential to understanding the status of species on non-Federal lands 
and is necessary to implement recovery actions such as reintroducing 
listed species, habitat restoration, and habitat protection.
    Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction from contributing 
to endangered species recovery. The Service promotes these private-
sector efforts through the Four Cs philosophy--conservation through 
communication, consultation, and cooperation. This philosophy is 
evident in Service programs such as Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), 
Safe Harbors, Candidate Conservation Agreements, Candidate Conservation 
Agreements with Assurances, and conservation challenge cost-share. Many 
private landowners, however, are wary of the possible consequences of 
encouraging endangered species to their property, and there is mounting 
evidence that some regulatory actions by the Federal Government, while 
well-intentioned and required by law, can under certain circumstances 
have unintended negative consequences for the conservation of species 
on private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996; Bean 2002; Conner and Mathews 
2002; James 2002; Koch 2002; Brook et al. 2003). Many landowners fear a 
decline in their property value due to real or perceived restrictions 
on land-use options where threatened or endangered species are found. 
Consequently, harboring endangered species is viewed by many landowners 
as a liability, resulting in anti-conservation incentives because 
maintaining habitats that harbor endangered species represents a risk 
to future economic opportunities (Main et al. 1999; Brook et al. 2003).
    The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the 
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems 
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering 
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out 
by Federal agencies under section 7 of the Act, can sometimes be 
counterproductive to its intended purpose. According to some 
researchers, the designation of critical habitat on private lands 
significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners will support and 
carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999; Bean 2002; Brook et 
al. 2003). The magnitude of this negative outcome is greatly amplified 
in situations where active management measures (e.g., reintroduction, 
fire management, control of invasive species) are necessary for species 
conservation (Bean 2002).
    The Service believes that the judicious use of excluding specific 
areas from critical habitat designations can contribute to species 
recovery and provide a superior level of conservation than critical 
habitat alone. For example, less than 17 percent of Hawaii is federally 
owned, but the state is home to more than 24 percent of all federally 
listed species, most of which will not recover without State and 
private landowner cooperation. On the island of Lanai, Castle and Cooke 
Resorts, LLC, which owns 99 percent of the island, entered into a 
conservation agreement with the Service. The conservation agreement 
provides conservation benefits to target species through management 
actions that remove threats (e.g., axis deer, mouflon sheep, rats, 
invasive nonnative plants) from the Lanaihale and East Lanai Regions. 
Specific management actions include fire control measures, nursery 
propagation of native flora (including the target species) and planting 
of such flora. These actions will significantly improve the habitat for 
all currently occurring species. Due to the low likelihood of a Federal 
nexus on the island we believe that the benefits of excluding the lands 
covered by the conservation agreement exceeded the benefits of 
including them. As stated in the final critical habitat rule for 
endangered plants on the Island of Lanai:

    On Lanai, simply preventing ``harmful activities'' will not slow 
the extinction of listed plant species. Where consistent with the 
discretion provided by the Act, the Service believes it is necessary 
to implement policies that provide positive incentives to private 
landowners to voluntarily conserve natural resources and that remove 
or reduce disincentives to conservation. While the impact of 
providing these incentives may be modest in economic terms, they can 
be significant in terms of conservation benefits that can stem from 
the cooperation of the landowner. The continued participation of 
Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, in the existing Lanai Forest and 
Watershed Partnership and other voluntary conservation agreements 
will greatly enhance the Service's ability to further the recovery 
of these endangered plants.

    Cooperative conservation is the foundation of the Service's actions 
to protect species, and the Service has many tools by which it can 
encourage and implement partnerships for conservation. These tools 
include conservation grants, funding for Partners for Fish and Wildlife 
Program, the Coastal Program, and cooperative-conservation challenge 
cost-share grants. Our Private Stewardship Grant Program and Landowner 
Incentive Program provide assistance to private landowners in their 
voluntary efforts to protect threatened, imperiled, and endangered 
species, including the development and implementation of HCPs.
    Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners (e.g., HCPs, 
contractual conservation agreements, easements, and stakeholder-
negotiated State regulations) enhance species conservation by extending 
species protections beyond those available through section 7 
consultations. In the past decade we have encouraged non-Federal 
landowners to enter into conservation agreements, based on a view that 
we can achieve greater species conservation on non-Federal land through 
such partnerships than we can through other methods (61 FR 63854; 
December 2, 1996).

General Principles of Section 7 Consultations Used in the Section 
4(b)(2) Balancing Process

    The most direct, and potentially largest, regulatory benefit of 
critical

[[Page 42461]]

habitat is that federally authorized, funded, or carried out activities 
require consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act to ensure that 
they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
There are two limitations to this regulatory effect. First, it only 
applies where there is a Federal nexus--if there is no Federal nexus, 
designation itself does not restrict actions that destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat. Second, it only limits destruction or adverse 
modification. By its nature, the prohibition on adverse modification is 
designed to ensure maintenance of the value of those areas that contain 
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of 
the species or unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation 
of the species. Critical habitat designation alone, however, does not 
require specific steps toward recovery.
    Once consultation under section 7 of the Act is triggered, the 
process may conclude informally when the Service concurs in writing 
that the proposed Federal action is not likely to adversely affect the 
listed species or its critical habitat. However, if the Service 
determines through informal consultation that adverse impacts are 
likely to occur, then formal consultation would be initiated. Formal 
consultation concludes with a biological opinion issued by the Service 
on whether the proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a listed species or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat, with separate analyses being 
made under both the jeopardy and the adverse modification standards. 
For critical habitat, a biological opinion that concludes in a 
determination of no destruction or adverse modification may contain 
discretionary conservation recommendations to minimize adverse effects 
to primary constituent elements, but it would not contain any mandatory 
reasonable and prudent measures or terms and conditions. Mandatory 
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed Federal action 
would only be issued when the biological opinion results in a jeopardy 
or adverse modification conclusion.
    We also note that for 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit Court's 
decision in Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) (hereinafter Gifford Pinchot), 
the Service equated the jeopardy standard with the standard for 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The Court 
ruled that the Service could no longer equate the two standards and 
that adverse modification evaluations require consideration of impacts 
on the recovery of species. Thus, under the Gifford Pinchot decision, 
critical habitat designations may provide greater benefits to the 
recovery of a species. However, we believe the conservation achieved 
through implementing HCPs or other habitat management plans is 
typically greater than would be achieved through multiple site-by-site, 
project-by-project, section 7 consultations involving consideration of 
critical habitat. Management plans commit resources to implement long-
term management and protection to particular habitat for at least one 
and possibly other listed or sensitive species. Section 7 consultations 
only commit Federal agencies to prevent adverse modification to 
critical habitat caused by the particular project, and they are not 
committed to provide conservation or long-term benefits to areas not 
affected by the proposed project. Thus, any HCP or management plan 
which considers enhancement or recovery as the management standard will 
always provide as much or more benefit than a consultation for critical 
habitat designation conducted under the standards required by the Ninth 
Circuit Court in the Gifford Pinchot decision.
    The information provided in this section applies to all the 
discussions below that discuss the benefits of inclusion and exclusion 
of critical habitat in that it provides the framework for the 
consultation process.

Educational Benefits of Critical Habitat

    A benefit of including lands in critical habitat is that the 
designation of critical habitat serves to educate landowners, State and 
local governments, and the public regarding the potential conservation 
value of an area. This helps focus and promote conservation efforts by 
other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value 
for the Hine's emerald dragonfly. In general the educational benefit of 
a critical habitat designation always exists, although in some cases it 
may be redundant with other educational effects. For example, HCPs have 
significant public input and may largely duplicate the educational 
benefit of a critical habitat designation. This benefit is closely 
related to a second, more indirect benefit: That designation of 
critical habitat would inform State agencies and local governments 
about areas that could be conserved under State laws or local 
ordinances.
    The information provided in this section applies to all the 
discussions below that discuss the benefits of inclusion and exclusion 
of critical habitat.
    We are considering the exclusion of Michigan Units 1 and 2 
(Hiawatha National Forest lands), and all Missouri units (1-26) from 
the final designation of critical habitat for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly because we believe that the benefits of excluding these 
specific areas from the designation outweigh the inclusion of the 
specific areas. We believe that the exclusion of these areas from the 
final designation of critical habitat will not result in the extinction 
of the Hine's emerald dragonfly. We specifically solicit comment, 
however, on the inclusion or exclusion of such areas in the final 
designation. We will also review other relevant information concerning 
units being proposed in this rule as we receive it to determine whether 
any other units, or portions thereof, should be excluded from the final 
designation.

Michigan Units

    Michigan Unit 1 and Michigan Unit 2 are on Hiawatha National Forest 
lands. The Hiawatha National Forest (Hiawatha) contains 895,313 ac 
(362,320 ha) of land in the eastern portion of the Upper Peninsula of 
Michigan. Hiawatha is broken into an east and west unit and contains a 
diversity of upland and wetland community types. In 2006, Hiawatha 
revised its Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture 2006). We completed a section 7 consultation 
for the Hiawatha Forest Plan that addresses federally listed resources, 
including the Hine's emerald dragonfly. The Hiawatha Forest Plan guides 
Hiawatha's activities over the next 15 years. We determined in our 
biological opinion resulting from that section 7 consultation that the 
implementation of the Plan would not jeopardize the continued existence 
of the Hine's emerald dragonfly.
    The Hiawatha Forest Plan contains management direction that would 
serve to protect and conserve Hine's emerald dragonfly breeding and 
foraging habitats. Several standards, guidelines, and objectives in the 
Hiawatha Forest Plan are pertinent to Hine's emerald dragonfly. Two key 
standards provide strong assurances that Hine's emerald dragonflies 
will be protected and managed on the Hiawatha National Forest. The 
standards are (1) all Hine's emerald dragonfly breeding sites will be 
protected, and (2) signed recovery plans for federally threatened and 
endangered species will be implemented (United States Department of 
Agriculture 2006, p. 26). Standards as listed in the Hiawatha Forest 
Plan are required courses of action. An amendment of the Hiawatha 
Forest Plan is required to change a standard and would trigger

[[Page 42462]]

consultation with us under section 7 of the Act.
    In addition to Hiawatha's Forest Plan, several voluntary activities 
show Hiawatha's commitment to Hine's emerald dragonfly and other listed 
species conservation. Over the last 5 years the Hiawatha has completed 
several dragonfly surveys that have led to the identification of at 
least two new Hine's emerald dragonfly breeding areas. In 2005, the 
Hiawatha hosted a Hine's emerald dragonfly workshop that provided 
critical education and outreach to Federal, State, and private field 
staff. They are also actively managing or protecting lands in an effort 
to help in the recovery of several other federally listed species 
including the piping plover and Kirtland's warbler.
    We believe that the standards and guidelines outlined in the 
Hiawatha Forest Plan and the Forest's commitment to protect and recover 
federally listed species through section 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2), 
adequately address identified threats to the Hine's emerald dragonfly 
and its habitat. Thus the relative benefits of inclusion of these lands 
within designated critical habitat are diminished.

(1) Benefits of Inclusion

    The primary effect of designating any particular area as critical 
habitat is the requirement for Federal agencies to consult with us 
pursuant to section 7 of the Act to ensure actions they carry out, 
authorize, or fund do not destroy or adversely modify designated 
critical habitat. Absent critical habitat designation, Federal agencies 
remain obligated under section 7 to consult with us on actions that may 
affect a federally listed species to ensure such actions do not 
jeopardize the species' continued existence. The Forest Service 
routinely consults with us for activities on the Hiawatha National 
Forest that may affect federally listed species to ensure that the 
continued existence of such species is not jeopardized.
    Designation of critical habitat may also provide educational 
benefits by informing land managers of areas essential to the 
conservation of the Hine's emerald dragonfly. In the case of Hiawatha 
National Forest, there is no appreciable educational benefit because 
the Forest managers have already demonstrated their knowledge and 
understanding of essential habitat for the species through their active 
recovery efforts, consultation, and workshops. Furthermore, the 
benefits of including the Hiawatha National Forest in designated 
critical habitat are minimal because the Forest managers are currently 
implementing conservation actions for the Hine's emerald dragonfly that 
equal or exceed those that would be realized if critical habitat were 
designated.

(2) Benefits of Exclusion

    Designation of critical habitat on the Hiawatha National Forest 
would trigger a requirement for the U.S. Forest Service to consult on 
activities that may affect designated critical habitat. Designation of 
critical habitat would also require reinitiating consultation on 
ongoing activities where a consultation may have already been completed 
that assessed the effects to a federally listed species. The 
requirement to undertake additional consultations or revisit already 
completed consultations specifically to address the effects of 
activities on designated critical habitat could delay or impair the 
U.S. Forest Service's planned activities. If the area is not excluded, 
it might adversely impact the agency's willingness to devote limited 
resources to the voluntary conservation measures noted above, which 
exceed those that could be required from a critical habitat 
designation.

(3) Benefits of Proposed Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion

    We anticipate that our final decision will make the following 
determination, unless information submitted in response to the proposal 
causes us to reach a different conclusion.
    We find that the benefits of designating critical habitat for the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly on Hiawatha National Forest are small in 
comparison to the benefits of excluding these specific areas from the 
final designation. Exclusion would enhance the partnership efforts with 
the Forest Service focused on conservation of the species on the 
Hiawatha National Forest, and potentially reduce some of the 
administrative costs during consultation pursuant to section 7 of the 
Act.

(4) The Proposed Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species

    We anticipate that our final decision will make the following 
determination, unless information submitted in response to the proposal 
causes us to reach a different conclusion.
    We believe that the proposed exclusion of Michigan Units 1 and 2 
from critical habitat would not result in the extinction of Hine's 
emerald dragonfly because current conservation efforts under the Land 
and Resource Management Plan for the Hiawatha National Forest 
adequately protect essential Hine's emerald dragonfly habitat and go 
beyond this to provide appropriate management to maintain and enhance 
the primary constituent elements for the Hine's emerald dragonfly. 
Designation of critical habitat would not require the benefits of the 
current conservation efforts, but only that habitat not be destroyed or 
adversely modified. As such, there is no reason to believe that this 
proposed exclusion would result in extinction of the species.

Missouri Units

Federal Land

    Missouri Units 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 (in part), 11 (in part), 21, 23, 
24, 25, and 26 are on U.S. Forest Service lands (Mark Twain National 
Forest). The Mark Twain National Forest (Mark Twain) contains 
approximately 1.5 million acres (607,028 hectares) of land in southern 
and central Missouri. In 2005, Mark Twain revised their Land and 
Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan; U.S. Department of Agriculture 
2005, Chapter 2, pp. 1-14). That Plan, through implementation of the 
standards and guides established for the Hine's emerald dragonfly on 
the Mark Twain, addresses threats to the species on U.S. Forest Service 
lands in Missouri. We completed a section 7 consultation for the Mark 
Twain Forest Plan that addresses federally listed resources, including 
the Hine's emerald dragonfly. We determined in our biological opinion 
resulting from that section 7 consultation that the implementation of 
the Plan would not jeopardize the continued existence of the Hine's 
emerald dragonfly.
    The 2005 Forest Plan contains specific direction for management of 
fen habitat and for fens with known or suspected populations of Hine's 
emerald dragonflies. The Plan also contains standards and guidelines to 
protect soil productivity and water quality while implementing all 
management actions. These standards and guidelines are required courses 
of action; a Forest Plan Amendment is required to change a standard. 
Standards and Guidelines may be modified only if site-specific 
conditions warrant the modification, and rationale for the modification 
is given in a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document.
    The fen standards and guidelines prohibit mechanical disturbance, 
and establish buffer zones around fen edges. Certain management 
activities are prohibited or modified within the buffer zones. The fen 
standards and guidelines require new road design to maintain

[[Page 42463]]

hydrologic functioning of fens and encourage relocation of roads or 
restoration of hydrology where existing roads interfere with natural 
water flow. The fen standards and guidelines encourage management of 
fire-dependent wetland communities with a fire regime similar to that 
with which the communities evolved. (U.S. Department of Agriculture 
2005, Chapter 2, pp. 13-14).
    The specific standards and guidelines (U.S. Department of 
Agriculture 2005, Chapter 2, p. 8) for the Hine's emerald dragonfly and 
its habitat include: (1) Control nonnative invasive and/or undesirable 
plant species in fen habitats through the most effective means possible 
while protecting water quality (Standard); (2) Restore local hydrology 
by eliminating old drainage ditches or other water diversionary 
structures when possible if such activities would not result in a loss 
of habitat (Guideline); (3) Fens that harbor known populations of 
Hine's emerald dragonfly should be prescribe burned to control invasion 
of woody species or as part of larger landscape restoration and 
enhancement projects (Guideline); (4) Prescribed burns on fens that 
harbor known or suspected populations of Hine's emerald dragonfly must 
be scheduled to occur from November through April (Standard); (5) 
Prohibit vehicle and heavy equipment use in fens, unless needed to 
improve Hine's emerald dragonfly habitat (Standard); and (6) Control 
unauthorized vehicle access to fens (Standard).
    Implementing the Forest Plan's standards and guidelines will 
maintain the natural hydrology, restore natural fire regimes, and 
control undesirable plant species to maintain the PCEs identified for 
the Hine's emerald dragonfly on the Mark Twain National Forest. 
Additionally, prohibiting mechanical disturbance in fens will protect 
the integrity of crayfish burrows and maintain important larval 
habitat.
    In addition to the 2005 Forest Plan, the Mark Twain National Forest 
completed a ``Threats Assessment of Fens Containing Hines' Emerald 
Dragonfly'' in September 2005. This assessment describes threats to 
individual fens and provides recommendations to eliminate or minimize 
those threats. Primary recommendations are to increase the use of 
prescribed fire at many of the fens, and construct fences to keep all 
terrain vehicles and feral hogs out of a few of the locations. 
Potential disturbance due to equestrian use will be minimized through 
coordination with the appropriate U.S. Forest Service District Office; 
signs and fencing will be used, if necessary, to alleviate this threat. 
Effective control measures will minimize threats from feral hogs and 
beavers. In 2005, beavers were effectively removed from Missouri Unit 5 
where flood water associated with a beaver dam threatened the integrity 
of the adjacent fen.
    We believe that the standards and guidelines outlined in the Mark 
Twain's National Forest Land Resource Management Plan, guidelines 
identified in the U.S. Forest Service's 2005 Threats Assessment, and 
the agency's commitment to manage and maintain important fen habitat 
through section 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) consultation, adequately address 
identified threats to the Hine's emerald dragonfly and its habitat. 
Thus the relative benefits of inclusion of these lands within 
designated critical habitat are diminished and limited.

State Land

    We are considering the exclusion of all State-owned land in 
Missouri under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We will review State 
management plans in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan to determine 
their adequacy in protecting and managing Hine's emerald dragonfly 
habitat as they are made available.
    Missouri Units 14, 16, 17, 18, and 22 are under MDC ownership. 
Threats identified on land owned and managed by the MDC are feral hogs, 
habitat fragmentation, road construction and maintenance, all terrain 
vehicles, beaver dams, and management conflicts. The MDC has developed 
management plans for the five conservation areas where the Hine's 
emerald dragonfly has been documented (Missouri Natural Areas Committee 
2001, 2006; Missouri Department of Conservation 2006a, 2006b, 2006c). 
These plans provide for long-term management and maintenance of fen 
habitat essential for larval development and adjacent habitat that 
provides for foraging and resting needs for the species. Areas of 
management concern include the fen proper, adjacent open areas for 
foraging, adjacent shrubs, and a 328 ft (100 m) forest edge buffer to 
provide habitat for resting and predator avoidance. Based on initial 
groundwater recharge delineation studies by Aley and Aley (2004, p. 
22), the 328 ft (100 m) buffer will also facilitate the maintenance of 
the hydrology associated with each unit. Actions outlined in area 
management plans will address threats to habitat by preventing the 
encroachment of invasive woody plants (ecological succession), and by 
maintaining open conditions of the fen and surrounding areas with 
prescribed fire and stand improvement through various timber management 
practices.
    The potential impact of feral hogs on fens and any possible 
conflicts in management on MDC-owned lands will be accomplished through 
various control methods that will be coordinated among area managers, 
the MDC's Private Land Services (PLS) Division and Natural History 
biologists, MDC's Recovery Coordinator for the species, the Service, 
the Missouri Hine's Emerald Dragonfly Workgroup, and the Federal Hine's 
Emerald Dragonfly Recovery Team (Recovery Team). Effective control 
measures will minimize threats from feral hogs and beavers. We believe 
that management guidelines outlined in the conservation area plans and 
natural area plans and the close coordination among the various 
agencies mentioned above (plus other identified species experts as 
needed), will adequately address identified threats to Hine's emerald 
dragonfly and its habitat on MDC lands. Thus the relative benefits of 
inclusion of these lands within designated critical habitat are 
diminished and limited.

Private Land

    We are considering the exclsuion of all private land in Missouri 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We will continue to review management 
plans, partnerships, and conservation agreements in Illinois, 
Wisconsin, and Michigan to determine their adequacy in protecting and 
managing Hine's emerald dragonfly habitat as they are made available.
    Missouri Units 2 (in part), 4, 6, 8 (in part), 9, 10, 11 (in part), 
12, 13, 15, 19, and 20 are under private ownership. Threats identified 
on private land are feral hogs, habitat fragmentation, road 
construction and maintenance, ecological succession, all terrain 
vehicles, beaver dams, utility maintenance, application of herbicides, 
and change in ownership. All threats listed above for private property 
in Missouri will be addressed through close coordination among 
personnel with the MDC's PLS Division or Regional Natural History 
biologists and private landowners. Additionally, MDC personnel work 
closely and proactively with the National Resources Conservation 
Service (NRCS) and the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 
to initiate management and maintenance actions on fens occupied by 
Hine's emerald dragonfly that will benefit the species and alleviate 
potential threats.
    Effective control measures will be incorporated to minimize threats 
from feral hogs and beavers by providing

[[Page 42464]]

recommendations to private landowners through coordination with MDC's 
PLS Division or Regional Natural History biologists, the NRCS, and the 
Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. The Nature 
Conservancy manages Grasshopper Hollow (in Unit 11) in accordance with 
the Grasshopper Hollow Management Plan (The Nature Conservancy 2006, p. 
1-4) to maintain fen habitat. Utility maintenance (Units 8 and 14) and 
herbicide application to maintain power line rights-of-way (Unit 8) 
were identified as potential threats at two units. Those potential 
threats will be minimized through close coordination among the MDC's 
PLS Division, MDC's Hine's emerald dragonfly recovery coordinator, and 
the appropriate utility maintenance company and its contractors. The 
potential change in ownership on private land in Missouri from 
cooperative landowners to ones who may not want to manage their land to 
benefit the species is a concern on some private lands. This threat 
will be addressed by continued close coordination between new 
landowners and MDC's PLS Division or their Hine's emerald dragonfly 
recovery coordinator. The landowner's access to multiple landowner 
incentive programs administered through the MDC, NRCS, and the 
Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program will continue to be a 
main focus of outreach to any potential new private property owner. 
Unit 14 is under private ownership but is a designated State Natural 
Area (Missouri Natural Areas Committee 2006). A plan developed for the 
area ensures that the integrity of the fen is maintained (Missouri 
Natural Areas Committee 2006).
    Because of the close coordination and excellent working partnership 
of all parties listed above, we believe that threats to Hine's emerald 
dragonfly and its habitat on private property in Missouri will be 
minimized. Thus, the relative benefits of inclusion of these lands 
within designated critical habitat are diminished and limited.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
    The primary effect of designating any particular area as critical 
habitat is the requirement for Federal agencies to consult with us 
under section 7 of the Act to ensure actions they carry out, authorize, 
or fund do not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. 
Absent critical habitat designation, Federal agencies remain obligated 
under section 7 to consult with us on actions that may affect a 
federally listed species to ensure such actions do not jeopardize the 
species' continued existence. The Forest Service routinely consults 
with us on activities on the Mark Twain National Forest that may affect 
federally listed species to ensure that the continued existence of such 
species is not jeopardized.
    Designation of critical habitat may also provide educational 
benefits by informing land managers of areas essential to the 
conservation of the Hine's emerald dragonfly. In the case of Missouri, 
there is no appreciable educational benefit because the Mark Twain 
National Forest, MDC, and private conservation groups have already 
demonstrated their knowledge and understanding of essential habitat for 
the species through active recovery efforts and consultation. The 
Missouri public, particularly landowners with Hine's emerald dragonfly 
habitat on their lands, is also well informed about the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly.
    Furthermore, the benefits of including the Mark Twain National 
Forest, State-managed lands, and several of the privately owned areas 
in Missouri in designated critical habitat are minimal because the land 
managers/landowners are currently implementing conservation actions for 
the Hine's emerald dragonfly and its habitat that are beyond those that 
would be realized if critical habitat were designated.
(2) Benefits of Proposed Exclusion
    Designation of critical habitat on the Mark Twain National Forest 
would trigger a requirement for the U.S. Forest Service to consult on 
activities that may affect designated critical habitat. Designation of 
critical habitat would also require reinitiating consultation on 
ongoing activities where a consultation may have already been completed 
that assessed the effects to a federally listed species. The 
requirement to undertake additional consultations or revisit already 
completed consultations specifically to address the effects of 
activities on designated critical habitat could delay or impair the 
U.S. Forest Service's planned activities. If the area is not excluded, 
it might adversely impact the agency's willingness to devote limited 
resources to voluntary conservation measures exceeding those that could 
be required from a critical habitat designation.
    Excluding State-owned lands in Missouri from the critical habitat 
designation will help to strengthen the already robust working 
relationship between the Service and MDC. The State has a strong 
history of conserving the Hine's emerald dragonfly and other federally 
listed species. The Service's willingness to work closely with MDC on 
innovative ways to manage federally listed species will continue to 
reinforce those conservation efforts.
    The designation of critical habitat on private lands in Missouri 
would harm ongoing or future partnerships that have been or may be 
developed on those lands. Many private landowners in Missouri view 
critical habitat negatively and believe that such designation will 
impact their ability to manage their land. This is despite many 
attempts at public outreach and education to the contrary. Based on 
past experiences in Missouri, it is likely that the designation of 
critical habitat will hamper conservation actions that have been 
initiated for Hine's emerald dragonfly on private land through various 
landowner incentive programs. The MDC has had a longstanding history of 
working with private landowners in Missouri, especially regarding 
federally listed species. Of the 26 units being considered for 
exclusion in the State, 12 (46 percent) are on private land. The MDC 
has worked closely with the NRCS to implement various landowner 
incentive programs that are available through the Farm Bill.
    To further facilitate the implementation of these and other 
landowner incentive programs on the ground, the MDC created the PLS 
Division and established 49 positions throughout the State. The PLS 
Division works with multiple landowners within the range of the Hine's 
emerald dragonfly in Missouri to undertake various conservation actions 
to maintain and/or enhance fen habitat. The MDC has also worked closely 
with the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to implement 
various management actions on private lands. The designation of 
critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly on private land in 
Missouri would significantly hinder the ability to implement various 
landowner incentive programs with multiple landowners and would negate 
conservation benefits already initiated for the species.
    The Hine's emerald dragonfly has become such a contentious issue in 
Missouri that the species is often viewed negatively by private 
landowners. Multiple private landowners have been contacted by MDC 
personnel to obtain permission to survey the species on their property. 
In many cases, access has been denied because of negative perceptions 
associated with the presence of federally listed species on private 
land and the perception that all fens currently occupied by the Hine's 
emerald dragonfly will be designated as critical habitat.

[[Page 42465]]

    Although access to survey some private land has been denied, 
several landowners have conducted various management actions to benefit 
the Hine's emerald dragonfly, especially in Reynolds County where the 
largest amount of privately owned land with the species occurs. The 
designation of critical habitat on such sites might be expected to 
dissolve developing partnerships and prevent the initiation of 
conservation actions in the future.
    Based on potential habitat identified by examining the Service's 
National Wetland Inventory maps, there are other areas with suitable 
Hine's emerald dragonfly habitat where the species may be found. Many 
of these sites occur on private land. Pending further research on 
currently occupied sites, especially related to population dynamics and 
the role Missouri populations may play in achieving the recovery 
objectives outlined in the Service's Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 2001), the likely discovery of additional sites could 
provide significant contributions towards the range-wide recovery of 
the species. Thus, continued or additional denial of access to private 
property could hamper the recovery of the species.
(3) Benefits of Proposed Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
    We anticipate that our final decision will make the following 
determination, unless information submitted in response to the proposal 
causes us to reach a different conclusion.
    We find that the benefits of designating critical habitat for the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly in Missouri are small in comparison to the 
benefits of the exclusions being considered. Exclusion would enhance 
the partnership efforts with the Forest Service and the MDC focused on 
conservation of the species in the State, and secure conservation 
benefits for the species beyond those that could be required under a 
critical habitat designation. Excluding these areas also would reduce 
some of the administrative costs during consultation under section 7 of 
the Act.
    The benefits of designating critical habitat on private lands in 
Missouri are minor compared to the much greater benefits derived from 
exclusion, including the maintenance of existing, established 
partnerships and encouragement of additional conservation partnerships 
in the future. It is our strong belief that benefits gained through 
outreach efforts associated with critical habitat and additional 
section 7 requirements (in the limited situations where there is a 
Federal nexus), would be negated by the loss of current and future 
conservation partnerships, especially given that access to private 
property and the possible discovery of additional sites in Missouri 
could help facilitate recovery of the species.
(4) The Proposed Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
    We anticipate that our final decision will make the following 
determination, unless information submitted in response to the proposal 
causes us to reach a different conclusion.
    We believe that the exclusion from critical habitat under 
consideration (Missouri Units 1 through 26) would not result in the 
extinction of Hine's emerald dragonfly because current conservation 
efforts under the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Mark Twain 
National Forest, Conservation and Natural Area Plans by the Missouri 
Department of Conservation, and the TNC's Management Plan for 
Grasshopper Hollow adequately protect essential Hine's emerald 
dragonfly habitat and provide appropriate management to maintain and 
enhance the primary constituent elements for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly. In addition, conservation partnerships on non-Federal lands 
are important conservation tools for this species in Missouri that 
could be negatively affected by the designation of critical habitat. As 
such, there is no reason to believe that this proposed exclusion would 
result in extinction of the species.
    The Service is conducting an economic analysis of the impacts of 
the proposed critical habitat designation and related factors, which 
will be available for public review and comment. Based on public 
comment on that document, the proposed designation itself, and the 
information in the final economic analysis, additional (or fewer) areas 
beyond those identified in this proposed rule may be excluded from 
critical habitat by the Secretary under the provisions of section 
4(b)(2) of the Act. This is provided for in the Act, and in our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Economic Analysis

    An analysis of the potential economic impacts of proposing critical 
habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly is being prepared. We will 
announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as soon as it 
is completed, at which time we will seek public review and comment. At 
that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be available for 
downloading from the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered, 
or by contacting the Chicago, Illinois Ecological Services Field Office 
directly (see ADDRESSES section).

Peer Review

    In accordance with the December 16, 2004, Office of Management and 
Budget's ``Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,'' we 
will obtain comments from at least three independent scientific 
reviewers regarding the scientific data and interpretations contained 
in this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that our 
critical habitat decision is based on scientifically sound data, 
assumptions, and analyses. We have posted our proposed peer review plan 
on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Science/. Public comments 
on our peer review were obtained through May 26, 2006, after which we 
finalized our peer review plan and selected peer reviewers. We will 
provide those reviewers with copies of this proposal as well as the 
data used in the proposal. Peer reviewer comments that are received 
during the public comment period will be considered as we make our 
final decision on this proposal, and substantive peer reviewer comments 
will be specifically discussed in the final rule.
    We will consider all comments and information received during the 
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final 
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for public hearings on this proposed rule. We have 
scheduled a public hearing on this proposed rule on the date and at the 
address as specified above in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections. Public 
hearings are designed to gather relevant information that the public 
may have that we should consider in our rulemaking. Before the hearing, 
we will hold an informational meeting to present information about the 
proposed action. During the hearing, we invite the public to submit 
information and comments. Interested persons may also submit 
information and comments in writing during the open public comment 
period. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement for the record is 
encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement and present it 
to us at the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the 
time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Oral and

[[Page 42466]]

written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits on 
the length of written comments submitted to us. Additional details on 
the hearing, including a map, will be provided on our Web site at 
(http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered) and are available from the 
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and 
participate in the public hearing should contact the Chicago, Illinois 
Ecological Services Field Office at 847-381-2253 as soon as possible. 
In order to allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no 
later than one week before the hearing date.

Clarity of the Rule

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and 
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to 
make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to 
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the 
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain 
technical jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format 
of the proposed rule (grouping and order of the sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing, and so forth) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is 
the description of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? (5) What 
else could we do to make this proposed rule easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments on how we could make this proposed rule 
easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of 
the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You 
may e-mail your comments to this address: [email protected].

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues, 
but it is not anticipated to have an annual effect on the economy of 
$100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to 
the tight timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed this rule. We 
are preparing a draft economic analysis of this proposed action, which 
will be available for public comment, to determine the economic 
consequences of designating the specific area as critical habitat. This 
economic analysis also will be used to determine compliance with 
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and Executive Order 12630.
    Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies 
promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of 
Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to 
Circular A-4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory 
action is appropriate, the agency will need to consider alternative 
regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical habitat is a 
statutory requirement pursuant to the Act, we must then evaluate 
alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a 
designation of critical habitat.
    In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider 
economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant 
impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion 
allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from 
the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical 
habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of 
the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion 
or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a 
designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.
    Within these areas, the types of Federal actions or authorized 
activities that we have identified as potential concerns are listed 
above in the section on Section 7 Consultation. The availability of the 
draft economic analysis will be announced in the Federal Register and 
in local newspapers so that it is available for public review and 
comments. Once available, the draft economic analysis can be obtained 
from our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered or by 
contacting the Chicago, Illinois Ecological Services Field Office 
directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to 
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    At this time, the Service lacks the available economic information 
necessary to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA 
finding. Therefore, the RFA finding is deferred until completion of the 
draft economic analysis prepared pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
and Executive Order 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide 
the required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the 
draft economic analysis, the Service will publish a notice of 
availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation 
and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation as 
well. The Service will include with the notice of availability, as 
appropriate, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis or a 
certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities accompanied by the factual 
basis for that determination. The Service has concluded that deferring 
the RFA finding until completion of the draft economic analysis is 
necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of the RFA. Deferring 
the RFA finding in this manner will ensure that the Service makes a 
sufficiently informed determination based on adequate economic 
information and provides the necessary opportunity for public comment.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O. 
13211) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, 
distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to 
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. 
This proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866 in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues.
    Utility easements with electrical transmission and distribution 
lines and a rail line used for transporting coal to a power plant occur 
in Illinois Units 1

[[Page 42467]]

through 5 and 7. The entities who own and maintain the electrical lines 
and rail lines are working on an agreement to manage and protect the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly. At this time it is unknown what effect 
designation of critical habitat in these locations would have on energy 
supply, distribution, or use. An analysis of the economic impacts of 
proposing critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly is being 
prepared. While we do not expect the designation of critical habitat 
for the Hine's emerald dragonfly to significantly affect energy 
supplies, distribution, or use, we will further examine this as we 
conduct our analysis of potential economic effects. We will announce 
the availability of the draft economic analysis as soon as it is 
completed and we will seek public review and comment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal 
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work 
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; 
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; 
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' 
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the 
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above on to State governments.
    (b) Due to current public knowledge of the species' protection, the 
prohibition against take of the species both within and outside of the 
designated areas, and the fact that critical habitat provides no 
incremental restrictions, we do not anticipate that this rule will 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As such, Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required. We will, however, further 
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis and revise this 
assessment if appropriate.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
proposing critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly. Critical 
habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do not 
require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of 
habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to 
permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go 
forward. In conclusion, the designation of critical habitat for the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly does not pose significant takings 
implications.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with DOI and Department of Commerce policy, we 
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this 
proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource 
agencies in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri and Wisconsin. The designation 
of critical habitat in areas currently occupied by the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly imposes no additional restrictions to those currently in 
place and, therefore, has little incremental impact on State and local 
governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit 
to these governments in that the areas that contain the features 
essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, 
and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the 
conservation of the species are specifically identified. While making 
this definition and identification does not alter where and what 
federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these local 
governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-
case section 7 consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in 
accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. This 
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the 
primary constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the Hine's emerald 
dragonfly.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule 
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or 
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency 
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, 
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need 
to

[[Page 42468]]

prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection 
with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this 
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit 
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. 
denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that 
there are no tribal lands occupied at the time of listing that contain 
the features essential for the conservation and no tribal lands that 
are unoccupied areas that are essential for the conservation of the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly. Therefore, designation of critical habitat 
for the Hine's emerald dragonfly has not been proposed on Tribal lands.

Revision of ``Historic Range'' in the Entry for ``Dragonfly, Hine's 
Emerald'' in Sec.  17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife

    The proposed regulation includes revision of the ``Historic Range'' 
of Hine's emerald dragonfly in Sec.  17.11(h), the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife. In the current table, 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. Thus, 
the ``Historic Range'' entry in the table is proposed to be revised to 
read U.S.A. (AL, IL, IN, MI, MO, OH, and WI).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Chicago, Illinois 
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author(s)

    The primary author of this package is the Chicago, Illinois 
Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 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. In Sec.  17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife, revise the entry for ``Dragonfly, Hine's emerald'' under 
``INSECTS'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Species                                                 Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------------                      population where                                 Critical
                                                         Historic range       endangered or        Status     When listed    habitat      Special rules
           Common name              Scientific name                            threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
INSECTS
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Dragonfly, Hine's emerald.......  Somatochlora         U.S.A. (AL, IL,     NA................  E............          573     17.95(i)  NA.
                                   hineana.             IN, MI, MO, OH,
                                                        and WI).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Sec.  17.95(i), add an entry for ``Hine's emerald dragonfly 
(Somatochlora hineana),'' in the same alphabetical order in which this 
species appears in the table at 50 CFR 17.11(h), to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (i) Insects.
* * * * *
    Hine's emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Cook, DuPage and Will 
Counties, Illinois; Alpena, Mackinac, and Presque Isle Counties, 
Michigan; Dent, Iron, Morgan, Phelps, Reynolds, Ripley, Shannon, 
Washington, and Wayne Counties, Missouri; and Door and Ozaukee 
Counties, Wisconsin, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the 
Hine's emerald dragonfly are:
    (i) 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.
    (ii) 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

[[Page 42469]]

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).
    (3) Critical habitat does not include human-made structures 
existing on the effective date of this rule and 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.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created on a base of USGS 7.5' quadrangles, and critical habitat units 
were then mapped using Geographical Information Systems, Universal 
Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. Critical habitat units are 
described using the public land survey system (township (T), range (R) 
and section (Sec.)).
    (5) Note: Index map of critical habitat units (Index map) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 42470]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.000


[[Page 42471]]


    (6) Illinois Units 1 through 7, Cook, DuPage, and Will Counties, 
Illinois.
    (i) Illinois Unit 1: Will County. Located in T36N, R10E, Sec. 22, 
Sec. 27, SE\1/4\ NE\1/4\ Sec. 28, NE\1/4\ SE\1/4\ Sec. 28, NW\1/4\ 
NW\1/4\ Sec. 34 of the Joliet 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Land 
south of Illinois State Route 7, east of Illinois State Route 53, and 
west of the Des Plaines River.
    (ii) Illinois Unit 2: Will County. Located in T36N, R10E, Sec. 3, 
NW\1/4\ E\1/2\ Sec. 10, E\1/2\ Sec. 15 of the Romeoville and Joliet 
7.5' USGS topographic quadrangles. Land east of Illinois State Route 
53, and west of the Des Plaines River.
    (iii) Illinois Unit 3: Will County. Located in T37N, R10E, SW\1/4\ 
Sec. 26, NW\1/4\ SE\1/4\ Sec. 26, E\1/2\ Sec. 34, W\1/2\ NW\1/4\ Sec. 
35 of the Romeoville 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Land west and 
north of the Des Plaines River and north of East Romeoville Road.
    (iv) Illinois Unit 4: Will and Cook Counties. Located in T37N, 
R10E, S\1/2\ NE\1/4\ Sec. 24, W\1/2\ SW\1/4\ Sec. 24, SE\1/4\ Sec. 24 
and T37N, R11E, SW\1/4\ SW\1/4\ Sec. 17, Sec. 19, NW\1/4\ Sec. 20 of 
the Romeoville 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Land to the south of 
Bluff Road, west of Lemont Road, and north of the Des Plaines River.
    (v) Illinois Unit 5: DuPage County. Located in T37N, R11E, NW\1/4\ 
Sec. 15, NW\1/4\ SW\1/4\ Sec. 15, S\1/2\ NE\1/4\ Sec. 16, SW\1/4\ Sec. 
16, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\ Sec. 16, SE\1/4\ Sec. 17 of the Sag Bridge 7.5' USGS 
topographic quadrangle. Land to the north of the Des Plaines River.
    (vi) Illinois Unit 6: Cook County. Located in T37N, R12E, S\1/2\ 
Sec. 16, S\1/2\ NE\1/4\ Sec. 17, N\1/2\ SE\1/4\ Sec. 17, N\1/2\ Sec. 21 
of the Sag Bridge and Palos Park 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangles. 
Land to the north of the Calumet Sag Channel, south of 107th Street, 
and east of U.S. Route 45.
    (vii) Illinois Unit 7: Will County. Located in T36N, R10E, W\1/2\ 
Sec. 1, Sec. 2, N\1/2\ Sec. 11 of the Romeoville and Joliet 7.5' USGS 
topographic quadrangles. Land east of the Illinois and Michigan Canal.
    (viii) Note: Map of Illinois proposed critical habitat Units 1 
through 7 (Illinois Map 1) follows:

[[Page 42472]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.001


[[Page 42473]]


    (7) Michigan Units 1 and 2, Mackinac County, Michigan.
    (i) Michigan Unit 1: Mackinac County. The unit is located 
approximately 2 miles north of the village of St. Ignace. The unit 
contains all of T41N, R4W, Secs. 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 23; 
portions of T41N, R4W, Secs. 4, 7, 17, 18, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27; and 
T41N, R5W, Secs. 1 and 12 of the Moran and Evergreen Shores 7.5' USGS 
topographic quadrangles. The unit is west of I-75, east of Brevort 
Lake, and north of Castle Rock Road.
    (ii) Michigan Unit 2: Mackinac County. The unit is located 
approximately 2 miles north of the village of St. Ignace. The unit 
contains all of T41N, R3W, Sec. 6; portions of T41N, R4W, Secs. 1, 12, 
13, 24; portions of T41N, R3W, Secs. 4, 5, 7; and portions of T42N, 
R3W, Sec. 31 of the Evergreen Shores 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. 
The unit is west of Lake Huron and east of I-75.
    (iii) Note: Map of Michigan proposed critical habitat Units 1 and 2 
(Michigan Map 1) follows:

[[Page 42474]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.002


[[Page 42475]]


    (8) Michigan Unit 3, Mackinac County, Michigan.
    (i) Michigan Unit 3: Mackinac County. Located on the east end of 
Bois Blanc Island. Bois Blanc Island has not adopted an addressing 
system using the public land survey system. The unit is located in 
Government Lots 25 and 26 of the Cheboygan and McRae Bay 7.5' USGS 
topographic quadrangles. The unit extends from approximately Walker's 
Point south to Rosie Point on the west side of Bob-Lo Drive. It extends 
from the road approximately 328 ft (100 m) to the west.
    (ii) Note: Map of Michigan proposed critical habitat Unit 3 
(Michigan Map 2) follows:

[[Page 42476]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.003


[[Page 42477]]


    (9) Michigan Unit 4, Presque Isle County, Michigan.
    (i) Michigan Unit 4: Presque Isle County. Located approximately 12 
miles southeast of the village of Rogers City. The unit contains all of 
T34N, R7E, SW\1/4\ SW\1/4\ Sec. 14, SW\1/4\ NW\1/4\ Sec. 15, NE\1/4\ 
SW\1/4\ Sec. 15, NW\1/4\ SE\1/4\ Sec. 15, NW\1/4\ SW\1/4\ Sec. 15, 
SE\1/4\ SE\1/4\ Sec. 15, NW\1/4\ NE\1/4\ Sec. 16, NE\1/4\ NW\1/4\ Sec. 
16, SE\1/4\ NE\1/4\ Sec. 16, and NW\1/4\ NW\1/4\ Sec. 23. It also 
contains portions of T34N, R7E, all \1/4\ sections in Secs. 15, all \1/
4\ sections in Sec. 16, SE\1/4\ and SW\1/4\ Sec. 9, SW\1/4\ Sec. 10, 
SW\1/4\ Sec. 14, NE\1/4\ Sec. 22, NW\1/4\ and NE\1/4\ Sec. 23 of the 
Thompsons Harbor 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. The northern 
boundary of the unit is Lake Huron and the southern boundary is north 
of M-23.
    (ii) Note: Map of Michigan proposed critical habitat Unit 4 
(Michigan Map 3) follows:

[[Page 42478]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.004


[[Page 42479]]


    (10) Michigan Unit 5, Alpena County, Michigan.
    (i) Michigan Unit 5: Alpena County. Located approximately 9 miles 
northeast of the village of Alpena. The unit contains all of T31N, R9E, 
SE\1/4\ SW\1/4\ Sec 9. It also contains portions of T31N, R9E, NW\1/4\ 
SW\1/4\ Sec. 9, NE\1/4\ SW\1/4\ Sec. 9, SW\1/4\ SW\1/4\ Sec. 9, SW\1/4\ 
SE\1/4\ Sec 9; and portions of T31N, R9E, NE\1/4\ NW\1/4\ Sec. 16, 
NW\1/4\ NE\1/4\ Sec. 16, NW\1/4\ NW\1/4\ Sec. 16 of the 7.5' USGS 
topographic quadrangle North Point 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. 
North Point Road is east of the area.
    (ii) Note: Map of Michigan proposed critical habitat Unit 5 
(Michigan Map 4) follows:

[[Page 42480]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.005


[[Page 42481]]


    (11) Michigan Unit 6, Alpena County, Michigan.
    (i) Michigan Unit 6: Alpena County. Located approximately 5 miles 
east of the village of Alpena. The unit contains all of T31N, R9E, 
SW\1/4\ SE\1/4\ Sec. 27. It also contains portions of T31N, R9E, NW\1/
4\ SE\1/4\ Sec. 27, NE\1/4\ SW\1/4\ Sec. 27, SE\1/4\ SW\1/4\ Sec. 27, 
SE\1/4\ SE\1/4\ Sec. 27; portions of T31N, R9E, NE\1/4\ NW\1/4\ Sec. 
34, NW\1/4\ NE\1/4\ Sec. 34, NE\1/4\ NE\1/4\ Sec. 34; and portions of 
T31N, R9E, NW\1/4\ NW\1/4\ Sec. 35, NE\1/4\ NW\1/4\, NW\1/4\ NE\1/4\ 
Sec. 35 of the North Point 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Lake Huron 
is the east boundary of the unit.
    (ii) Note: Map of Michigan proposed critical habitat Unit 6 
(Michigan Map 5) follows:

[[Page 42482]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.006


[[Page 42483]]


    (12) Missouri Unit 1, Crawford County, Missouri.
    (i) Missouri Unit 1: Crawford County. Located in T35N, R3W, Secs. 
22 and 23 of the Viburnum West 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. 
Missouri Unit 1 is associated with James Creek and is located 
approximately 1.5 miles west of Billard, Missouri.
    (ii) Note: Map of Missouri proposed critical habitat Unit 1 
(Missouri Map 1) follows:

[[Page 42484]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.007


[[Page 42485]]


    (13) Missouri Units 2 through 4, Dent County, Missouri.
    (i) Missouri Unit 2: Dent County. Located in T34N, R3W, Secs. 3 and 
4 of the Howes Mill Spring 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Missouri 
Unit 2 is associated with an unnamed tributary to West Fork Huzzah 
Creek and is located approximately 2.5 air miles north of the village 
of Howes Mill, Missouri adjacent to county road 438.
    (ii) Missouri Unit 3: Dent County. Located in T34N, R3W, Sec. 11 of 
the Viburnum West 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Missouri Unit 3 is 
associated with a tributary of Huzzah Creek and is approximately 2 air 
miles north northeast of the village of Howes Mill.
    (iii) Missouri Unit 4: Dent County. Located in T34N, R4W, Secs. 15 
and 22 of the Howes Mill Spring 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. 
Missouri Unit 4 is associated with a tributary of Hutchins Creek in 
Fortune Hollow and is located approximately 1 mile east of the juncture 
of Highway 72 and Route MM.
    (iv) Note: Map of Missouri proposed critical habitat Units 2 
through 4 (Missouri Map 2) follows:

[[Page 42486]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.008


[[Page 42487]]


    (14) Missouri Unit 5, Iron County, Missouri.
    (i) Missouri Unit 5: Iron County. Located in T34N, R1W, Sec. 17of 
the Viburnum East 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Missouri Unit 5 is 
located adjacent to Neals Creek and Neals Creek Road, approximately 2.5 
miles southeast of Bixby.
    (ii) Note: Map of Missouri proposed critical habitat Unit 5 
(Missouri Map 3) follows:

[[Page 42488]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.009


[[Page 42489]]


    (15) Missouri Unit 6, Morgan County, Missouri.
    (i) Missouri Unit 6: Morgan County. Located in T41N, R16W, Sec. 6 
of the Rocky Mount 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Missouri Unit 6 is 
located near the small town of Barnett south of Route N.
    (ii) Note: Map of Missouri proposed critical habitat Unit 6 
(Missouri Map 4) follows:

[[Page 42490]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.010


[[Page 42491]]


    (16) Missouri Unit 7, Phelps County, Missouri.
    (i) Missouri Unit 7: Phelps County, Missouri. Located in T36N, R9W, 
Sec. 9 of the Kaintuck Hollow 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. 
Missouri Unit 7 is associated with Kaintuck Hollow and a tributary of 
Mill Creek, and is located approximately 4 miles south southwest of the 
town of Newburg.
    (ii) Note: Map of Missouri proposed critical habitat Unit 7 
(Missouri Map 5) follows:

[[Page 42492]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.011


[[Page 42493]]


    (17) Missouri Units 8 through 11 and 13 through 15, Reynolds 
County, Missouri.
    (i) Missouri Units 8, 9, and 10: Reynolds County. Located in T32N, 
R2W, Secs. 22 and 23 on the Bunker 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. 
Missouri Units 8, 9, and 10 are located adjacent to Bee Fork Creek, 
extending from approximately 3.0 miles east southeast of Bunker and 
extending east to near the bridge on Route TT over Bee Fork Creek.
    (ii) Missouri Unit 11: Reynolds County. Located in T32N, R1W, Sec. 
30 of the Corridon 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Missouri Unit 11 
is located approximately 1 mile east of the intersection of Route TT 
and Highway 72, extending north to the Bee Fork Church on County Road 
854.
    (iii) Missouri Unit 13: Reynolds County. Located in T32N, R1E, Sec. 
20 of the Centerville 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Missouri Unit 
13 is north of the town of Centerville adjacent to Highway 21.
    (iv) Missouri Unit 14: Reynolds County. Located in T32N, R1E, Sec. 
15 of the Centerville 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Missouri Unit 
14 is located approximately 2 miles north of Centerville adjacent to 
Highway 21.
    (v) Missouri Unit 15: Reynolds County. Located in T32N, R1W, Secs. 
28 and 33 of the Corridon 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Missouri 
Unit 15 is adjacent to South Branch fork of Bee Fork Creek, and located 
approximately 2 miles northeast of the intersection of Route B and 
Highway 72.
    (vi) Note: Map of Missouri proposed critical habitat Units 8 
through 11 and 13 through 15 (Missouri Map 6) follows:

[[Page 42494]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.012


[[Page 42495]]


    (18) Missouri Units 12 and 16, Reynolds County, Missouri.
    (i) Missouri Unit 12: Reynolds County. Located in T29N, R1E, Sec. 
36 of the Ellington 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Missouri Unit 12 
is near the town of Ruble and is closely associated with the North Fork 
of Web Creek.
    (ii) Missouri Unit 16: Reynolds County. Located in T29N, R1E, Sec. 
1 of the Ellington 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Missouri Unit 16 
is located southeast of the town of Ruble on a tributary to the North 
Fork of Web Creek.
    (iii) Note: Map of Missouri proposed critical habitat Units 12 and 
16 (Missouri Map 7) follows:

[[Page 42496]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.013


[[Page 42497]]


    (19) Missouri Units 17 through 20, Ripley County, Missouri.
    (i) Missouri Units 17 and 18: Ripley County. Located in T24N, R2E, 
Sec. 12 and T24N, R3E, Sec. 7 of the Doniphan North and Grandin 7.5' 
USGS topographic quadrangles. Missouri Units 17 and 18 comprise the 
Overcup Fen complex and are associated with the Little Black River.
    (ii) Missouri Units 19 and 20: Ripley County. Located in T25N, R3E, 
Sec. 32 of the Grandin 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Missouri Units 
19 and 20 comprise the Mud Branch complex and are located approximately 
1.5 miles east of the village of Shiloh. The complex is associated with 
Mud Branch, a tributary of the Little Black River.
    (iii) Note: Map of Missouri proposed critical habitat Units 17 
through 20 (Missouri Map 8) follows:

[[Page 42498]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.014


[[Page 42499]]


    (20) Missouri Unit 21, Ripley County, Missouri.
    (i) Missouri Unit 21: Ripley County. Located in T23N, R1W, Sec. 23 
of the Bardley 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Missouri Unit 21 is 
associated with an unnamed tributary of Fourche Creek and is located 
approximately 12 miles west of Doniphan.
    (ii) Note: Map of Missouri proposed critical habitat Unit 21 
(Missouri Map 9) follows:

[[Page 42500]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.015


[[Page 42501]]


    (21) Missouri Unit 22, Shannon County, Missouri.
    (i) Missouri Unit 22: Shannon County. Located in T28N, R4W, Sec. 20 
and 29 of the Bartlett 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Missouri Unit 
22 is associated with Mahans Creek and is located approximately two 
miles south of Delaware.
    (ii) Note: Map of Missouri proposed critical habitat Unit 22 
(Missouri Map 10) follows:

[[Page 42502]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.016


[[Page 42503]]


    (22) Missouri Units 23 through 25, Washington County, Missouri.
    (i) Missouri Units 23 and 24: Washington County. Located in T36N, 
R1W, Sec. 13 of the Palmer 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Missouri 
Units 23 and 24 comprise the Towns Branch and Welker Fen complex and 
are located near the town of Palmer.
    (ii) Missouri Unit 25: Washington County. Located in T36N, R1W, 
Secs. 2 and 11 of the Courtois 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. 
Missouri Unit 25 is associated with a tributary of Hazel Creek and is 
located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the town of Palmer.
    (iii) Note: Map of Missouri proposed critical habitat Units 23 
through 25 (Missouri Map 11) follows:

[[Page 42504]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.017


[[Page 42505]]


    (23) Missouri Unit 26, Wayne County, Missouri
    (i) Missouri Unit 26: Wayne County. Located in T27N, R4E, Sec. 33 
of the Ellsinore 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Missouri Unit 26 is 
located near Williamsville and is associated with Brushy Creek.
    (ii) Note: Map of Missouri proposed critical habitat Unit 26 
(Missouri Map 12) follows:

[[Page 42506]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.018


[[Page 42507]]


    (24) Wisconsin Unit 1, Door County, Wisconsin.
    (i) Wisconsin Unit 1: Washington Island, Door County. Located in 
T33N, R30E, W\1/2\ and NE\1/4\ Sec. 4, SE\1/4\ Sec. 5 of Washington 
Island SE and Washington Island NE 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangles. 
Lands included are located adjacent to and west of Wickman Road, south 
of Town Line Road, East of Deer Lane and East Side Roads, north of Lake 
View Road and include Big Marsh and Little Marsh.
    (ii) Note: Map of Wisconsin proposed critical habitat Unit 1 
(Wisconsin Map 1) follows:

[[Page 42508]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.019


[[Page 42509]]


    (25) Wisconsin Unit 2, Door County, Wisconsin.
    (i) Wisconsin Unit 2: Door County. Located in T32N, R28E, SE\1/4\ 
Sec. 11, NW\1/4\ Sec. 13, NE\1/4\ Sec. 14 of the Ellison Bay 7.5' USGS 
topographic quadrangle, and in T32N, R28E, W\1/2\ Sec. 13, E\1/2\ Sec. 
14, NE\1/4\ Sec. 23, portions of each \1/4\ of Sec. 24, N\1/2\ Sec. 25, 
and T32N, R29E, S\1/2\ Sec. 19, W\1/2\ Sec. 29, NE\1/4\ Sec. 30 of 
Sister Bay 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Lands included are located 
east of the Village of Ellison Bay, south of Garrett Bay Road and Mink 
River Roads, North of County Road ZZ, west of Badger Road, County Road 
NP and Juice Mill Road, and includes the Mink River.
    (ii) Note: Map of Wisconsin proposed critical habitat Unit 2 
(Wisconsin Map 2) follows:

[[Page 42510]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.020


[[Page 42511]]


    (26) Wisconsin Units 3 through 7, Door County, Wisconsin.
    (i) Wisconsin Unit 3: Door County. Located in T31N R28E, S\1/2\ 
S10, NE\1/4\ S15 of Sister Bay 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Lands 
included are located south of County Road ZZ, north of North Bay (Lake 
Michigan), west of North Bay Road, east of Old Stage Road and about two 
miles east of the Village of Sister Bay and include a portion of Three-
Springs Creek.
    (ii) Wisconsin Unit 4: Door County. Located in T31N, R28E, SW\1/4\ 
and S\1/2\ Sec. 15, portions of each \1/4\ of Sec. 22, and N\1/2\ of 
Sec. 23 of the Sister Bay 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Lands are 
located along the north and northwest sides of North Bay (Lake 
Michigan).
    (iii) Wisconsin Unit 5: Door County. Located in T31N, R28E, S\1/2\ 
Sec. 20, E\1/2\ Sec. 29, NW\1/4\ and S\1/2\ Sec. 28, N\1/2\ and SE\1/4\ 
Sec. 33, and W\1/2\ Sec. 34. It also is located in T30N, R28E, W\1/2\ 
Sec. 3, E\1/2\ and SW\1/4\ Sec. 4, SE\1/4\ Sec. 8, Sec. 9, N\1/2\ Sec. 
10, W\1/2\ and SE\1/4\ Sec.15, Sec. 16, and Sec. 17 of the Baileys 
Harbor East, and Sister Bay 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangles. Lands 
located south of German Road, east of State Highway 57, west of North 
Bay Drive, Sunset Drive and Moonlight Bay (Lake Michigan), north of 
Ridges Road and Point Drive and include Mud Lake and Reiboldt Creek.
    (iv) Wisconsin Unit 6: Door County. Located in T30N, R28E, portions 
of each \1/4\ of Sec. 5 of the Baileys Harbor East 7.5' USGS 
topographic quadrangle and Baileys Harbor West 7.5' USGS topographic 
quadrangle. Lands are located about 2\1/4\ miles north of the Town of 
Baileys Harbor, east of State Highway 57, south of Meadow Road and are 
associated with an unnamed stream.
    (v) Wisconsin Unit 7: Door County. Located in T30N, R27E, Sec. 11, 
SW\1/4\ Sec. 13, and N\1/2\ and SE\1/4\ Sec. 14 of the Baileys Harbor 
West 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. Lands are located north of 
County Road EE, east of County Road A and west of South Highland and 
High Plateau Roads, about two miles northeast of Town of Baileys Harbor 
and are associated with the headwaters of Piel Creek.
    (vi) Note: Map of Wisconsin proposed critical habitat Units 3 
through 7 (Wisconsin Map 3) follows:

[[Page 42512]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.021


[[Page 42513]]


    (27) Wisconsin Unit 8, Door County, Wisconsin.
    (i) Wisconsin Unit 8: Door County. Located in T28N, R27E, S\1/2\ 
Sec. 16, N\1/2\ Sec. 21 of the Jacksonport 7.5' USGS topographic 
quadrangle. Lands are located east of Bechtel Road, South of Whitefish 
Bay Road, west of Glidden Drive and include Arbter Lake.
    (ii) Note: Map of Wisconsin proposed critical habitat Unit 8 
(Wisconsin Map 4) follows:

[[Page 42514]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.022


[[Page 42515]]


    (28) Wisconsin Unit 9, Door County, Wisconsin.
    (i) Wisconsin Unit 9: Door County, Wisconsin. Located in T27N, 
R24E, SE\1/4\ Sec. 16, E\1/2\ Sec. 20, portions of each \1/4\ of Secs. 
21, 28 and 33, NW\1/4\ and S\1/2\ Sec. 34. Also located in T26N, R24E, 
NW\1/4\ Sec. 3 of the Little Sturgeon 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangle. 
Lands are located west of Pickeral Road and Cedar Lane, north of State 
Highway 57, east of Hilly Ridge Road and County Road C, south of Fox 
Lane Road, about 1.5 miles southwest of Little Sturgeon Bay (Lake 
Michigan) and include portions of Keyes Creek and associated wetlands.
    (ii) Note: Map of Wisconsin proposed critical habitat Unit 9 
(Wisconsin Map 5) follows:

[[Page 42516]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.023


[[Page 42517]]


    (29) Wisconsin Unit 10, Ozaukee County, Wisconsin.
    (i) Wisconsin Unit 10: Ozaukee County. Located in T11N, R21E, E\1/
2\ of Sec. 20, portions of each \1/4\ of Sec. 21, W\1/2\ Sec. 28, Sec. 
29, E\1/2\ Sec. 30, E\1/2\ and portions of NW\1/4\ and SW\1/4\ Sec. 31, 
Sec. 32, and W\1/2\ Sec. 33 of the Cedarburg, Five Corners, Newburg, 
and Port Washington West 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangles. Lands are 
located south of State Highway 33, east of County Road Y and Birchwood 
Road, north of Cedar Sauk Road about 2 miles west of Saukville, and 
includes the majority of Cedarburg Bog.
    (ii) Note: Map of Wisconsin proposed critical habitat Unit 10 
(Wisconsin Map 6) follows:

[[Page 42518]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26JY06.024


[[Page 42519]]


* * * * *

    Dated: July 7, 2006.
Matt Hogan,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 06-6244 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C